The CNMI Office of the Attorney General is seeking to invalidate portions of the settlement agreement that led to the dismissal of criminal cases against former governor Ralph DLG Torres, arguing that the deal improperly granted him broad immunity from future criminal, civil, and administrative actions arising from his government service and was negotiated without proper authority.
Torres' defense team, however, says the settlement was negotiated by a conflict-free prosecutor exercising his independent judgment and approved by the court, calling the Commonwealth's latest effort to revisit the matter "without merit."
In a sharply worded motion filed last May 29, the OAG branded former assistant attorney general David Karch as an "inexperienced and incompetent" prosecutor whose promise not to pursue future charges against Torres was "against public interest," alleging he exceeded his authority when he negotiated the March 23, 2026, global civil settlement agreement that ended two long-running criminal cases against the former governor.
Filed by assistant attorney general Olga Kelley on behalf of Attorney General Edward Manibusan, the motion asks the Superior Court to invalidate provisions of the settlement that state the Commonwealth will not prosecute Torres for any criminal or civil charge arising from his government service through Jan. 9, 2023, and will not use the agreement to support allegations involving misuse of government funds or any criminal, administrative, or civil proceeding other than the civil fine imposed under the settlement.
The CNMI argues Karch acted "ultra vires," or beyond his authority, when he agreed to those provisions and did so without consulting supervisors within the Office of the Attorney General.
According to the filing, the settlement provided for Torres to pay $23,745, representing what the parties described as the difference between premium-class and economy-class airfare expenses. In exchange, criminal cases 22-0050 and 23-0127 were dismissed with prejudice last March 23.
The criminal cases stemmed from allegations that Torres improperly used public funds to pay for business-class or first-class travel for himself and former first lady Diann Torres while serving as governor. A separate case involved allegations of contempt and misconduct in public office related to a legislative subpoena dispute.
The litigation stretched across four years and involved extensive motion practice, appeals, disputes over prosecutorial conflicts, and review by the CNMI Supreme Court.
The OAG's motion takes particular aim at Karch's qualifications and authority to negotiate the settlement.
According to a declaration filed by Kelley, Karch joined the Office of the Attorney General in June 2023 and primarily handled traffic cases. Kelley stated that in less than three years with the office, Karch had not independently conducted a jury or bench trial and that his only jury trial experience came as second chair while observing a case handled by former special prosecutor James R. Kingman.
Kelley stated that criminal cases 22-0050 and 23-0127 belonged to the Special Crimes Unit and that she repeatedly advised Karch that the desired outcome was either a plea agreement or trial.
"Dismissal of criminal case 22-0050 was never a goal of the special crimes unit," Kelley stated in her declaration.
She further alleged that Karch never informed her that he intended to dismiss the cases, never sought permission to do so, and never disclosed any intention to grant Torres immunity from future prosecution.
According to Kelley, she removed Karch from the Special Crimes Unit on March 6, 2026, and requested that all special crimes files, including the Torres matters, be returned to her. She alleges Karch did not return the files and proceeded with settlement negotiations without authorization.
The motion argues that even if dismissal of the criminal charges in exchange for repayment of airfare costs could be justified, granting broad immunity from future prosecution was not.
The filing specifically argues that Karch's promise "not to prosecute any criminal or civil charge against Torres arising from his service in government through January 09, 2023" was made by an "inexperienced and incompetent AAG David Karch" and was "against public interest."
The Commonwealth further argues that no consideration was provided in exchange for the immunity provisions and that the settlement effectively insulated Torres from future criminal, civil, and administrative liability arising from his years in office.
While sharply criticizing Karch's conduct, the OAG says it is primarily asking the court to invalidate the immunity provisions. However, the filing states that if the court chooses to invalidate the settlement agreement in its entirety and reopen the criminal cases, the Commonwealth is prepared to proceed to trial.
The filing represents a dramatic reversal from last March 23, when Karch and Torres' attorneys jointly informed the court that they had reached a comprehensive settlement resolving all issues in the criminal cases. Judge Pro Tem Arthur R. Barcinas subsequently dismissed both cases with prejudice and vacated all future hearings and deadlines.
At the time, Torres welcomed the outcome.
"Over the past several years, this process has been difficult for me and for my family," Torres said in a statement released through attorney Anthony H. Aguon following the dismissal. "I believed it was important that the matter be reviewed independently. ... I am grateful that this chapter is now closed."
Aguon also said at the time that the settlement did not constitute an admission of fault or wrongdoing and reflected the parties' agreement that the travel in question was undertaken for official purposes.
In a statement issued after the OAG filed its latest motion, Torres' defense team noted that Attorney General Manibusan, assistant attorney general J. Robert Glass Jr., and Kingman had all previously been disqualified from the case because of conflicts of interest.
"After years of litigation, a conflict-free prosecutor was appointed to handle the matter. He reviewed the case, exercised his independent judgment as the prosecutor assigned to the case, reached a resolution, and that resolution was approved by the court," the defense said.
The defense also questioned the timing of the Commonwealth's latest filing.
"These charges were originally filed just months before the 2022 gubernatorial election, and this latest effort to revive them comes just months before the 2026 election," the statement said. "The timing speaks for itself."
The defense added that it believes the motion is without merit and will respond through the judicial process.
No hearing date has yet been scheduled on the Commonwealth's motion.
Share this article
