Airport legal counsel makes stinging accusations about DFS

The long-running legal battle between the Guam International Airport and Duty Free will run a little longer.  Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas granted a DFS request to push the trial back a couple of months.  But in court papers filed in opposition to the delay, the airport's legal counsel made some stinging accusations.

Airport lawyer Jay Trickett filed a statement for Thursday's court hearing in opposition to Duty Free's bid to extend a schedule March trial. Among those documents were allegations of what he called troubling behavior by DFS. "We think it's important for the people of Guam to know what really happened here including the ways that DFS manipulated the public and influenced government officials to support them in the procurement in this case improperly," he said.

For example, in their review of non-protected documents from DFS, the airport's lawyers allege that dfs used an elected government official to try to influence the procurement process.  They also allege that former first lady Joanne Camacho was offered a job with DFS and months before "leaked important non-public information" to the company.

Trickett says there are many more examples of what he calls improper behavior, but most of the documents continue to be hidden behind a protective order. He argues that the trial should have occurred along time ago, and until they are vindicated in court, the airport and its employees suffer harm. "They have continued to work under a cloud of accusations of everything from collusion to fraud to outright criminal conduct made by DFS, but DFS has never presented any evidence that anyone at the airport acted wrongly," he said.   

The trial is expected to be rescheduled for sometime in late April or May.

DFS meanwhile filed its response stating the Airport "seeks to rewrite the well documented history of GIAA's delay tactics, contains numerous demonstrably false statements and disregards GIAA's concession that it has improperly withheld documents from DFS".

The response filed by DFS Attorney Patrick Civille argues they want to move forward with this case but pending discovery issues must be settled first " To avoid any doubt, DFS reiterates its long-held position that it desires a trial in this case as soon as possible after the parties are allowed to conduct and complete discovery".

Additionally Civille argues the documents they provided DFS are grossly being mischaracterized by GIAA to support its allegations that DFS engaged in misconduct.