Bench trial of former Chief Immigration Officer underway

Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — Former Chief of Staff, Fiu Johnny Saelua was the government’s first witness in the bench trial of former Chief Immigration Officer, Peseta Dennis Fuimaono, accused of attempting to forcibly remove a woman and her husband from the territory to avoid having charges filed by the woman, testified in court and stated that it was his initiative to remove the couple from the territory to prevent them from filing criminal charges against him.

For that reason, he contacted Peseta on his cell phone and asked him to find a way to remove the couple because they no longer lived with his (Fiu) family.

The bench trial of Peseta is now underway before Associate Justice Fiti Sunia. Assisting Sunia on the bench is Chief Associate Judge Mamea Sala and Associate Judge Tunupopo A. Tunupopo.

Prosecuting the case is Independent Prosecutor (IP) David Vargas while private attorney, Togiola T. A Tulafono is representing Peseta, who posted a $15,000 surety bond for release.

Peseta is charged with kidnapping, tampering with a witness, and obstruction of justice — all felonies.

It is alleged that as Chief of Immigration (CI), Peseta was behind the attempt to forcibly remove the alleged victim and her husband from the territory, sending them to Samoa on the Lady Naomi. The plan however did not eventuate, due to an Immigration agent who was on duty that day, and questioned the absence of written orders for the couple’s removal from the territory.

The charges against Peseta relate to a case involving the Governor’s Chief of Staff Fiu Johnny Saelua who pled ‘no contest’ to a reduced charge of third degree assault, stemming from allegations of sexual assault, made by a woman who had lived with Fiu’s family for decades.

The bench trial began at 1p.m Monday morning, with the government calling their first three witnesses — Fiu, his sister, Sinu’u Saelua-Toelupe and his sister’s daughter.

Currently working at the Governor’s office, the former chief of staff told the court that he knows the defendant in this case but is not related to him.

When questioned about the victim and her husband, Fiu stated that he was familiar with the matter involving the victim and her husband. The victim’s mother was staying with his family. The victim’s mother then brought the victim from Samoa and they stayed together with his family, however, the victim and her husband left his family after an incident between them.

When asked about the incident between himself and the victim, Fiu stated that the victim claimed he sexually harassed her.

A family meeting ensued between his wife and children and himself, along with the victim to discuss this issue. During this meeting, according to Fiu, the victim, informed his family about the sexual harassment.

When questioned by the prosecutor whether he ever was charged with that sexual harassment allegation, Fiu said, “I believe so.”

According to Fiu, he was charged with a felony, however in a plea agreement he signed with the government, the felony charge was amended to a misdemeanor under the condition that he would testify truthfully for the government during Peseta’s trial.

After the family meeting with the victim where the sexual harassment incident surfaced, Fiu told the court that he then contacted Peseta through his cell phone and they had a conversation.

“The phone conversation with Peseta was to ask him how to remove the couple from the territory mainly to avoid prosecution,” Fiu told the court.

“Was your motive to remove the couple from the territory to avoid the victim from filling charges against you?” Vargas asked Fiu.

His response was, “Yes.”

“Was she removed from American Samoa?” Vargas asked Fiu.

He said, “No.”

Fiu explained to the court that he made the first phone call to Peseta in an effort to remove the victim. He also told the court that there was an effort to remove the couple from the territory but the effort failed.

Fiu said he was in his car and his wife was listening when he had the phone conversation with Peseta.

“So, your main motive to remove the victim from American Samoa was to prevent her from filing charges against you?” Vargas asked Fiu.

His response was, “Yes sir.”

In cross-examination, Togiola asked Fiu whether he ever mentioned his motive to remove the victim from American Samoa during the phone conversation with his client, Peseta.

“I believed so,” Fiu replied.

Togiola asked Fiu again if he remembered mentioning anything to Peseta about his motive during their phone conversation. His response was, “I believe I mentioned the motive to him.”

Togiola asked Fiu if he agrees that his testimony today (last Monday) about his conversation with Peseta was not the exact words he or Peseta said during their phone conversation.

Fiu replied that he didn’t recall.

About his plea deal with the government, Togiola asked the witness whether the terms of their signed plea deal was that the government would reduce the charge against him from a felony to a misdemeanor and that he would testify truthfully for the government against his client.

“Yes sir,” Fiu replied.

“Did the government reduce the charge against you?” Togiola asked.

Fiu said the felony charge was dismissed and he pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge.

“So, your testimony today (Monday) is to avoid an imprisonment sentence?” Togiola asked.

Fiu replied, “Yes sir.”

Togiola asked the witness whether there was anyone who told him to include in his testimony that his motive to remove the couple from American Samoa was to avoid prosecution.

Fiu said that this was part of the conversation with his wife and attorney Vargas.

The government’s second witness was Fiu’s sister, Saelua-Toelupe who told the court that she was the couple’s sponsor and she sought the defendant’s opinion on what her role was as a sponsor after she was informed about the situation.

According to the second witness, the defendant told her that she needed to terminate sponsorship for the couple.

The witness said that the defendant allegedly told her to prepare a termination letter right away but she told the defendant that she didn’t have money to pay for everything and more over, she didn’t have the couple’s passports.

Saelua-Toelupe said she only found out on the following day that the couple had been escorted to the wharf in an effort to remove them from American Samoa.

In cross-examination, Fiu’s sister told the court that the reason she spoke to the defendant about her role as sponsor was because the couple wanted to return to Samoa.

The third government witness was Saelua-Toelupe’s daughter, who worked at a company in Nu’uuli.

According to her testimony, she recalled two men came to her office looking for her mother. She told the court that the men were Immigration officers and she recognized that by their uniforms.

About the termination letter by Saelua-Toelupe, the third witness stated to the court that she doesn’t know whether she prepared the termination letter or not. The only thing she remembered was that her mother (Saelua-Toelupe) told her to go ahead and sign her name on the document.

In cross-examination, the third witness said that her mother gave her permission to sign her name on the document.

The trial resumes this morning at 9a.m.

BACKGROUND

The government alleges in its case against Peseta that it was Fiu who called Peseta sometime between Oct-Nov, 2016 and informed Peseta about the sexual abuse allegations made against him by a woman who used to live with him and his family.

During the phone conversation, according to Fiu — among other things — not only basically told Peseta about the sexual abuse allegation against him, but he also stated that he did not want to get in trouble with the law. For that reason, Fiu asked Peseta if he could get rid of the woman (victim) and her husband.

The couple, both citizens of Samoa, were sponsored by Fiu’s sister and they entered American Samoa in 2004 and lived in the Fiu household until 2014 when the sexual abuse allegation came to light.

In response to Fiu’s question about how to get rid of the victim and her husband, Peseta asked Fiu who the couple’s sponsor was. Fiu told Peseta that it was his sister. Peseta then allegedly told Fiu, “I’ll work it out with the sponsor.”

Fiu told investigators that the reason he called Peseta, was so the couple could be deported to prevent them from filing a complaint against him. Fiu further told investigators that after speaking to Peseta over the phone, Peseta knew that the purpose behind the conversation to deport the couple was to prevent any charges being filed against him by the government.

In December of 2018, Fiu was sentenced to 6 months probation after he pled no contest to the charge of 3rd degree assault, a class C misdemeanor punishable by 15 days imprisonment and a fine of $300.

Fiu was represented by private attorney, Marcellus Talaimalo Uiagalelei.

During Fiu’s sentencing, Uiagalelei said his client choose not to make a statement. The defense counsel then referred to Fiu's "life of service", saying his client is a man who has many years of service to his family, village, church, and the American Samoa Government.

He said Fiu is remorseful and he cooperated with the government during the course of the investigation.

IP Vargas recommended a probated sentence.

A brief recess was taken, as Sunia, who was a District Court Judge at the time, was trying to get more information on the 2008 PPD conviction that Vargas mentioned during his opening statement.

When court re-convened, Sunia came ready with a sentence. But before he handed it down, he spoke about Fiu's 'substantial' pre sentence report.

"He has vast experience in all facets of life in the territory. There is absolutely no question of the contributions this individual has made to the village, the church, and his family," Sunia said of Fiu.

He added that Fiu is a 'stark contrast' from the individuals who appear in his courtroom to answer to similar offenses.

"But with all that being said, at the end of the day, it's still the same offense, the same sentence," Sunia emphasized. "My point is, the pre sentence report is quite impressive and carries 'some weight', but this is the same offense as if a teacher, bus driver, or unemployed person came to court for."

Sunia explained that the case really "started from something else" and ended up being "what it is now."

The focus is not on "what it was", but "what it is".

He continued that although the court may show preference to cooperation, and the information contained in the pre sentence report — in the end, he repeated, it's still a class C misdemeanor.

"How it started — and why — is not relevant, as far as the court is concerned," he continued.

He then sentenced Fiu to 6 months probation. He also had to pay a $100 fine.

Sunia said the sentence Fiu received is "no different" than the ones handed down for defendants in similar cases. He referred to the case of a bus driver that had "similar circumstances" and said if the two were to be treated differently, it would elevate the standard for Fiu and that just wouldn't be right.