The only reason the Attorney General’s office released the four Indonesians was “to avoid taking responsibility” after they knew the Indonesian men had counsel pursuing proper corrective action. Then the AG’s office “hastily released petitioners without explanation and acted as if it had done nothing wrong,” says the court ruling, which has denied the government’s motion for reconsideration, after awarding attorney fees and costs to Muhammad Iqbal Heralti, Hermanto (no last name), Ade Rasta and Anton Sunato, who claimed they were arrested without cause.

The men are represented by Mark Ude, while defending the American Samoa Government is Assistant Attorney General Vincent Kruse.

The case first came before the court in August 2014, after the Indonesian men petitioned the court in July 2014, claiming they are victims of Human Trafficking. However, the Indonesian men left the territory or were put on the plane the same month the complaint was filed.

(Samoa News should point out that this departure was not a ‘deportation’, as the men were not granted a hearing before the Immigration Board, despite being imprisoned without affidavits or warrants of arrest.)

Following their departure, Ude filed a petition for attorney fees and costs to be paid by the government pertaining to this case, and was awarded them by the court. The government then filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision.

In reply, the court issued its ruling last week on this motion, noting that “both respondents and petitioner’s counsel provide varied reasons as to why this award should be rescinded, or should stand, respectively. However, on most points, both parties are astray.”

The ruling was signed by Associate Justice Lyle L. Richmond and Chief Associate Judge Mamea Sala Jr.

The ruling says that attorney fees and other costs are not awarded in this case because ASG had arrested and held petitioners in opposition to the US Constitution, or due to the government tort liability act nor other inapplicable law in this case, contrary to what petitioners claim are at issue.

The court said that ASG was within its rights to arrest and hold petitioners. However, it says, “Put simply, respondent is liable for the attorney’s fees and costs we granted” with the previous order, because “ASG violated applicable law and repeatedly ignored court procedure.”

DISCUSSION

ASG had been put on notice for attorney fees, the ruling says, noting that as soon as a party raises a point in an official document that the opposing party is put on notice. ASG could have objected to this request for attorney fees, yet it never did as prescribed in trial court rules of civil procedure.

“In fact, the day it was awarded, defendant (ASG) failed to even show up on time before the court hearing on this issue, to object,” the court states.

The court also says that ASG “failed to follow discovery protocol and made petitioners defend something they should never have been requested to undertake.”

The ruling further says that one of the first and most important items which petitioners sought, particularly in an immigrant detainment case such as this, was the affidavit required under local statute. Instead of cooperating with petitioner, ASG repeatedly ignored petitioners requests for anything.

“Ignoring and not complying with proper requests is sanctionable action,” the court states.

The court further says that due to respondent’s failure, “if not outright refusal, to cooperate with opposing counsel, petitioner’s counsel was effectively forced to do a lot of work to chase down what was happening with petitioners as his clients, the legal services for which should properly have been compensated.”

Ude’s “request for attorney’s fees and cost in the amount of $2,190 for his services to petitioners are not excessive,” says the ruling.

The court went on to point out that “especially poignant is that at the end of this real life episode” ASG “simply threw up its hands and released petitioners without a word, no explanation or apology under the misguided view that it can do whatever it wants in these cases.”

ASG has no right or authority to expect other people to do unnecessary work to cancel its undertakings and not expect to be accountable for those actions, says the court ruling.

Furthermore, since ASG did not prepare the affidavit after petitioner’s warrantless arrests, “respondent could not present the required affidavit after the arrests or in its defense, because one was never created and does not exist.”

The court says “this outright violation of the law was certainly factored into our decision,” to award attorney costs.

THE COMPLAINT BY THE FOUR  INDONESIAN MEN

In the complaint filed with the court, last year in July, by the four (4) Indonesian men, they claimed they are victims of Human Trafficking and believe that the AG’s office along with Department of Public Safety, have acted in an arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory manner.

“Owing to respondent’s (ASG) failure to act in accordance with various statutes written and passed by the Fono, petitioners were forcefully taken from their temporary place of residence at a shelter, to languish in custody behind barbed wire, having been denied the opportunity to have a hearing before either the Immigration Board or the District Court,” according to the complaint.

It appears that petitioners’ employers are being investigated by the Department of Public Safety and the AG’s office, the complaint says.

“However, despite any alleged involvement, none of the four Petitioners have been brought before the District Court… regarding their involvement regarding any criminal allegations that would require their incarceration at TCF,” the complaint states.

The complaint says instead of petitioner’s counsel being informed after making an inquiry regarding the status of said petitioners, ASG “failed to respond or to release Petitioners under terms of conditional parole as allowed by statute.”

Petitioners asked the court for a writ of mandatory relief to be granted, and an alternative writ be signed and given to the AG to appear and explain to the satisfaction of the court and interested parties the circumstances that have allowed petitioners to remain detained.