FORMER University of Macau law professor John Mo Shi Jian is giving former Imperial Pacific International LLC chairwoman Cui Li Jie bad advice, attorney Juan T. Lizama said in an email to her assistant and interpreter dated June 3, 2021.
The email was among the other communications that were disclosed in federal court as part of Cui’s submitted declaration regarding the court’s requirement to preserve Electronically Stored Information or ESI in the lawsuit of seven construction workers regarding labor abuse and human trafficking allegations.
“Johnny Mo may be a law professor, but he has bad common sense. He is all for himself,” said Lizama in his email to How Yo Chi.
Macau News Agency reported in January 2021, that Macau’s “Court of Second Instance announced today…that it has decided to overturn a previous acquittal decision and charged John Mo Shi Jian, the former head of the University of Macau…Faculty of Law, to a six-year prison sentence for sexually abusing a student.”
Mo is on Saipan, Variety was told.
Lizama recently filed a motion to withdraw from representing Cui who is a third-party witness in the lawsuit of the seven construction workers against IPI and its former contractor and subcontractor, MCC International and Gold Mantis Construction Decoration, both of which have settled with the plaintiffs.
Cui told the District Court for the NMI that she was not satisfied with the representation of Lizama, and had asked the court for additional time to look for a “competent attorney.”
Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI last week ordered Cui to provide the court with her cell phone data and submit an affidavit detailing her use of ESI.
IPI, for its part, recently announced Cui’s resignation as board chair and executive director.
But Aaron Halegua, the lawyer of the seven workers who sued IPI, said Cui’s resignation does not change or modify her obligation to comply with the court orders.
On May 24, 2021, Judge Manglona entered a $5.9 million default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against IPI.
‘I’m not a defendant’
In her declaration filed on June 10, 2021 Cui said:
“I want to take this opportunity to state again that I do not think there is anything in my phone which is relevant to the ‘Seven Workers Case.’ Nor do I think that I have deleted anything relating to the ‘Seven Workers Case’ from my phone. When I signed the custodian consent form, I did not have language and legal capacity, nor did I have an equal status, to negotiate the content of the custodian consent form. Taking this opportunity, I wish to clarify my standing on the relevance of the deleted WeChat data.
“I know that I am a third-party witness in the present case. But I am completely bewildered why I have been treated like a defendant at trial.
“I do not understand why Mr. Halegua needed me to provide my ESI data generated since March 2020. Nor do I understand why and how these data are relevant to the ‘Seven Workers Case.’ I am further confused that the court has given plaintiffs a judgment for compensation [but] Mr. Halegua still keeps high pressure on me, insisting the court to find me [in] contempt or to send me to jail.”
Addressing Judge Manglona, Cui said:
“Your Honor, I am not a defendant. Nor I am a liar. It is unjust for Mr. Halegua to accuse me of concealing evidence of crime merely because he could not find one. For him the only justice is to find me guilty of concealing incriminating evidence on the basis of presumption. Is this fair? Again, I am not a defendant….
“If I really concealed evidence relating to the ‘Seven Workers Case,’ I should perhaps be punished. However, Mr. Halegua is not entitled to punish me merely for the sake of proving I am lying. Whether I lied or not must be judged in the context of the ‘Seven Workers Case’ against the need to find crucial evidence which affects the evidential basis of the judgment.”
Cui said she does not know much about American law. But “hypothetically speaking, if I ever really concealed any information or private matter which has nothing to do with the ‘Seven Workers Case,’ did I really violate the law? Your Honor, I have submitted all email communications between Mr. Chi and Mr. Lizama since 31 March 2021 to this court. These emails are evidence that I have actively cooperated with the requests of Mr. Lizama to the best I could. After I have done all of these, the plaintiffs’ lawyers still accused me of concealing or destroying evidence through imagination and speculation by taking advantage of their legal skills and expertise, twisting facts, turning black into white and shifting Mr. Lizama’s responsibility upon my shoulders all for the purpose of pressing the court to find me in contempt again. This is an abuse of [the] judicial system.”
Cui stated that she has provided a detailed explanation of the issues relating to her ESI data since February 2021.
“If the plaintiffs’ lawyers are still unsatisfied, I am still willing to try my best to explain. However, I sincerely hope the plaintiffs’ lawyers respect the rule of law, and do not solicit and misuse anything which is not related to the ‘Seven Workers Case.’ I believe that my ESI data since March 2020 do not contain anything relevant to the ‘Seven Workers Case.’ I respect the court and have honestly made and will continue to make sincere efforts to comply with court orders. I also plea to the court to protect my legal interests.”
Cui again asked the court to allow her time to find to find a new lawyer.
