{"id":"court_ctb_2032_4","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2032,"sub_number":4,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-07-25","title":"Exhibit 4 | L4JKEAS1 | 225","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit 4**\n\n225\n\n| L4JKEAS1 | 225 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------x | |\n| EASTERN PROFIT CORPORATION
LIMITED, | |\n| Plaintiff, | |\n| v. | 18 CV 2185 (LJL) |\n| STRATEGIC VISION US LLC, | |\n| Defendant. | |\n| ------------------------------x | |\n| | New York, N.Y.
April 19, 2021 |\n| | 9:30 a.m. |\n| Before: | |\n| | HON. LEWIS J. LIMAN, |\n| | District Judge |\n| | APPEARANCES |\n| TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff | |\n| BY:
CHRISTOPHER B. CHUFF | |\n| JOANNA J. CLINE | |\n| GRAVES GARRETT LLC
Attorneys for Defendant | |\n| BY:
EDWARD DEAN GREIM
JENNIFER A. DONNELLI | |\n| ALSO PRESENT: | |\n| | Melissa Francis, Eastern Profit Corporation Limited |\n| J. Michael Waller, Strategic Vision US LLC | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | (Case called) |\n| 2 | THE DEPUTY CLERK:
Starting with counsel for |\n| 3 | plaintiff, please state your appearance for the record. |\n| 4 | MS. CLINE:
Good morning, your Honor.
Joanna Cline, |\n| 5 | Troutman Pepper, for the plaintiff. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Good morning, Ms. Cline. |\n| 7 | MR. CHUFF:
Good morning, your Honor.
Chris Chuff, |\n| 8 | Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Eastern Profit. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good morning, Mr. Chuff. |\n| 10 | MS. FRANCIS:
Good morning, your Honor.
Melissa |\n| 11 | Francis, corporate representative on behalf of Eastern Profit. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Good.
Good morning, Ms. Francis.
You may |\n| 13 | be seated. |\n| 14 | For the defendant? |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, for the defense, you've got |\n| 16 | Eddie Greim, from Graves Garrett, Jennifer Donnelli, from |\n| 17 | Graves Garrett, and the corporate representative for |\n| 18 | Strategic Vision is J. Michael Waller. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Welcome.
Good morning.
You may be |\n| 20 | seated. |\n| 21 | Before we get started, just a couple of things on my |\n| 22 | end, and then I'll ask the parties if they have anything to |\n| 23 | raise with the Court. |\n| 24 | A warning:
This case is being transmitted |\n| 25 | telephonically to people who want to listen in, including |\n| | |\n\nL4JKEAS1\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nmembers of the public. The courtroom, obviously, is a public courtroom. It is illegal and a violation of the court orders for anybody to live stream or record the proceedings here today.\n\nSecond, I've given the parties strict time limits with respect to the trial, both with respect to openings, with respect to testimony, and with respect to closings, when we get to those. My courtroom deputy will be keeping track of time. I asked him, with respect to openings, to give each party a warning when there's five minutes left for their opening. If any party doesn't want that, they should let me know that before they begin the opening.\n\nWith respect to the length of the trial, it is my intention to keep you to the time limits that I've laid out. That said, if, at the end of the four days, the parties have used their time efficiently and have not wasted time, and if there is some good cause for why we need to keep the trial open and figure out some additional day to offer testimony, I'll hear the parties with respect to that. That should be understood, in part, as a warning to the parties to use their time efficiently. It's a bench trial. I think I'm a fairly quick study. You don't need to belabor points. Do the cross-examination that you need to do, obviously, but you don't need to always guild the lily.\n\nThose are the things that I wanted to mention. Is\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there anything else from plaintiffs before we get started? |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
No, your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, for defendant? |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Nothing for defendant. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | Then we will begin with opening statements. |\n| 7 | Ms. Cline, are you going to give the opening for the plaintiff? |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Yes.
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 9 | So mindful of the Court's comments about gilding the |\n| 10 | lily, we understand that the Court is familiar with the facts, |\n| 11 | and we'll just dive right in. |\n| 12 | This is a contract case.
The parties' relationship |\n| 13 | was short-lived, the number of relevant facts are limited, and |\n| 14 | the issues before the Court come down to a few very, very |\n| 15 | narrow issues: |\n| 16 | Number one, was there an enforceable contract? |\n| 17 | Number two, did the parties perform? |\n| 18 | And, number three, can Strategic prove each element of |\n| 19 | fraud by clear and convincing evidence? |\n| 20 | Let's start with number one, whether the contract is |\n| 21 | enforceable.
As a threshold issue, in our view, the contract |\n| 22 | is void as a matter of public policy because Strategic |\n| 23 | contracted to perform private investigation services that it |\n| 24 | had no license to perform.
The plain language of the contract |\n| 25 | calls for Strategic to perform research, quote, \"for the |\n| | |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\npurposes of detecting, stopping, and preventing crimes or other harm to innocent people.\"\n\nThe parties do not dispute that Virginia law prohibits people from soliciting or engaging in a private investigation business without a license, and they do not dispute that neither Strategic, nor its principals, ever had a license. But the core on summary judgment held a question of fact remained as to whether the research agreement at issue here related to traditional private investigator activity aimed at crimes or civil wrongs, such that it would fall within the scope of the license requirement or whether it related to other more general activity that would fall outside that scope.\n\nThe evidence will show, through the admissions of Strategic's own witnesses, that undeterred by their lack of training and ineptitude, they contracted for, and engaged in, or attempted to engage in traditional private investigative activity. What Mr. Waller described as, quote, \"good old-fashioned detective type work.\"\n\nAn example of this is that they engaged in surveillance. If surveillance isn't a traditional private investigative activity, we don't know what is. Ms. Wallop made an admission in her deposition that even though she has no training or credentials to do so, she went to a resort in the Turks and Caicos, and on Eastern's dime, and with her son tagging along, as she put it, she went there to track, surveil,\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\nand gather intelligence on two suspects that the parties had agreed would be investigated under the contract. She admitted that she did that personally. With all due respect, the public policy behind the license requirement is designed specifically to prevent unqualified people from doing things just like this — charging other people money to play spy from an island spot.\n\nThe evidence will show beyond that that Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller promised to do more than just surveillance. They said they would access subjects' private banking and financial records, investigate subjects' alleged extramarital affairs, and generally attempt to uncover, as Mr. Waller put it in his deposition, anything that would cause them to be shown to be breaking Chinese law, American law, and, by extension, discrediting the party leadership.\n\nBy their own testimony, the defendants were contracting to perform private investigative services, and, for that reason, the contract is void, and Strategic should return Eastern's \\$1 million deposit.\n\nBut let's put that aside, and let's move to issue number two. If we assume the contract is valid and enforceable, the evidence will show the following facts as to whether the parties performed. Eastern retained Strategic to investigate specific people who were high-level officials of the Chinese Communist Party or had close ties to high level CCP 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\nofficials. Strategic was to provide comprehensive written investigative reports to be delivered on thumb drives related to specific individuals, and, in turn, Eastern was to pay for each research report in accordance with the pricing set forth specifically in the contract.\n\nThe contract required that Eastern pay a deposit of \\$1 million at the start of the contract, and then Eastern would pay an additional amount per the terms of the contract as Strategic completed the written reports delivered on thumb drives. The nature of the deliverables was detailed in the contract. There would be three types of reports — financial forensic reports, current tracking reports, and social media reports.\n\nEastern upheld its end of the bargain — it sent a million dollars to Strategic Vision, and then it was Strategic's turn to perform, and things immediately fell apart. Strategic, by its own admission, never provided any of the comprehensive reports that it expressly agreed to provide under the contract. Not a single one.\n\nWallop and Waller did not have the requisite licenses, know-how, or resources to do what they had expressly promised to do. After several weeks had passed, when it became clear that Wallop and Waller were in way over their heads and that Strategic was not going to do what it had promised to do, Eastern terminated the contract and asked for its money back. 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\nBut Strategic refused to return Eastern's money, and that's why we're here. Eastern is entitled, under a rescission measure of damages, to its full deposit back. Parenthetically, evenly if Strategic were entitled to keep reasonable expenses incurred in attempting to perform, the evidence will show that once you eliminate claim costs, for which there is no support, and eliminate costs for extravagant purchases from luxury retail stores like Hermes, Tumi and Bloomies, among others, Strategic's expenses were a very small fraction of a million dollars.\n\nNow, back to the merits: Having admitted that it didn't provide any of the reports required by the contract, what's Strategic's side of the story? Strategic has two basic counters: One, that Wallop and Waller were fraudulently induced into entering the contract; and, two, that even if the contract is valid, they get to keep the \\$1 million deposit because it came from a lender on behalf of Eastern Profit and not from Eastern itself.\n\nLet's take the second theory first. As to Strategic's argument that Eastern can't recover its \\$1 million because it came from a lender called ACA, Strategic is wrong as a matter of law. The parties specifically agreed in their contract that Eastern, quote, \"could direct other entities to pay Strategic\" and that \"such payments would be deemed satisfactory compensation by Strategic.\" 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nStrategic didn't insist that the money come directly from Eastern, and, in fact, Strategic specifically contracted for the opposite. And, pretty tellingly, Strategic certainly didn't refuse or return Eastern's \\$1 million deposit when it came in from ACA. They didn't call time out and say what's going on here; they plunged ahead with a million bucks in the bank.\n\nThe evidence will show that Eastern entered into a loan agreement with ACA and that ACA expects to ultimately get repaid. But as we say in our papers, even if the loan from ACA were never repaid, even if it were a gift from ACA to Eastern, it is still money that, in good conscience, belongs to Eastern and should be returned to Eastern. It certainly doesn't belong to Strategic.\n\nNow let's take issue number three, as to whether Strategic can prove fraud, each element of fraud, by clear and convincing evidence. It cannot, for several reasons.\n\nLet's preview Strategic's theory. A supposedly sophisticated private investigation firm, a firm that holds itself out as being steeped in international politics and being able to track, surveil, and investigate people across the globe, claims it was tricked into entering into the contract because it was misled about the political views of Guo Wengui, one of the agents of Eastern, who was a very prominent internet presence. Wallop and Waller argue that they can just keep 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\nEastern's 1 million bucks because they say -- they now say that Mr. Guo supports the Chinese Communist Party, and they only entered into the contract because they thought Mr. Guo was an agent against the Chinese Communist Party.\n\nThere are lots of problems with this argument, each one of which is dispositive. For one, Strategic can't point to a single material false statement made by Mr. Guo or Eastern on which Strategic relied. In fact, it was Strategic who approached and solicited Mr. Guo initially to help him with communications and his image, his strategic vision, so to speak. He did not solicit them or induce them to do anything.\n\nSecond, the contract says absolutely nothing about the CCP, or communism, or being a dissident. If it had really been such an important part of their bargain, Wallop and Waller would have written it into the contract, which they took the lead in drafting, or they could have done a very simple Google search before entering the contract and learned the same facts, the same facts that they now claim would have been deal breakers had they known about them before entering the contract.\n\nAnd, third, Strategic cannot prove that the alleged representations about Mr. Guo's political allegiances were false. Politics is complicated, and we submit that whether one is a dissident is not a fact capable of being proven true or false. But even if it were, you will hear directly from\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\nMr. Guo about his views and his contributions to the dissident community. He will tell you how ludicrous Strategic's position is. And the evidence will show that Mr. Guo is one of the most outspoken anti-Communist activists in the world. Strategic simply cannot meet its burdens of proving each element of fraud by clear and convincing evidence. If the pretrial litigation process in this case is any guide, you're going to hear a highly convoluted and attenuated web of allegations from the other side, and on Eastern's side, there will be language and cultural barriers that may make internalizing the testimony difficult or identifying the witness as challenging, and both sides will present witnesses who will express strongly held and passionate views. But, in the end, Strategic's fraud theory will come crashing down. The so-called evidence regarding Mr. Guo's CCP allegiances, regardless of its dubiousness, and putting aside the little weight to which it's entitled, was all over the internet before Strategic, an investigation firm after all, entered the contract. Strategic either knew or should have known about it, and Strategic cannot establish reasonable reliance.\n\nAnd it's worth pointing out that that evidence was still all over the internet when Strategic's first set of lawyers filed its answer and counterclaims in this case, which did not include the fraud claim. And it was still all over the internet when Strategic's second set of lawyers continued to\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Ms. Cline 225\n\nlitigate the case without a fraud claim, but somehow, a year after Strategic filed its first answer in this case, when Strategic retained its third set of lawyers, paid for by a yet to be disclosed outside funder, that's when Strategic suddenly seized upon its evidence that's supportive of a fraud counterclaim and challenged, for the first time, Mr. Guo's political beliefs. The fraud claim is a sideshow. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7\n\nNow, finishing back where we started: We ask you to sift through the evidence and the tangled webs of irrelevant insinuations that you will hear and focus on the narrow issues before the Court:\n\nNumber one, was there an enforceable contracted? Number two, did the parties perform their obligations? Number three, can Strategic prove each element of fraud by clear and convincing evidence?\n\nWe ask you to find that no enforceable contract existed or that, if it did, Strategic breached the contract. In either event, Strategic has admitted it never delivered any of the detailed reports expressly called for under the contract. And Strategic can't prove any of the elements of fraud by clear and convincing evidence, let alone every single one of them.\n\nStrategic unjustly received a million dollars, and Eastern got nothing in return. We ask that you return a judgment of \\$1 million plus interest in Eastern's favor and 23 24 25\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS1
Opening - Mr. Greim |\n| 1 | throw out Strategic's claims. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you very much. |\n| 3 | For the defense? |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, there is a short and straight |\n| 5 | path to the right resolution of this case.
Eastern Profit's |\n| 6 | damages claim — under whatever theory — is a sham because its |\n| 7 | alleged loan with ACA was a sham.
The facts will show that it |\n| 8 | had no basis for taking out a \\$1 million loan as a deposit on a |\n| 9 | contract whose aim was supposedly to unfreeze a mere \\$80,000. |\n| 10 | And to succeed, that contract required another several million |\n| 11 | dollars over the next few months.
Yet Yvette Wang and Han |\n| 12 | Chunguang, who you'll hear from from Eastern, testified to |\n| 13 | those very facts.
Eastern is not a real business.
Eastern has |\n| 14 | no real obligations and no real assets.
It has no obligation |\n| 15 | to repay a loan to ACA.
Instead, it was, is, and ever shall |\n| 16 | be, a frozen Hong Kong bank account.
It's a cutout for Guo and |\n| 17 | for whomever else finances his U.S. operations.
The winding |\n| 18 | path of every other fact for argument in this case, your Honor, |\n| 19 | ultimately comes down to, and ends, at this point. |\n| 20 | Stepping back, though, for a minute to review the full |\n| 21 | sweep of this case, the facts, though, will show three things: |\n| 22 | First of all, as I just said, that Eastern Profit has no |\n\ndamages claim; second, that the contract was legal, and that Eastern Profit, not Strategic Vision, materially breached; and, third, that Eastern Profit, through Guo, defrauded 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nStrategic Vision, either as a counterclaim or as a defense, but, again, this entire case begins and ends, and could end, with just point one.\n\nWe'll now turn to that first point in more detail. This is not really Eastern Profit's case. The only claim for money in this case is for the return of a paid \\$1 million deposit. There's no dispute the money actually came from ACA. The question, as this Court explained in its summary judgment decision, is whether the loan EP claims to have taken from ACA is a sham. Can Eastern meet its burden of proving that there is a real loan from ACA to Eastern, or do the facts show that ACA's payment was an investment made at Guo's insistence?\n\nThis Hong Kong entity chose to come to New York, to a New York court, to decide this question, and so New York law will apply. As we show in our proposed findings and conclusions, New York courts will look to a variety of facts, which I'll get into in a second: The existence of collateral, the amount borrowed in relation to the size of the borrower's business, the contemplated use of the proceeds, payment contingencies, and business and accounting records the company itself treated -- whether it treated the transaction as a loan. What will the facts here show, your Honor?\n\nFirst, economics: As the core of this is the testimony of Yvette Wang. For Eastern, she testified that its assets were already frozen in June 2017 and remain so today. 23 24 25\n\nAll of its assets were frozen. That amount in the bank was\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\n550,000 Hong Kong dollars, or 80,000 U.S. 2\n\n1\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\nYour Honor, the contract called for an immediate \\$1 million deposit at \\$750,000 a month for three years. This would have required another \\$750,000 in just a few weeks, \\$2.2 million by the end of the initial contractual three-month look-back period in mid-April, and \\$27 million over the term of the contract.\n\nEastern Profit didn't have close to enough money to fund the contract, and it was taking those steps to do so, as you'll hear from their witnesses. There's also the problem that repayment of the loan hinged on the contract being successfully performed in just five months, the repayment date, June 2018. Now, near the close of discovery, Eastern was finally compelled to complete its corporate rep deposition first attempted back in January 2019. Its witness, Yvette Wang, was the same. Yet she gave completely different testimony from her original deposition. Wang, for the first time, testified that the research was not for Guo after all; instead, Eastern had its own purpose and use for the research to unfreeze its own funds. This was never mentioned to Strategic or in the case up to that point, which had been going on for well over two years -- well, for about a year and a half. Eastern itself had been only slotted into the contract just before signing. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nSecond, Eastern — let's pull that up — through counsel's letter to this Court, made a binding and critical admission on November 22nd, 2019. At Docket 203-2 — this is Exhibit 126B, which you'll see later — it introduced an order from the Hong Kong High Court to prove that Eastern assets had been frozen by that court. Eastern is one of 27 respondents, your Honor, listed in this order. You can see the very first one is Guo Wengui, who will be here later, the next one is Guo Qiang, his son, and it goes on down. There's a few other witnesses in this case are even on here. Han Chunguang is on here later. China Golden Spring is on here and some other names you'll hear about later.\n\nYour Honor, Eastern Profit's theory that Strategic was going to dredge up research, it would cause a regime change on the Mainland, this would then ripple through to Hong Kong and cause release of its \\$80,000. Yvette Wang will have to say it; that was version two of her story from the very end of discovery. She'll have to admit to that here tomorrow.\n\nBut look at the research agreement. It envisioned three years and as many as 4,000 subjects. Just the first few months involved only 15 subjects. There's not a thing in the research agreement to suggest that the CCP was going to be brought down and all the funds were going to be released by June 2018, so they could pay back this million-dollar loan. Plus, the other issue, even this wild success, your Honor, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nwould still have required monthly payments of \\$750,000 a month just to keep Strategic on the job. But Eastern hadn't even begun to explore finding that money. It never tried.\n\nYet, even if Strategic can work for free after getting the million dollars, and had worked for the rest of the loan period, interest payments alone on the deposit would have depleted what Eastern Profit had in the bank by month four, well before the maturity of the loan.\n\nSo, your Honor, just agreeing to the research agreement ensured that Eastern Profit was bankrupt, but the ACA loan, if it exists, was icing on the cake. Perfect execution and immediate world historical regime change in China would still have meant the total loss of ACA's principal, as well as a default on the interest payments. It was not a loan.\n\nHan Chunguang will admit that he didn't shop the terms, but, realistically, no lender would have given an unsecured loan, which this was, just for a deposit on a speculative venture for an historical regime change, or the borrower could never make interest payments and could not fund the rest of the venture, let alone pay the principal on the deposit. Perhaps this is why Yvette Wang testified that ACA and she'll tell you again tomorrow — would get the research from Eastern and that ACA would have forgiven the loan, as she called it, if the research was successful. Of course, it would. The loan should have been written off the moment it was 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nmade by ACA. 1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\nSecond, we'll hear that Eastern is a shell. No witness could say what its business was at deposition. No witness should be able to come here and create a new story. Han Chunguang bought Eastern for about \\$200 in 2015 and sold it to Guo Wengui's daughter for about the same amount, conveniently just before its \\$80,000 in assets were frozen in June 2017. Dr. Lianchao Han, on whom Guo relied heavily throughout negotiations and during performance of this contract, had never heard of Eastern Profit until the lawsuit was filed. Had never heard of it.\n\nSeveral witnesses, including Lianchao Han, a pro-Guo witness, will testify that the so-called principal of Eastern, Han Chunguang, appeared to everyone else as a servant of Guo's, cooking meals for Guo and called Little Han by Guo. This is the person who supposedly was in charge of Eastern.\n\nFinally, the source of the money: William Je, as Sasha Gong will tell you, was introduced by Guo as his money man. He is the one that ran ACA, and ACA has sent money for other Guo causes. That included the \\$100,000 to Bill Gertz, who wrote a book that promoted Guo. Your Honor, ACA is the investor — quote, investor — that Yvette Wang said, in contemporaneous text during the negotiations and performance, was funding it. Yvette Wang said repeatedly that investors were funding this project, and we know that the only money came 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nfrom ACA. 1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\nFinally, the transaction itself is irregular. The facts will show the deal was not far advanced enough to have allowed for days of in-person negotiations and signature on this so-called loan agreement on December 29th. And you will hear an elaborate back story from Han Chunguang about how he came into this, but it's not clear that Han Chunguang actually had anything to do with Eastern.\n\nFinally, there is the document itself. Your Honor, Eastern Profit didn't keep even keep its own copy of a loan, and that loan has supposedly dwarfed its only asset. It didn't keep its own copy. The loan wasn't pled in the lawsuit filed just three months after all of this, and was first mentioned almost a year into the case, when Eastern Profit's corporate rep, again Yvette Wang, said that she had heard of a loan. No one can explain who kept the sole copy of the loan document and how it came to be located and produced into this case long after Eastern's corporate deposition.\n\nACA and Golden Spring worked to keep us from deposing ACA. They had their director resign within a 70-hour window between notice of the subpoena and personal service. So we can't talk to the counterparty. Your Honor, if this loan is a sham, then Eastern Profit cannot recover under either a restitution or a reliance theory. It can't recover for breach of contract or unjust enrichment. The parties who could try to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nrecover from this Court have run from it, and they have evaded discovery. That is ultimately why this Court should enter judgment against Eastern Profit on all of its claims.\n\nBut let's move to the other issues. Second, Strategic Vision should win on the contract-related claims. First of all, Eastern breached, not Strategic. The fundamental question — and You heard this from opposing counsel just now is whether pricing was \\$750,000 a month or whether it was a la carte, depending on which reports happen to come in every week. Does Eastern pay for its completed report, or does it pay for Strategic Vision's honest hard work on each contractual unit? And you will see the term \"unit\" in the research agreement. The answer, the evidence will show, is that Eastern pays for units of work, not for any particular completed reports.\n\nNow, the parties, you'll see, disagreed on this payment issue. Guo wanted an a la carte system. Strategic wanted a yearly flat rate. The compromise was a guarantee that Strategic would get a yearly flat rate, but it would constantly have to work on 30 units of research for an entire year. This is the so-called fish tank concept that you're going to hear about. The key term here is a unit. A unit is the work that would be done by one subject, on one subject, on one of the three topics, for a whole year, and so there would be 30 possible units in the year. But here's the key point: The\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nunderstanding was that both the subjects and the topics could change. What doesn't change is that at any one time, Strategic should be working on 30 of them constantly throughout the year. Strategic promises to do this work, and if it does, it gets \\$750,000 per month, and \\$9 million a year. 1 2 3 4 5\n\nNow, if that's true, what about reports? Reports are the method for getting the information to Eastern Profit. The total number of -- here's why that's true, another reason why that's true — the total number of reports is unpredictable. It depends on the types of information Guo wants and also on how many replacement subjects he uses. If he replaces a subject every three months, which he could do, there could be many, many, many reports produced throughout the year. If he keeps the same subjects from the beginning, which he could also do, there will be far fewer reports. So it can't be tied to physical reports that are made, it's got to be tied to the work.\n\nI expect the circumstances, of course, such as mixing and matching could lead a number of reports to change as well.\n\nFinally, it's the client's duty, that is, Eastern and Guo's team, to provide a necessary basic information and decide areas of focus for research. If Strategic comes back and says four names are fake, then it is up to Eastern to say, well, here are four new names, or look at four names that are already subcategories of the names you have. They've got to replace 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nthat. 1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nAnd here's the other key point: Strategic made a concession to Eastern. It said, okay, we'll change in whatever you want, we'll put in new people or new subjects, and the other thing is we won't charge you for the rent because all of the cost, as you'll hear on this contract, is incurred in just getting started with the subjects when they come in. That's where a lot of the time and cost occurs. As they develop familiarity with the subjects, it becomes much easier to come up with them, but Eastern agreed to try to get a flat rate for the year, that it would just charge \\$750,000 a month, assuming it keeps working on 30 units all at one time. That is the best, and really the only possible, reading of the contract.\n\nSo, your Honor, this means that the question is not what reports were delivered each week on the thumb drive, but, rather, whether Strategic Vision was working on all 30 units and delivering the reports that it could. If so, Eastern Profit had to keep paying, it had to keep paying. Here, your Honor, Eastern Profit breached because it did two things to knee-cap Strategic's performance and materially breach. First, Dr. Waller will testify that on February 15th, Eastern skipped its first monthly payment of \\$750,000, and EP -- and told Strategic to hold off working with Team 1. This was the team of ten overseas researchers. This meant Strategic could not pay the 200,000 monthly fee for Team 1, and Strategic could not\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nkeep performing. Dr. Waller will also testify that between January 6th and February 8th, about one and a half to three weeks into the contract, he delivered a series of stunning revelations to Guo's team and required a decision on whether to go forward with the original 15 names or to replace them. Guo's team refused to provide guidance or new names, making it\n\nimpossible for Strategic to continue its work.\n\nThis prior breach, your Honor — and that is our primary theory on the contract side — yields about \\$200,000 in damages to Strategic after crediting Eastern for ACA's payment of the million-dollar deposit.\n\nNow, is it really true Strategic did perform between January 16th and February 15th when Eastern cut off payment? Here is what Dr. Waller is going to tell you, and I will just give a short summary on: January 24th, just eight days after the start date of the contract, he began making oral reports to Lianchao Han and Yvette Wang. What his team found was surprising and required immediate input from Guo. Three to four of the names were misspelled, or wrong people, or fake. Several of them had engaged in passport fraud, including fraud involving a NATO ally. Another Chinese relative in the file of one of the 15 names had opened hundreds of Panamanian accounts as shell companies using a Nebraska law firm. They found that other individuals were also monitoring these subjects, meaning that either Team 1 for Strategic was being watched or that it\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nran the risk of accidentally exposing other researchers who may also have been dispatched by Guo or others. They also found that the names and reports, which Guo had given to Strategic, Guo claimed cost \\$250 million, that was strictly proprietary and confidential, were on the internet and could quickly be sourced to Guo, endangering the team's security. In response, Wang simply demanded reports and refused to provide new names or guidance on Waller's new team leads. You'll learn about the follow-up that Waller did in hiring ASOG, a second team, and you will learn about the work that Strategic did flying back and forth to Europe getting thumb drives and trying to produce that material to Eastern. You'll learn that they had 16 email addresses and encrypted passwords for the team members and that they had located the servers for CITIC, C-I-T-I-C, the main financial institution used by the CCP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nNow, your Honor, the parties expressly recognized that it might not be possible to immediately provide reports on some of the subjects. Guo knew this, but he unrealistically expected immediately disclosable items. That expectation was impossible, Dr. Waller will show, because it would have immediately revealed the entire operation. Guo sabotaged his own operation, and the reasons are still not clear, but we do know that Strategic spent over \\$800,000 in startup and operations costs — and, no, that does not include Tumi, Bloomies, or a trip to monitor someone, which combined is less\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nthan \\$4,000 — over \\$800,000, and Strategic's expectation damages for Eastern's breach, crediting Eastern again with ACA's payment, are \\$200,000.\n\nLet me briefly turn to the declaratory judgment issue, which is where Eastern began. This claim is under Virginia law, and Virginia prohibits engaging in the PI business without a license, but that comes with a definition. You have to be investigating specific things. The purpose of the investigation is what matters there, which is what we argued on summary judgment. We do not look at the actual acts taken by someone and ask whether that sounds like PI work; instead, you have to apply the statutory definition.\n\nWithin that framework, the facts don't bear out Eastern's theory. The language of the research agreement is equivocal because one of the provisions uses the word crimes, while another provision mentions business research. But the rest of the agreement shows the research was not to be used to help specific victims in a specific proceeding. It envisions long-term monitoring with as many as 4,000 individuals. It involves weekly or monthly reports, but it contains nothing about the use or preservation of evidence. It mentions no proceedings, victims, or crimes. In fact, the three subject matters of the agreement seem to focus more on matters that might embarrass individuals and CCP members than on any specific crime or victim.\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\nFurther, the testimony you will hear from the parties' negotiations bears that out. There was never any indication from Guo, Yvette Wang, or Han Chunguang that any victims or proceedings were ever going to be held here or that it was going to be used in any specific proceeding. Instead, this was to help Guo and his whistleblower campaign to bolster his image in the U.S. and purportedly oust the CCP from power. This is a political, not a quasi-law enforcement goal.\n\nFinally, Guo, as Eastern's agent, defrauded Strategic. The core of this claim tests whether Guo's truly a dissident. It rests on three legs: Guo's movement of money from Hong Kong and ties to the Mainland, Guo's own statements about himself, and Guo's attacks on other dissidents. We'll turn to those in a moment. Other elements here, though, focus on Strategic Vision. Dr. Waller and Ms. Wallop will both testify that they reasonably relied on long-time, widely respected colleagues, Lianchao Han and Bill Gertz, both of whom are witnesses who you'll see on video, not during these four days. They will testify that they would not agree to provide research to anyone who would use it to help the CCP. In this, they were not alone, as another prominent dissident and journalist, Sasha Gong, also believed Guo's claims during this time period. She even served on the board of an entity that has now turned around to attack her and other dissidents. And Lianchao Han, a native Mandarin speaker, will testify that his first time 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nseeing Guo's damning statements about himself that were supposedly freely available on the internet was at his own deposition in this case, despite the fact that Lianchao Han was hired specifically to shepherd Guo's asylum application, which was filed just two weeks after Guo made these statements. Han Chunguang did not know about the statements.\n\nSo now let me move to leg one, the movement of money from Hong Kong and Mainland ties. Guo's attorney and spokesman, the attorney for Golden Spring, but not the attorney who's here today, in response to Strategic Vision's claim in this case, said not a penny of Guo's money was moved from Hong Kong or the Mainland once he began speaking out. But ACA sent wires from Hong Kong to Strategic Vision, and Bill Gertz, and even to Guo's own family office. Sasha Gong, as I said before, will testify that Guo introduced ACA's sole shareholder, William Je, to her as his money man. Guo claimed under penalty of perjury in another federal case that during the same time frame, 2017 to 2018, ACA paid him millions of dollars through his family office, China Golden Spring, which is in Hong Kong, to give the benefit of Guo's supposed Mainland connections. How could Guo be suing for lost payments from a Hong Kong entity, which he was in that case, which was paying him for his Mainland connections, when he was supposedly China's number one dissident and unable to take a penny out of either place? It doesn't add up.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nThe principal of ACA, William Je, was claimed by Guo to be a dissident, a long-time friend, and to have been even hospitalized from stress due to government harassment. But Guo will be unable to explain why he tolerates such close ties to Je when many publicly available Chinese sources reveal Je to be intimately tied to CCP's sympathetic organizations in China. And we will hear about those.\n\nFurther, Guo insisted that none of the Mandarin translators from Team 1 — that's the first research team that Strategic hired — should be Chinese nationals or live in China, purportedly for concern that they might be CCP agents. Sasha Gong will confirm how dangerous it is for dissidents to keep open Mainland communications, yet Google business records will show that several administrators of Guo's social media accounts used Mainland phone numbers and email addresses.\n\nFinally, Guo's family office, ACA and, even for a time, Eastern Profit were all headquartered in Suite 49F of the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong. Guo later admitted that Bank of China buildings are used by China for espionage outside of the Mainland. That particular building was a peculiar choice for housing the so-called dissident entities connected to Guo that are all at issue in this case.\n\nLeg two of our showing is Guo's statements in March and August of 2017. Han Chunguang, and perhaps other witnesses, will authenticate Guo's voice in a March 2017 23 24 25\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nrecording in which he lambastes U.S. dissidents for criticizing Chinese leaders. He says, \"The operation is on now. I have absolute faith in the General Secretary Xi.\" 1 2 3\n\nTHE DEPUTY CLERK: Five minutes.\n\nMR. GREIM: In recordings Guo himself made of May 2017 meetings of Politburo and other PRC officials in his apartment, Guo takes credit for his work on behalf of the Ministry for State Security and declares, \"I strongly support President Xi.\"\n\nAnd, finally, in August 2017, he signed a letter and then joined a Chinese-language TV program in which he agreed to limits on his so-called whistleblowing activities. He noted that his prior interviews had never crossed the so-called red line, and he asked for new tasks to support Chairman Xi Jinping.\n\nLeg three: Following through on his March 2017 promise to attack Chinese dissidents in the U.S., Guo's tried to either buy or coerce local dissidents in U.S. conservatives. The Court will hear recordings Guo has made threatening dissidents who crossed him, such as Sasha Gong and Bob Fu. Guo encourages Chinese nationals living in the U.S. to stalk and harass dissidents, asking them to approve their activities through the New York nonprofits he has set up, the Rule of Law Fund and Rule of Law Society.\n\nSo in conclusion, your Honor, the facts are going to show that Guo and Eastern never hired someone else to gather 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\nresearch and implement his plan after this contract folded. Nothing else happened. They never went to somebody else to unfreeze these assets. Those Hong Kong assets remain frozen, purportedly because of CCP retaliation, but Guo somehow remains free to fund dozens of lawsuits and continue his attacks on U.S. dissidents. For that reason, Strategic thinks the record will show that Guo is not who he says he is and never intended to use a contract to attack the CCP.\n\nThe evidence supports Strategic's fraud counterclaim, but it also makes out an unclean hands defense to Eastern's equitable claim for unjust enrichment. It is inequitable for Eastern to come to court seeking relief when, through Guo, it has sanctioned this fraud.\n\nYour Honor, in conclusion, over the next four days, this Court will hear inconsistent stories from Eastern's witnesses. Eastern has spent very little time with them and is actually calling them after Strategic's. You may well see why. That is, you will hear completely different stories regarding the purpose of the research — was it for Guo's whistleblower campaigns, as Eastern's witness all claim at the time, or, as they say now, was it for Eastern's own views to unfreeze assets? Who was funding the agreement? Was it investors in Hong Kong, as Wong claimed at the time, or was it an ACA loan, as EP eventually claimed very late in this case? When in doubt, this Court should go with the parties' statements at the 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nL4JKEAS1 Opening - Mr. Greim 225\n\ntime and with their depositions earlier in the case.\n\nEither way, we come back to where we started. Eastern Profit is a shell entity whose participation in this case hangs by a thread. It has to somehow prove that the supposed loan with ACA — still a mystery to its main witness almost a year into this case — was not a sham. Because ACA's \\$1 million payment to Strategic was not due to a loan, Eastern has no restitution or reliance claim, and the parties should go home, or Strategic should recover its own damages. The facts will show that the million-dollar deposit, like the rest of the payments under this \\$27 million contract, were never going to come from an entity with \\$80,000 in a frozen Hong Kong bank account and that needed world historical regime change to even access that pittance. No person who paid the million-dollar deposit on that contract could have expected it to be repaid by Eastern in principal or in interest.\n\nYour Honor, it is time for this charade to end, and the results should be a judgment for Strategic. Thank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you very much.\n\nPlaintiff, call its first witness.\n\nMS. CLINE: Plaintiff calls French Wallop.\n\nTHE COURT: During a break, would the parties work with the court reporter. If the court reporter didn't get any of the names down, you might let the court reporter know. Also, there are a lot of Chinese names. It might be helpful, 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | for the benefit of the court reporter, to give some kind of a |\n| 2 | glossary, so the court reporter has all of the names. |\n| 3 | Mr. Fishman, would you please swear the witness. |\n| 4 | FRENCH WALLOP, |\n| 5 | called as a witness by the Plaintiff, |\n| 6 | having been duly sworn, testified as follows: |\n| 7 | THE DEPUTY CLERK:
Please. |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
French, F-r-e-n-c-h, C. Wallop, |\n| 9 | W-a-l-l-o-p. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Good morning, Ms. Wallop.
You may be |\n| 11 | seated. |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I would ask you during the questioning to |\n| 14 | please try to keep your voice loud and speak slowly for my |\n| 15 | benefit and for the benefit of the court reporter. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
And we shall keep our masks on; is that |\n| 17 | correct? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
That's what I was going to address.
I was |\n| 20 | going to see if, given the distance I can now see, whether she |\n| 21 | could take her mask off? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Under the standing order in this Court, I |\n| 23 | can't give the witness permission to take off the mask.
I can |\n| 24 | see Ms. Wallop well, and if there are issues with respect to my |\n| 25 | being able to judge her answers, I'll indicate. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And, Ms. Wallop, if at any point, you feel like you're |\n| 2 | uncomfortable with the mask and you need a break, just let me |\n| 3 | know, and we'll take a break. |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor.
The only problem |\n| 5 | is my glasses may steam up. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Understood.
That happens with all of us, |\n| 7 | I think. |\n| 8 | Ms. Cline, you may proceed. |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 10 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 11 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 12 | Q.
Good morning, Ms. Wallop. |\n| 13 | A.
Good morning. |\n| 14 | Q.
You are the founder of Strategic Vision, correct? |\n| 15 | A.
I am, yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
You founded it in 2005, give or take? |\n| 17 | A.
Correct. |\n| 18 | Q.
And it's an LLC? |\n| 19 | It is.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And you are the sole member of Strategic Vision, LLC? |\n| 21 | A.
I am. |\n| 22 | Q.
You have always been the sole member? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And Strategic Vision has never had any employees? |\n| 25 | No.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| 1 | Q. | Has Strategic Vision ever had any employees? |\n| 2 | A. | None. |\n| 3 | Q. | And it has no officers other than you, correct? |\n| 4 | A. | Correct. |\n| 5 | Q. | No other directors? |\n| 6 | A. | No. |\n| 7 | Q. | No other owners? |\n| 8 | A. | No. |\n| 9 | Q. | No other principals? |\n| 10 | A. | No. |\n| 11 | Q. | Strategic Vision is a strategic consulting firm that |\n| 12 | | assists companies in their internet growth expectations; is |\n| 13 | | that right? |\n| 14 | A. | Correct. |\n| 15 | Q. | And it provides consulting services in the area of |\n| 16 | | international political affairs? |\n| 17 | A. | Correct. |\n| 18 | Q. | It also performs research and analysis of political |\n| 19 | | intelligence? |\n| 20 | A. | Correct. |\n| 21 | Q. | Assists clients with commercial due diligence? |\n| 22 | A. | Yes. |\n| 23 | Q. | Sometimes assists clients with advice on real estate |\n| 24 | | holdings? |\n| 25 | A. | Yes. |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
And investigatory research as well, correct? |\n| 2 | A.
Correct. |\n| 3 | Q.
And sometimes surveillance, right? |\n| 4 | No.
A.
I wouldn't call it surveillance.
I'd call it due |\n| 5 | diligence. |\n| 6 | Q.
Is your testimony now that Strategic Vision does not engage |\n| 7 | in surveillance? |\n| 8 | A.
It is -- we do do due diligence and research. |\n| 9 | Q.
I just need an answer to my question.
Is your testimony |\n| 10 | now that Strategic Vision does not engage in surveillance? |\n| 11 | A.
We do not directly personally, no. |\n| 12 | Q.
Does Strategic Vision request that people perform |\n| 13 | surveillance at its behest? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And, Ms. Wallop, you don't have a degree in international |\n| 16 | political affairs, correct? |\n| 17 | A.
No, I do not. |\n| 18 | Q.
And you do not have a degree in political science, correct? |\n| 19 | No, I do not.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And you don't have any educational credentials that relate |\n| 21 | to commercial due diligence, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
Sorry, let me ask that so the record is clear. |\n| 24 | Do you have any educational credentials that relate to |\n| 25 | commercial due diligence? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| 1 | A. | No. |\n| 2 | Q. | And you don't have an M.B.A.? |\n| 3 | A. | No. |\n| 4 | Q. | You don't have a J.D.? |\n| 5 | A. | No. |\n| 6 | Q. | You don't have a real estate license? |\n| 7 | A. | I did. |\n| 8 | Q. | When did that expire? |\n| 9 | A. | Probably in about 1997, 1998. |\n| 10 | Q. | Okay.
Well, before your involvement with Eastern Profit |\n| 11 | | and Mr. Wengui, correct? |\n| 12 | A. | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q. | You don't have a degree in intelligence, correct? |\n| 14 | A. | No. |\n| 15 | Q. | You don't have a private investigator's license, do you? |\n| 16 | A. | No. |\n| 17 | Q. | And you don't have any formal training in surveillance, do |\n| 18 | you? | |\n| 19 | A. | No. |\n| 20 | Q. | And your only degree in higher education is a degree in |\n| 21 | | languages and logistics; is that correct? |\n| 22 | A. | Linguistics. |\n| 23 | Q. | Excuse me, excuse me.
Linguistics? |\n| 24 | A. | It's a simultaneous interpreter. |\n| 25 | Q. | Okay.
And you did get a Bachelor's degree; is that right? |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Before receiving the deposit of \\$1 million in connection |\n| 3 | with the research agreement at issue in this case, |\n| 4 | Strategic Vision had less than \\$20 in its bank account; isn't |\n| 5 | that true? |\n| 6 | A.
Directly, on purpose, yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And you operate Strategic Vision out of your home in |\n| 8 | Virginia, correct? |\n| 9 | A.
Currently, yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Did you do so in 2017 and 2018? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And since you founded Strategic, Strategic has conducted at |\n| 13 | least five private investigations for its clients, correct? |\n| 14 | A.
Due diligence, again, not private investigations. |\n| 15 | Q.
You understand that in connection with the pretrial order |\n| 16 | in this case, Strategic Vision submitted a Joint Statement of |\n| 17 | Admitted Facts? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | And did you review the joint -- the facts before your
Q. |\n| 20 | counsel agreed to them? |\n| 21 | A.
I did. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 23 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you pull up the joint |\n| 24 | statements of facts, please? |\n| 25 | So Ms. Wallop --
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, turn to that first page for a |\n| 2 | second. |\n| 3 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, can you see -- first of all, is your screen |\n| 4 | working? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And so there's -- the first page here in this document |\n| 7 | says, \"Joint Proposed Pretrial Order.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 8 | A.
I do. |\n| 9 | Q.
At the top, it says, \"Document 299.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
And I'm going to ask Mr. Chuff to turn to |\n| 13 | the Joint Statement of Admitted Facts, which was submitted in |\n| 14 | connection with this joint pretrial order. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you now see a page that says \"Joint Statement of |\n| 16 | Admitted Facts\"? |\n| 17 | A.
I do. |\n| 18 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, we need to scroll to paragraph |\n| 19 | 15, please. |\n| 20 | Q.
Do you see paragraph 15 there? |\n| 21 | A.
I can, you highlighted it, yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay, great.
It says, \"Since it was founded, Strategic has |\n| 23 | conducted at least five private investigations for its |\n| 24 | clients.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 25 | I do, but I think there's a difference between due
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | diligence and, quote, \"private investigations.\" |\n| | |\n| 2 | Q.
Sorry.
Could you tell me, please -- I'm going to read it, |\n| 3 | and then I just need to know whether I'm reading it correctly. |\n| 4 | Paragraph 15 says, \"Since it was founded, Strategic has |\n| 5 | conducted at least five private investigations for its |\n| 6 | clients.\" |\n| 7 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 8 | A.
You did read it correctly. |\n| 9 | Q.
In discovery, you couldn't tell us who these clients were |\n| 10 | for whom Strategic had conducted investigations or due |\n| 11 | diligence because they were all secret, right? |\n| 12 | A.
Correct. |\n| 13 | Q.
Michael Waller has assisted Strategic in a number of |\n| 14 | investigations and due diligence projects, correct? |\n| 15 | A.
Correct.
Research and due diligence, yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
Including the research agreement with Eastern Profit? |\n| 17 | A.
Correct. |\n| 18 | Q.
And the investigatory research that Strategic provides for |\n| 19 | its clients includes electronic research into the chosen |\n| 20 | targets, correct? |\n| 21 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 22 | Q.
And physical surveillance of those targets, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Not by me. |\n| 24 | Q.
But by Strategic, right? |\n| 25 | By Strategic and individuals that we hire as a sub, yes.
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
As part of its investigations, Strategic seeks to uncover |\n| 2 | information about crimes and civil wrongs, correct? |\n| 3 | Only on an international basis, not domestically.
A. |\n| 4 | Q.
Okay.
But internationally, you would agree that Strategic |\n| 5 | seeks to uncover information about crimes and civil wrongs? |\n| 6 | A.
We have, yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And information about location disposition and recovery of |\n| 8 | stolen assets -- excuse me, stolen property, correct? |\n| 9 | Again, overseas, but not domestically.
A. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
And it also seeks to uncover the cause of injuries |\n| 11 | to persons or to property, correct? |\n| 12 | A.
Overseas and -- but not domestically. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
The categories of services I just mentioned, those |\n| 14 | are the types of services that Strategic sought to provide to |\n| 15 | Eastern Profit, correct? |\n| 16 | A.
Again, overseas and not domestically. |\n| 17 | Q.
And to help conduct its investigations, Strategic sometimes |\n| 18 | hires independent contractors to provide certain services, |\n| 19 | correct? |\n| 20 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
But you are involved personally in Strategic's |\n| 22 | investigations to some extent, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
I am involved to select the independent contractors, yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Sometimes you personally seek to obtain information about |\n| 25 | the targets from your contacts in the intelligence community, |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | right? | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q.
And from your political contacts, correct? | |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. | |\n| 5 | Q.
And from your business contacts, also, right? | |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 7 | Q.
And you do that personally, right? | |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 9 | Q.
You do recall that I took your deposition in November of | |\n| 10 | 2019, correct? | |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, I do. | |\n| 12 | Q.
In that deposition, do you recall testifying that you, from | |\n| 13 | time to time, performed surveillance yourself personally? | |\n| 14 | A.
I have, but outside of the U.S. | |\n| 15 | Q.
In this case, Strategic is currently represented by Graves | |\n| 16 | Garrett, correct? | |\n| 17 | A.
That's correct. | |\n| 18 | Q.
And prior to Graves Garrett entering its appearance, | |\n| 19 | Strategic was represented by Barton LLP; is that correct? | |\n| 20 | A.
For about two weeks. | |\n| 21 | Q.
And you're aware that Barton sought permission of the Court | |\n| 22 | to withdraw from representing Strategic, right? | |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 24 | Q.
One of the reasons they cited was lack of payment of fees, | |\n| 25 | correct? | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, objection to the relevance of |\n| 2 | this line of questioning. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'll permit it and see where it goes. |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
Repeat the question, please. |\n| 5 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 6 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 7 | One of the reasons that Barton cited for seeking |\n| 8 | permission to withdraw was the lack of payment of fees, |\n| 9 | correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Incorrect. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did Barton submit an application to this Court seeking |\n| 12 | permission for relief to withdraw based on nonpayment of fees? |\n| 13 | A.
We paid them a retainer fee.
The attorney took off two |\n| 14 | weeks' vacation, was totally incommunicado, and then sent us a |\n| 15 | bill for \\$80,000.
We had paid Barton -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wallop, let me advise you, I don't |\n| 17 | want -- |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
Sorry. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- any privileged information or any |\n| 20 | communications that you had with counsel.
Why don't you just |\n| 21 | try to answer the questions asked by counsel -- |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- who will be careful to avoid trenching |\n| 24 | into anything involving attorney work product or |\n| 25 | attorney-client communications. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. CLINE:
Absolutely understood, your Honor. |\n| 2 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 3 | Q.
My question, Ms. Wallop, is:
You're aware that there was a |\n| 4 | publicly filed document pursuant to which Barton sought |\n| 5 | permission to leave, withdraw as counsel, in part because of |\n| 6 | lack of payment of fees?
You're aware of that, right? |\n| 7 | A.
I'm aware of it. |\n| 8 | Q.
And prior to being represented by the Barton firm, |\n| 9 | Strategic was represented by Phillips Lytle, correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Correct. |\n| 11 | Q.
And Strategic failed to pay Phillips Lytle its outstanding |\n| 12 | fees, correct? |\n| 13 | A.
Its outstanding fees, not previous fees. |\n| 14 | Q.
Well, Phillips Lytle brought a suit against |\n| 15 | Strategic Vision and won a judgment for over \\$115,000, right? |\n| 16 | A.
I believe they did, yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And you were once the principal of a company called |\n| 18 | Corporate Travel Services, right? |\n| 19 | I was.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
That company was sued by its landlord for nonpayment of |\n| 21 | rent? |\n| 22 | A.
After we'd had a burglary, we sued them.
So it was a |\n| 23 | countersuit. |\n| 24 | Q.
But they sued you for nonpayment of rent, right? |\n| 25 | It was a countersuit.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
They had a claim against you for -- |\n| 2 | A.
They had a claim, and we had a claim. |\n| 3 | Q.
Okay.
And a law firm called Speight McCue sued you for |\n| 4 | nonpayment of fees in connection with the judgment, right? |\n| 5 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, objection to the relevance of |\n| 6 | these questions about past payment of fees years ago by |\n| 7 | Ms. Wallop. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
What's the relevance? |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
I'm going to connect it right now, your |\n| 10 | Honor, if I may. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 12 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 13 | Q.
So, over -- in the past, you or entities you've controlled |\n| 14 | have been involved in payment disputes with three different law |\n| 15 | firms and a landlord, but in this case, since Graves Garrett |\n| 16 | entered its appearance in mid-2019, its fees have been paid |\n| 17 | current, correct? |\n| 18 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, your Honor.
I'm not sure what |\n| 19 | the payment of our fees and whether we're current or not has to |\n| 20 | do with this case. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes, sustained.
If you want to -- if |\n| 22 | you've got -- if this goes to litigation funding, and you can |\n| 23 | satisfy the criteria laid out in my decision on the motion in |\n| 24 | limine, then I'll permit it. |\n| 25 | MS. CLINE:
Will do. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 2 | Q.
So Graves Garrett is based in Missouri, right? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | And they don't have a New York office?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
No. |\n| 6 | Q.
And Strategic Vision's counterclaim for fraud in this case |\n| 7 | was not pled until after Graves Garrett was retained, correct? |\n| 8 | A.
When I finally had excellent attorneys, yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Prior to Graves Garrett's retention, Strategic Vision never |\n| 10 | made an allegation that Mr. Guo was a double agent, correct? |\n| 11 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, your Honor, to the question. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
It was known by the first law firm, |\n| 14 | Phillips Lytle, to whom we paid a great deal of money, yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
So my question is:
Just prior to the retention of Graves |\n| 16 | Garrett, Strategic had never made an allegation in this case |\n| 17 | that Mr. Guo was a double agent, correct? |\n| 18 | A.
I wouldn't agree with that, no. |\n| 19 | (Continued on next page) |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
So your understanding is that there's a pleading in this |\n| 2 | case prior to the second amended complaint that contains an |\n| 3 | allegation that Guo was a double agent? |\n| 4 | It wasn't a pleading.
A.
It was a conversation -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
No, Ms. Wallop -- |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- you're not to give -- |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
-- your communications with your counsel |\n| 10 | unless the defendant is going to waive the privilege.
The |\n| 11 | question is -- let me ask the question. |\n| 12 | Prior to the second amended complaint, did Strategic |\n| 13 | ever publicly accuse Mr. Guo of being a double agent? |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
I don't believe so. |\n| 15 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 16 | Q.
How did Strategic Vision come to find Graves Garrett? |\n| 17 | MR. GREIM:
Objection. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Sustained. |\n| 19 | Your counsel has admitted in this case, or you've admitted
Q. |\n| 20 | in this case, that someone other than Strategic Vision is |\n| 21 | paying your fees to Graves Garrett, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
Correct. |\n| 23 | Q.
And who is that person or entity? |\n| 24 | MR. GREIM:
Okay, your Honor.
I now make the |\n| 25 | objection and think we have to lay the foundation that was set |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | out in your order. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I'll hear counsel at sidebar on this. |\n| | |\n| 3 | (Pause) |\n| 4 | Ms. Wallop, why don't you step out of the courtroom |\n| 5 | for a moment. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cline, do you want to make a proffer |\n| 8 | as to what you expect the truthful answer to reveal? |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Yes.
So we don't know the site's |\n| 10 | identity.
We have a line -- I understand the Court wants me to |\n| 11 | lay a foundation.
I was trying to do that. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
All you have to do is lay a foundation |\n| 13 | with me that you've got to support a good-faith belief -- and |\n| 14 | I'm now reading my opinion -- that defendant has been funded by |\n| 15 | a person or entity who is known, either generally or by |\n| 16 | defendant specifically, as a current or former member of, or |\n| 17 | was associated with or affiliated with the Chinese Communist |\n| 18 | Party.
So this is your opportunity to tell me whether you do |\n| 19 | have such a good-faith belief and what it's based on. |\n| 20 | MS. CLINE:
Okay.
So there are several bases.
One is |\n| 21 | sort of what I was trying to lay out already, which is that |\n| 22 | Strategic couldn't pay its fees, nor did it assert a fraud |\n| 23 | claim until Graves Garrett made an appearance in this case, and |\n| 24 | then Graves Garrett proceeded to take a bunch of depositions, |\n| 25 | issue a bunch of discovery letters, plead a fraud counterclaim |\n\nL4JPEAS2 Wallop - Cross 225\n\nand so forth.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\nIn addition to that, there are several law firms pending in which counsel is -- there's the law firm called Arkin Solbakken. These are -- they represent plaintiffs in several lawsuits against Mr. Guo, and they also represent Strategic in a case that Mr. Guo filed against Strategic.\n\nIn the other two cases, the litigants in those two cases have admitted, the litigants who are being represented by Arkin Solbakken, have admitted that their fees are being paid by a gentleman by the name of Bruno Wu.\n\nTHE COURT: I'm sorry, what's the name?\n\nMS. CLINE: Bruno Wu. And in this case, counsel, in order to resolve the discovery dispute about this very issue, counsel signed a stipulation representing that neither Bruno Wu, nor anybody affiliated with or associated with the Chinese Communist Party, was paying the fees of Strategic in this case.\n\nSo we think it's more than a coincidence that these other law firms -- the litigants, who are represented by the same firm that's been representing Strategic, are being paid by Bruno Wu. And so we wanted to ask those questions, and we want to understand the foundation for which Strategic entered a stimulation suggesting that neither Bruno Wu nor anybody from the CCP is paying the fees here.\n\nAnd, obviously, in our view, it goes right to the heart of fraud claims. Their claim is no way, no how would 24 25\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n### L4JPEAS2 Wallop - Cross 225\n\nthey ever have entered a contract with someone who supports communism, if right now their fees are being paid by someone who supports communism. 1 2 3\n\nTHE COURT: Is there a basis for believing that Bruno Wu supports communism? Link it up for me.\n\nMS. CLINE: Yes. So there are media reports, and we also have a registration report in which he's affiliated with some organizations who are associated with the communist party.\n\nTHE COURT: Let me hear from Mr. Greim.\n\nMR. GREIM: Your Honor, we've kind of been playing Battleship with who the third-party payer is. The Bruno Wu issue was brought up earlier in the case. We actually thought they were heading towards somebody else. As you can probably see from our motion in limine, we thought they moved on to a new theory involving some other individuals in Hawaii.\n\nNow, it sounds like we're back to Bruno Wu again and, your Honor, we just had a ruling on Bob Fu about having a case within a case that would require proving that Bob Fu was a dissident and that would be the relevance of Guo attacking that person. We're right back to the same place.\n\nThe problem is this. I suppose the witness could be asked -- If Bruno Wu is their theory, if they're willing to commit to that as their good-faith basis, the witness can be asked whether Bruno Wu is paying us.\n\nWhat we object to is a game of Battleship, where we\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nL4JPEAS2 Wallop - Cross 225\n\njust rundown the list of everybody who Guo's side says must be a communist agent because they opposed Guo, that becomes a problem. The representation made to the Court, your Honor, that Arkin Solbakken represents Strategic Vision in another case is incorrect. The other case that was referenced there involving this Arkin Solbakken firm was a defamation case that Guo filed against, actually, me individually, Dr. Waller, Ms. Wallop and I believe Strategic Vision as well in New York Supreme Court. Filed it based on the fraud counterclaim and said that was defamatory. That was dismissed by the State of New York Supreme Court and then also by the Appellant division because he didn't perfect his appeal.\n\nBut I don't believe, and I don't believe that Arkin Solbakken represents Strategic Vision. I think it actually represented one of the defendants in that case but, your Honor, they have to have evidence that Bruno Wu paid for the defense in that case. That would at least get them close, but they can't.\n\nSo, look, I think that the easy way through this, and we have stipulated that Bruno Wu is not paying for our fees in this case. We have stipulated that no member of the Chinese Communist Party, no affiliate or no associate is paying our fees in this case. If she would like to ask, directly ask, the witness if it's Bruno Wu or some friend of his or associate or whatever, then we don't actually have an objection to that.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n### L4JPEAS2 Wallop - Cross 225\n\nOur problem is using this coincidence as a hook, and then just running down and playing Battleship with every person who Guo believes is an enemy of his and seeing if that person is funding this, that would not be appropriate.\n\nTHE COURT: Ms. Cline, I take it you're just going to ask the witness who's funding, and then you're going to ask the witness if that, to the witness' knowledge, that person has a relationship or is a supporter of the Chinese Communist Party, or if you've got information about whoever the funder is, you'll ask the specific follow-up questions and ask whatever the witness says. But we're not going to go through a list of potential litigation funders; is that correct?\n\nMS. CLINE: No. We have no plans to go through the list, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. I'm going to -- Mr. Greim, I'm going to permit the testimony. It is relevant, given the issues that you've introduced into the case. I've excluded Mr. Fu because he was going to appear as a separate witness. I've made it clear that I'm permitting some latitude with respect to the examination of witnesses.\n\nMR. GREIM: Your Honor, if I could, though, one point? The issue with the list is the same problem that just asking the pointblank question of who is funding. They should ask about the person who supports their good-faith basis. The whole point of this and the shifting theory of why it's 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | relevant is just to find out who it is. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I've ruled.
Let's bring the |\n| 3 | witness back in. |\n| 4 | Ms. Wallop, you may be seated.
You are reminded that |\n| 5 | you are still under oath. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Of course.
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cline, you may proceed. |\n| 8 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 9 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, I think where we left off is I was asking |\n| 10 | whether Strategic Vision in this case came to an agreement in |\n| 11 | which a third party was paid for Graves Garrett's fees in this |\n| 12 | case? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
And with whom did you reach that agreement? |\n| 15 | A.
With my attorneys. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
And who -- you understand that in order to have a |\n| 17 | third party paying Strategic Vision's fees, you would need |\n| 18 | consent for that, right? |\n| 19 | Yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And what was the entity as to which you gave consent that |\n| 21 | they would pay Strategic Vision's fees, what person or entity? |\n| 22 | A.
I believe it was a group called Ciranus. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Can you spell that? |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
Ciranus, C-i-r-a-n-u-s. |\n| 25 | And you're aware that, in this case, your counsel entered a
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | stipulation attesting that your legal fees in this action were |\n| 2 | not being paid by any person or entity that is or ever was a |\n| 3 | member of, associated with or affiliated with the Chinese |\n| 4 | Communist Party or the People's Republic of China, correct? |\n| 5 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 6 | Q.
And what did you do to satisfy yourself, as to Ciranus, |\n| 7 | that that was the case? |\n| 8 | A.
I believe that my attorneys and Mike, Dr. Waller and |\n| 9 | myself, were satisfied that this group was very pro-American |\n| 10 | and was determined to be protecting U.S. citizens. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did you, or someone on behalf of Strategic Vision, do any |\n| 12 | research into who owns or controls Ciranus? |\n| 13 | A.
I did not. |\n| 14 | Q.
Sitting here, you don't know who owns or controls it? |\n| 15 | A.
I don't know who controls it. |\n| 16 | Q.
So as far as you know, the person -- the people who control |\n| 17 | Ciranus could, in fact, be supporting of the CCP, correct? |\n| 18 | A.
I relied on my counsel and on Dr. Waller. |\n| 19 | So you've never had any conversations yourself with
Q. |\n| 20 | Ciranus? |\n| 21 | A.
No. |\n| 22 | Q.
And so you don't know one way or another whether Ciranus is |\n| 23 | affiliated, in fact, with the CCP? |\n| 24 | A.
I wouldn't do business with anybody that was affiliated |\n| 25 | with the CCP. |\n\n| | 225
L4JPEAS2
Wallop - Cross |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
But you admit that you did no work or investigation or due |\n| 2 | diligence on your part, on behalf of Strategic Vision, to |\n| 3 | confirm that Ciranus is not affiliated with the CCP, right? |\n| 4 | A.
I confirmed that I trusted my attorneys and my business |\n| 5 | partner. |\n| 6 | Do you have an understanding of whether if Strategic Vision
Q. |\n| 7 | loses in this case, whether Ciranus will pay the judgment? |\n| 8 | A.
I have no idea. |\n| 9 | Q.
Do you have any idea whether there's a cap or limit on the |\n| 10 | amount of fees that Ciranus will pay for Strategic Vision in |\n| 11 | this case? |\n| 12 | I have no idea.
A. |\n| 13 | Q.
Do you have any information whether the discovery produced |\n| 14 | in this case is being shared with Ciranus? |\n| 15 | A.
I have no idea. |\n| 16 | Q.
Do you have any idea whether Ciranus has been shown the |\n| 17 | protective order in this case? |\n| 18 | A.
I have no idea. |\n| 19 | Q.
Do you have any idea whether Ciranus has a relationship |\n| 20 | adversarial or otherwise, with Mr. Guo? |\n| 21 | A.
No. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did you ever see the invoices that Graves Garrett charges |\n| 23 | Strategic Vision in this case? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And do you need to approve them before they're passed along |\n| | |\n\n| | 225
L4JPEAS2
Wallop - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | to Ciranus? |\n| A. | No. |\n| Q. | And does Ciranus pay Graves Garrett directly, or does the |\n| | money flow through Strategic Vision first? |\n| | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor -- |\n| | THE COURT:
Sustained. |\n| Q. | At some point in November 2017, you and Mr. Waller were |\n| | introduced to a man by the name of Guo Wengui; is that correct? |\n| A. | That's correct. |\n| Q. | And you were introduced to Mr. Guo by William Gertz and |\n| | Lianchao Han? |\n| A. | That's correct. |\n| Q. | Mr. Gertz is an investigative journalist? |\n| A. | Yes, among other things. |\n| Q. | And Mr. Han is a pro-democracy activist? |\n| A. | Yes. |\n| Q. | And you had known Lianchao Han for a few years by that |\n| | time, correct? |\n| A. | Easily 30 years, both of them. |\n| Q. | And Mr. Han had worked for several years in the U.S. |\n| | Senate, including for your former husband? |\n| A. | That's correct. |\n| Q. | And you regarded Mr. Han as an excellent individual, right? |\n| A. | Yes. |\n| Q. | And you believed Mr. Gertz was one of the finest intellects |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | on Chinese corruption, right? |\n| 2 | A.
I agree, yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And you understood from Mr. Han and Mr. Gertz that Mr. Guo |\n| 4 | was a dissident with sufficient resources to make a strong |\n| 5 | stand against the CCP, correct? |\n| 6 | A.
Initially, yes, that was my understanding. |\n| 7 | Q.
And after being introduced to Mr. Guo, you had a number of |\n| 8 | in-person meetings with Mr. Guo and others over the course of |\n| 9 | November and December 2017, right? |\n| 10 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 11 | Q.
And during one or more of those meetings, you and |\n| 12 | Mr. Waller described various services that you could provide |\n| 13 | him, correct? |\n| 14 | A.
As a result of his request, yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Is it your testimony that Mr. Guo made a request of |\n| 16 | Strategic Vision prior to your first meeting with him? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, to some degree, through Lianchao Han. |\n| 18 | Q.
But you never met Mr. Guo until the meeting at which you |\n| 19 | were introduced to him by Mr. Han and Mr. Gertz; is that right? |\n| 20 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
Can we please pull up Exhibit DX38. |\n| 22 | So, Ms. Wallop, hopefully on your screen, the first |\n| 23 | page, the title says \"Vision.\"
Are you seeing that okay? |\n| 24 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 25 | Okay.
Q.
And is that your handwriting in the upper right-hand |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | corner that says \"first meeting with Guo\"? |\n| 2 | A.
Correct. |\n| 3 | Q.
And is Exhibit 38 a document that you presented to Mr. Guo |\n| 4 | in your -- in Strategic's first meeting with him? |\n| 5 | A.
It was per the request of Lianchao Han, who asked us to put |\n| 6 | this, a vision statement, together based on the conversation |\n| 7 | that Lianchao had with Dr. Waller and myself about the meeting, |\n| 8 | the purpose of the meeting. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay.
I think my question was:
Did you, on behalf of |\n| 10 | Strategic Vision, present this document to Mr. Guo in the first |\n| 11 | meeting that Strategic Vision had with him? |\n| 12 | A.
I did, or we did. |\n| 13 | Q.
And you and Mr. Waller were involved in preparing the |\n| 14 | document, correct? |\n| 15 | A.
As was Lianchao Han, yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And this document describes the services that, at least |\n| 17 | initially, that Strategic Vision was offering to perform for |\n| 18 | Mr. Guo, right? |\n| 19 | At the request of Lianchao Han, who was Guo's emissary.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
So I direct your attention to the second paragraph of the |\n| 21 | first page here. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Are you offering DX38? |\n| 23 | MS. CLINE:
Oh, sure, your Honor.
Maybe a matter of |\n| 24 | housekeeping.
I understood that you would just move everything |\n| 25 | at the end of the -- |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I will, but just indicate for the record |\n| 2 | that you're going to be offering it, just so that we're clear. |\n| 3 | MS. CLINE:
Okay.
Fair enough.
Then plaintiffs offer |\n| 4 | DX38, the Vision exhibit. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I'll receive it subject to the motion to |\n| 6 | strike at the end. |\n| 7 | MS. CLINE:
Okay. |\n| 8 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX38 received in evidence) |\n| 9 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 10 | Q.
So I direct your attention to the second paragraph of the |\n| 11 | first page, the paragraph that starts with \"Mr. G;\" do you see |\n| 12 | that? |\n| 13 | A.
I do. |\n| 14 | Q.
And the second sentence is really what I want you to focus |\n| 15 | on:
\"However, he has the image of just another exiled |\n| 16 | billionaire, and some suspect he may simply represent a faction |\n| 17 | in an internal leadership struggle.\" |\n| 18 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 19 | You did.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And you thought that statement was true at the time of this |\n| 21 | meeting, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
But you didn't do any investigation at that point in time |\n| 24 | to follow up on that point, correct? |\n| 25 | Bill Gertz and Lianchao Han had vouched for him, and we
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS2
Wallop - Cross |\n| 1 | felt those were very good references; so, no, we did not. |\n| 2 | And part of what the vision, at least in this first
Q. |\n| 3 | meeting, contemplated was that Strategic would help Mr. Guo |\n| 4 | change his public image from exiled businessman to |\n| 5 | international statesman; is that fair? |\n| 6 | A.
This is what Lianchao Han had suggested that Mr. Guo wanted |\n| 7 | to have happen with his image, yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
So if you could be careful just to answer my questions |\n| 9 | because there may be a hearsay problem, to the extent you're |\n| 10 | talking about what other people are saying.
But I won't move |\n| 11 | to strike your testimony, but if you could kind of keep it |\n| 12 | limited to my question, that would be great. |\n| 13 | So my question is, this vision -- after you |\n| 14 | memorialize what Strategic Vision was proposing to do for |\n| 15 | Mr. Guo in this very first meeting, correct? |\n| 16 | A.
At the behest of Lianchao Han. |\n| 17 | And this first meeting there was no offer by Strategic
Q. |\n| 18 | Vision to perform investigative services, correct? |\n| 19 | A.
No. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, the question was asked in a way |\n| 21 | that would have been unclear to me. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
At the first meeting, was there an offer |\n| 24 | by Strategic to perform investigative services? |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
No -- |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
-- your Honor.
That came later. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 5 | Q.
All right.
Now, let's move to Exhibit 39, please.
DX39. |\n| 6 | Are you able to see it, Ms. Wallop?
It should say \"Three-year |\n| 7 | Timeline\" at the top? |\n| 8 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 9 | Q.
And is that your handwriting up at the top, \"second meeting |\n| 10 | with Guo\"? |\n| 11 | A.
Correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
And is this a document that you and Mr. Waller put |\n| 13 | together? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes, and also with Lianchao Han. |\n| 15 | MS. CLINE:
Your Honor, plaintiffs would offer DX |\n| 16 | Exhibit 39. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Received subject to motion to strike. |\n| 18 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX39 received in evidence) |\n| 19 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 20 | Q.
And is this, in fact, a document that was presented to |\n| 21 | Mr. Guo at Strategic's second meeting with him? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes.
After the first set of conversations from, obviously, |\n| 23 | the first meeting, these were the additional objectives that he |\n| 24 | suggested that he wanted to have magnified, I guess is the best |\n| 25 | word. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And so, for example, Strategic talks about ways Mr. Guo |\n| 2 | could build a personal presence in Washington, D.C., correct? |\n| 3 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 4 | And you proposed helping him acquire a Washington, D.C.
Q. |\n| 5 | residence, correct? |\n| 6 | A.
He suggested that he wanted to find a very substantial |\n| 7 | home, as well as an office building to set up his foundation. |\n| 8 | Q.
And my question is, that's -- helping him find a home and |\n| 9 | real estate for offices is one of the things that Strategic |\n| 10 | suggested in this document; isn't that correct? |\n| 11 | A.
At both Guo's request and Lianchao's request, yes, in order |\n| 12 | to build his image in Washington. |\n| 13 | Q.
And Strategic also proposed to connect him with people who |\n| 14 | had the ear of U.S. policymakers, right? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 16 | Q.
And Strategic proposed to charge anywhere from 30,000 to |\n| 17 | \\$120,000 per month for the services described in Exhibit DX39, |\n| 18 | right? |\n| 19 | Yes, I guess that's the -- yes, that's the figure; mmm,
A. |\n| 20 | hmm. |\n| 21 | Q.
But as it turned out, Strategic did not end up providing |\n| 22 | any of these communication or public interest-type services, |\n| 23 | correct? |\n| 24 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 25 | And at some point, it became clear, from what Mr. Guo told
Q. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | you and Mr. Waller, that he was interested in conducting an |\n| 2 | investigation into members of the CCP, true? |\n| 3 | A.
That's true. |\n| 4 | Q.
At some point subsequent to this meeting, the services |\n| 5 | Strategic offered to provide to Guo pivoted from public images |\n| 6 | services to investigation services, right? |\n| 7 | A.
It was at his behest, not our suggestion, yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
So my question is, at some point subsequent to this, the |\n| 9 | services that Strategic Vision offered pivoted from public |\n| 10 | image-type services to investigation services; isn't that true? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Mr. Chuff, can we bring up PX2. |\n| 13 | Are you seeing a document entitled \"Time to get them\"? |\n| 14 | A.
Correct, I do. |\n| 15 | Q.
Okay.
And this is a document that Strategic presented to |\n| 16 | Mr. Guo in a meeting subsequent to that second meeting we just |\n| 17 | discussed, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes.
It appears to be -- yes, it does. |\n| 19 | Q.
And you and Mr. Waller put this document together somewhere |\n| 20 | at the end of 2017; is that accurate? |\n| 21 | That's correct, also with Lianchao's input.
A. |\n| 22 | Q.
And at some point in the end of 2017, Strategic presented |\n| 23 | this document to Mr. Guo, correct? |\n| 24 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 25 | MS. CLINE:
Your Honor, plaintiffs offer PX2. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Same ruling. |\n| 2 | (Plaintiff's Exhibit PX2 received in evidence) |\n| 3 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 4 | Q.
But unlike the prior two exhibits we looked at, this |\n| 5 | document, PX2, proposes certain investigation services.
I |\n| 6 | guess my question is going to be, isn't that right?
But go |\n| 7 | ahead. |\n| 8 | Mr. Chuff, so the witness can see, maybe turn exactly |\n| 9 | to page 3 there. |\n| 10 | A.
Could I see the previous page?
Because it's been three |\n| 11 | years; so I haven't seen it.
Thank you.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
And so turning now to page 3 of Exhibit PX2, so the |\n| 13 | initial -- the heading of the page is called \"Targeted |\n| 14 | intelligence collection and analysis;\" do you see that? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes.
Could you give me the date, please, of this proposal? |\n| 16 | Q.
I'm not certain there's a date on it. |\n| 17 | A.
Well, it would help to know the sequence. |\n| 18 | Q.
So I'll just ask you some questions and -- |\n| 19 | A.
Okay. |\n| 20 | Q.
-- that will put it in context for you.
My question for |\n| 21 | now is just, first of all, do you see the title of the page 3? |\n| 22 | It's called \"Targeted Intelligence Collection and Analysis.\" |\n| 23 | A.
Right, I do. |\n| 24 | Q.
And then the first bullet point down says -- excuse me.
It |\n| 25 | says:
\"Build and operate a secret system for micro-targeted |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | intelligence collection and analysis.\"
Do you see that bullet? |\n| 2 | A.
I do. |\n| 3 | Q.
And is that one of the services Strategic could perform for |\n| 4 | Mr. Guo? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And that wasn't a research activity that one could just do |\n| 7 | at the local library, right? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
It was a sophisticated -- much more sophisticated than |\n| 10 | that, right? |\n| 11 | A.
Correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
And as the next sentence says, it's an extremely sensitive |\n| 13 | capability that must be handled with extreme care; is that |\n| 14 | accurate? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes, per Guo's instructions, yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And so those were the types of investigation services that |\n| 17 | were ultimately memorialized in the research agreement, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Sorry, I'm just reading.
Yes, it summarizes most of the |\n| 19 | points. |\n| 20 | Q.
And if you go down to the further bullet, it says: |\n| 21 | \"Document everything as leverage to gain concessions, protect |\n| 22 | people, use as political weapon, or as aid in criminal |\n| 23 | prosecution and asset recovery.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes, that was one of the instructions by Guo. |\n| 25 | And that concept in that bullet ended up being memorialized
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | in the research agreement, right? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes.
To some degree, yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And you understood that Mr. Guo wanted the investigation to |\n| 4 | uncover corruption relating to members of the CCP, right? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Including crimes committed by members of the CCP? |\n| 7 | A.
At his instruction, that was what he was requesting, yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And he also wanted information about funds stolen by the |\n| 9 | members of the CCP and taken out of China illegally, correct? |\n| 10 | A.
I believe he discussed it, but we were not sure whether or |\n| 11 | not that could be accomplished. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
But you would agree that one of the services Mr. Guo |\n| 13 | understood that Strategic would be performing was to get |\n| 14 | information regarding funds that would have been taken out of |\n| 15 | the country illegally, cash payments, all of the things that |\n| 16 | were part of that, right? |\n| 17 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, foundation. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 19 | No, not entirely, no.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
So you and I, a few moments ago, talked about your |\n| 21 | deposition in November of 2019.
You also were deposed in |\n| 22 | February of 2019, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
We'll go ahead and pull up that deposition transcript, |\n| 25 | please, Mr. Chuff. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And you see here on the screen this is the first page |\n| 2 | of the transcript of your deposition in February of 2019? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | All right.
Q.
Mr. Chuff, could you turn to the page that |\n| 5 | contains pages 88 and 89.
Can you scroll up a bit, Chris? |\n| 6 | That's good there. |\n| 7 | Okay.
So I'm going to be reading from page 88, which |\n| 8 | is in the top kind of right quadrant, and I'm going to start at |\n| 9 | line 20.
With me so far, line 20? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes, I see it. |\n| 11 | Q.
Okay.
Well, the question is: |\n| 12 | \"Q.
And what control of corruption information does the |\n| 13 | communist party have? |\n| 14 | \"A.
Well, Guo had said that the CCP, or the Communist Party of |\n| 15 | China, there was a great deal of corruption within the |\n| 16 | leadership, and as a result of that, he wanted to find as much |\n| 17 | corruption as possible.
And he wanted us to investigate and |\n| 18 | retrieve that kind of corruption.
In other words, funds that |\n| 19 | would have been taken out of the country illegally, cash |\n| 20 | payments, all of these things that were part of that.\" |\n| 21 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes, at his request. |\n| 23 | Q.
And at some point in the end -- thanks, Chris.
We're good |\n| 24 | with that. |\n| 25 | At some point in the end of 2017, Strategic offered to |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | demonstrate its investigation capabilities to Mr. Guo, correct? |\n| 2 | A.
I'm sorry, what was the date? |\n| 3 | Q.
At the end of 2017. |\n| 4 | We discussed what he wanted to have done.
A.
I'm just not |\n| 5 | clear in the way you've asked the question. |\n| 6 | Q.
At some point at the end of 2017, did Strategic offer to |\n| 7 | provide some initial information about one of the targets that |\n| 8 | Mr. Guo wanted to investigate? |\n| 9 | A.
I think the answer is yes, to my recollection. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
Do you recall discussion of the target named Anita, |\n| 11 | last name, S-u-e-n? |\n| 12 | A.
I do because she was actually the first target on the |\n| 13 | master list given to us by Guo. |\n| 14 | Q.
And before Strategic entered into the research agreement, |\n| 15 | you shared -- you and Mr. Waller shared a screenshot of Ms. -- |\n| 16 | I'm not sure how to pronounce it, might be two n's -- |\n| 17 | Ms. Suen's Civic Bank account information to Mr. Guo, right, to |\n| 18 | prove that you could retrieve such information? |\n| 19 | Yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And I believe you testified that you were proving your |\n| 21 | capabilities to, quote, peek into someone's bank account |\n| 22 | information at this Civic Group Bank, right? |\n| 23 | A.
I believe that Dr. Waller is better equipped to answer that |\n| 24 | question. |\n| 25 | But I guess I'm asking you.
Q.
Do you recall being at a |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | meeting at which Strategic showed Mr. Guo? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
A screenshot of someone's bank account? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A.
It was just a preliminary.
It was not into the |\n| 5 | account. |\n| 6 | Q.
But you testified you were able to see names and numbers, |\n| 7 | correct? |\n| 8 | A.
I do not remember -- well, it was not account information. |\n| 9 | It may have been the account number, and it may have been the |\n| 10 | name on the account, but I don't remember seeing any other -- |\n| 11 | like a bank statement.
I don't remember anything like that. |\n| 12 | Q.
And Strategic Vision is not licensed as a private |\n| 13 | investigator anyway, right? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
And it never has been? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
And Mr. Waller never has been, to your knowledge, correct? |\n| 18 | A.
Nope. |\n| 19 | Strategic eventually entered into the research agreement as
Q. |\n| 20 | of January 6th, 2018, correct? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Can you pull up PX1, please.
And, Mr. Chuff, can you just |\n| 23 | kind of scroll through it to the end so the witness can see the |\n| 24 | whole document. |\n| 25 | (Pause) |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Okay.
Do you recognize PX1 to be a copy of the |\n| 2 | research agreement at issue in this case? |\n| 3 | A.
It appears to be. |\n| 4 | Q.
Okay.
And that's your signature at the end there, right? |\n| 5 | A.
On the left, yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Okay.
And the date is January 6th, 2018? |\n| 7 | That's correct.
A. |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Your Honor, plaintiffs offer PX1. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
It is received subject to motion to |\n| 10 | strike. |\n| 11 | (Plaintiff's Exhibit PX1 received in evidence) |\n| 12 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 13 | And when you signed the agreement, you were at your home in
Q. |\n| 14 | Arlington, Virginia, right? |\n| 15 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 16 | Q.
And Yvette Wang was present in your home when you signed? |\n| 17 | A.
She was. |\n| 18 | Q.
And you helped draft the agreement, correct? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
And I'll direct your attention to the fourth paragraph of |\n| 21 | the agreement.
I'll just read, and you can tell me if I'm |\n| 22 | characterizing it accurately.
The fourth paragraph of the |\n| 23 | agreement says:
\"The contractor will conduct high-quality |\n| 24 | original research and prepare reports on subjects chosen at the |\n| 25 | client's discretion for the purpose of detecting, stopping and |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | preventing crime or other harm to innocent people.\" |\n| 2 | You agree that the contract said that, correct? |\n| 3 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 4 | And Mr. Chuff, can you turn to page 3, please.
Q. |\n| 5 | So directing your attention to the paragraph that says |\n| 6 | \"Criteria,\" and specifically, I'll direct you to the second |\n| 7 | sentence:
Strategic agreed that it should make the most |\n| 8 | diligent efforts to ensure the services rendered are of very |\n| 9 | high quality, revealing a true and complete and full profile of |\n| 10 | the subject; is that accurate? |\n| 11 | A.
It is, yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And if you look up a couple of paragraphs to the paragraph |\n| 13 | called \"Deliverables,\" the last sentence of the paragraph |\n| 14 | provides that \"All deliverables shall be by USB drive only,\" |\n| 15 | correct? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And in terms of the types of deliverables, the contract |\n| 18 | describes the deliverables, right there in the same paragraph, |\n| 19 | as \"financial forensic historical research reports, current |\n| 20 | tracking reports and social media reports,\" correct? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 22 | Q.
And as the financial forensic reports, those were intended, |\n| 23 | in part, to uncover evidence of money laundering by members of |\n| 24 | the CCP, correct? |\n| 25 | Well, we had no idea what it would turn up.
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
But you agree that one of the purposes that you understood |\n| 2 | for the financial forensic reports was to uncover evidence of |\n| 3 | money laundering by members of the CCP, correct? |\n| 4 | Yes, possibly.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And the current tracking reports were to consist of |\n| 6 | detailed reports on movements to justify subjects by land, air |\n| 7 | and sea, right? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And social media reports were to include information |\n| 10 | regarding the subject's court records and criminal records, |\n| 11 | correct? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes.
In the public domain, yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
And also, information regarding extramarital affairs, |\n| 14 | right? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And social media research was also to involve accessing |\n| 17 | overseas accounts of Chinese Communist Party officials and |\n| 18 | their close relatives, right? |\n| 19 | Where is that?
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
It's not in the contract, I don't believe.
I'm just asking |\n| 21 | you if that was your understanding? |\n| 22 | A.
Would you repeat the question, please? |\n| 23 | Q.
Yes.
You understood that part of the social media research |\n| 24 | that was contemplated was to involve accessing certain overseas |\n| 25 | accounts of CCP officials? |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Possibly, yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
And Strategic contemplated getting access to individual's |\n| 3 | private passwords to their personal accounts, right? |\n| 4 | Yes, overseas.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Turning to the -- let's turn to page 3 of the exhibit, if |\n| 6 | we could, and I just direct your attention to the paragraph |\n| 7 | called \"Prices\" and take a moment to review that to yourself, |\n| 8 | read that to yourself. |\n| 9 | A.
Yes, I've read it. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
So you understood that the prices for each |\n| 11 | deliverable, each of these reports that we mentioned, were to |\n| 12 | be 300,000 each, per subject, per year, right? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
And turning to page 5, please, I direct your attention to |\n| 15 | the second paragraph of page 5.
The research agreement |\n| 16 | provided that the client would pay the contractor a deposit of |\n| 17 | \\$1 million upon signing, correct? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | And the deposit was to be treated as a down payment, to be
Q. |\n| 20 | credited on a prorated basis at the end of the contract, |\n| 21 | correct? |\n| 22 | A.
That's what it says. |\n| 23 | Q.
And the research agreement -- scrolling down a bit to the |\n| 24 | paragraph under the wire instructions, the research agreement |\n| 25 | specifically said that it is understood that the client may |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | direct other entities to pay the contractor and that such |\n| 2 | payments will be deemed satisfactory compensation by the |\n| 3 | contractor, correct? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
As to the deposit -- Chris, I think we can take that down |\n| 6 | for now. |\n| 7 | On or about January 2nd of 2018, right before you |\n| 8 | signed the research agreement, Strategic received two \\$500,000 |\n| 9 | wire transfers from a company called ACA Capital Group Limited, |\n| 10 | right? |\n| 11 | A.
We were not aware of it until the -- I think the 5th of |\n| 12 | January that the wires had been sent. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
But you were aware of the wires before you signed |\n| 14 | the contract, right? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes, but we didn't know who ACA was. |\n| 16 | Q.
But you knew that the party that sent the wires was ACA, |\n| 17 | correct? |\n| 18 | A.
We did, but we didn't know who ACA was because we'd never |\n| 19 | been informed by Yvette or Guo as to how the funds were being |\n| 20 | sent. |\n| 21 | Q.
So I just need you to answer my question.
When the wires |\n| 22 | arrived prior to the time you signed the research agreement, |\n| 23 | you knew that the wires came in from ACA, didn't you? |\n| 24 | A.
I knew that two wires came from ACA, that's correct, but we |\n| 25 | did not know what they were for. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Well, Strategic accepted those two wires and put them into |\n| 2 | its bank account, right, and didn't take them out? |\n| 3 | A.
The wires were sent and went into the bank account.
When |\n| 4 | we were notified that they were in the account, I believe it |\n| 5 | was the -- probably, the 5th of January, but we didn't know |\n| 6 | from whom -- what they were for. |\n| 7 | Q.
You knew the wires that came in were in connection with the |\n| 8 | research? |\n| 9 | A.
No, we did not.
How could we?
We hadn't signed the |\n| 10 | agreement. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, Ms. Wallop. |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:
Sorry. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Are you saying that you received a million |\n| 14 | dollars, and you didn't know why you were getting a million |\n| 15 | dollars? |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
We presumed it was from Guo, but we did |\n| 17 | not know who ACA was because nobody had informed us as to ACA. |\n| 18 | We didn't know if it was a mistake by the wire department at |\n| 19 | Citibank or what.
We did not know.
No one had told us about |\n| 20 | ACA. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You presumed it was in satisfaction of the |\n| 22 | deposit requirement of the contract that was to be executed, I |\n| 23 | take it? |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
We would presume, but we all know that |\n| 25 | presuming sometimes is dangerous.
So we believed that it could |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | have been, but we had never been informed either by Yvette or |\n| 2 | by Guo that this was the sender, straight out of Hong Kong. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Are you saying that, under the contract, |\n| 4 | you thought you had a right to know who the sender was and what |\n| 5 | the relationship was with Guo? |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you pull the joint statement of |\n| 9 | admitted facts? |\n| 10 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 11 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, returning back to the joint pretrial order that |\n| 12 | we looked at previously.
I'm going to ask Mr. Chuff to scroll |\n| 13 | through again to the joint statement of admitted facts. |\n| 14 | And specifically, Mr. Chuff, if you could scroll to |\n| 15 | paragraph 29. |\n| 16 | Are you able to see paragraph 29, Ms. Wallop? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, I can see it. |\n| 18 | Q.
Paragraph 29 says:
\"The research agreement required that |\n| 19 | Eastern provide a \\$1 million deposit on or about January 2, |\n| 20 | 2018.
Before the research agreement was signed, Strategic |\n| 21 | received two \\$500,000 wire transfers from non-party ACA Capital |\n| 22 | Group Limited.\"
Did I read that correctly? |\n| 23 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 24 | Q.
Turning to paragraph 30, paragraph 30 says:
\"Strategic |\n| 25 | understood that the \\$1 million payment from ACA was the deposit |\n| | |\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| that the parties had previously discussed in relation to the |\n| research agreement then under negotiation.\"
Did I read that |\n| correctly? |\n| Yes.
A. |\n| Q.
Strategic did not return the deposit because it came from |\n| ACA, correct? |\n| A.
We didn't know who ACA was.
I'm sorry. |\n| THE COURT:
Just answer the question.
The question |\n| was -- |\n| A.
No, we did not. |\n| Q.
So let's now shift to talk about what happened after the |\n| agreement was signed.
On or about January 8th, Ms. Wang, on |\n| behalf of Eastern Profit, delivered a list of 15 names of |\n| individuals to you on USB drive to be investigated under the |\n| research agreement, correct? |\n| A.
On what date? |\n| Q.
On or about January 8th. |\n| A.
She did. |\n| Mr. Chuff, can you pull up PX7, please.
Q. |\n| Are you able to see the first page of Plaintiff's |\n| Exhibit 7, Ms. Wallop? |\n| A.
I do. |\n| Q.
We can scroll through it, if you like.
The question is |\n| going to be:
Do you recognize this document that contained at |\n| least some of the names of the individuals to be researched |\n| |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | under the agreement? |\n| 2 | A.
Well, I believe it was an exhibit; so therefore, it must be |\n| 3 | accurate. |\n| 4 | I mean, as you sit here today, do you recognize it as such?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And you understood that the individuals to be researched |\n| 7 | were members of the CCP or closely -- people who were closely |\n| 8 | related to high-ranking CCP members at the time? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes, or their children living in the United States or |\n| 10 | elsewhere. |\n| 11 | Q.
And Strategic Vision did, in fact, set out to investigate |\n| 12 | 15 individuals, right? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes, at Mr. Guo's request for those 15. |\n| 14 | Q.
And Strategic retained a number of independent contractors |\n| 15 | to investigate the subjects as well, correct? |\n| 16 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 17 | Q.
And is it your understanding that Strategic delivered a |\n| 18 | total of two USB drives to Eastern under the research |\n| 19 | agreement? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
But you personally never saw the contents of either of |\n| 22 | those two drives that were delivered to Eastern, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
Let me just clear that up.
Did you ever see the contents |\n| 25 | of either of those two drives? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
No, I did not.
I don't believe I did, no. |\n| 2 | Q.
So you don't have any personal knowledge as to what's on |\n| 3 | the USBs, correct? |\n| 4 | Dr. Waller can best answer that because he was the person
A. |\n| 5 | that returned with the USB keys to give them to Yvette.
So I |\n| 6 | never saw them. |\n| 7 | Q.
Right.
So my question is, you don't have any personal |\n| 8 | knowledge of what was on the USB keys, correct? |\n| 9 | A.
I do not.
To the best of my recollection, no, I never saw |\n| 10 | them. |\n| 11 | Q.
And you understand in this case that Strategic has admitted |\n| 12 | that it did not deliver any of the reports called for under the |\n| 13 | research agreement, correct? |\n| 14 | A.
I don't believe that's true. |\n| 15 | Q.
Chris, can we pull the joint statement up again, please, |\n| 16 | and scroll, if you would, to paragraph 56 -- sorry, 54. |\n| 17 | So, Ms. Wallop, returning to the joint statement of |\n| 18 | admitted facts submitted with the pretrial order, I direct your |\n| 19 | attention to paragraph 54.
54 reads:
\"Strategic never |\n| 20 | delivered to Eastern any financial forensic historical research |\n| 21 | called for under the research agreement.\"
Did I read that |\n| 22 | correctly? |\n| 23 | A.
You did. |\n| 24 | Q.
\"55, Strategic never delivered to Eastern any current |\n| 25 | tracking research called for under the research agreement.\" |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
\"56, Strategic never delivered to Eastern any social media |\n| 4 | research called for under the research agreement.\"
Did I read |\n| 5 | that correctly? |\n| 6 | A.
You read the three correctly. |\n| 7 | Q.
And then just one more.
Paragraph \"57, Strategic was |\n| 8 | unable to prepare any detailed reports.\"
Did I read that |\n| 9 | correctly? |\n| 10 | A.
You did read it correctly. |\n| 11 | Q.
And on February 23rd, 2018, Eastern delivered a termination |\n| 12 | letter under the research agreement to Strategic, right? |\n| 13 | A.
I'm sorry, what date was that? |\n| 14 | Q.
February 23rd, 2018. |\n| 15 | A.
Yes.
I believe I was out of the country, but yes. |\n| 16 | MS. CLINE:
Okay.
Actually, as a matter of |\n| 17 | housekeeping, your Honor, I think I was remiss as to PX7.
I |\n| 18 | don't believe I asked that -- moved that in. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's received subject to motion to |\n| 20 | strike. |\n| 21 | (Plaintiff's Exhibit PX7 received in evidence) |\n| 22 | MS. CLINE:
Apologies, your Honor, as well. |\n| 23 | Back to the termination.
Mr. Chuff, could you pull up |\n| 24 | DX8, please. |\n| 25 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And, Ms. Wallop, we can scroll through if you need, but |\n| 2 | again, my question is going to be:
Do you recognize this to be |\n| 3 | the termination letter that Eastern sent to you in February of |\n| 4 | 2018? |\n| 5 | A.
It appears to be. |\n| 6 | And you received this letter on behalf of Strategic Vision?
Q. |\n| 7 | A.
I did but some days later. |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Your Honor, plaintiffs move for the |\n| 9 | admission of DX8. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Same ruling. |\n| 11 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX8 received in evidence) |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, could you please turn to page |\n| 13 | 2. |\n| 14 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 15 | Q.
So you understood that in this letter, Eastern demanded the |\n| 16 | return of the deposit that had been sent to Strategic, right? |\n| 17 | A.
It did, but I also noted that it said to return the funds |\n| 18 | to Singapore and not Hong Kong. |\n| 19 | Q.
So again, I just need you to answer my questions, but let's |\n| 20 | take a look at the wire instructions.
The paragraph |\n| 21 | immediately preceding the wire instruction says -- the last |\n| 22 | sentence says:
\"Eastern expects that Strategic Vision will |\n| 23 | refund the \\$1 million deposit immediately.
Please send the |\n| 24 | funds via wire transfer.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 25 | A.
I do. |\n\n| | 225
L4JPEAS2
Wallop - Cross |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And then if you scroll down to the beneficiary account |\n| 2 | name, it says:
ACA Capital Group Limited, correct? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, in Singapore, not Hong Kong. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wallop -- |\n| 5 | THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- let me instruct you again to just try |\n| 7 | to answer the questions you're being asked.
You'll have an |\n| 8 | opportunity to elaborate on Strategic's examination. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 10 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 11 | Q.
But Strategic never did return the \\$1 million deposit, |\n| 12 | right? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, turning to Strategic's fraud claim.
As part of the |\n| 15 | claim, Strategic asserts that it wouldn't have entered into the |\n| 16 | agreement if it had known that Mr. Guo, as you now allege, is a |\n| 17 | supporter of the CCP, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Correct. |\n| 19 | But before the research agreement was entered into, you
Q. |\n| 20 | were aware of reports that Mr. Guo had close ties to senior |\n| 21 | Chinese Communist Party leaders, right? |\n| 22 | A.
Not prior to the signed agreement, no. |\n| 23 | Q.
So let's take a look at Exhibit DX43. |\n| 24 | In the cross-folder, I think. |\n| 25 | So we're showing you DX43. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And yes, Chris, if you can scroll up. |\n| 2 | It's an article written by your friend, Bill Gertz; is |\n| 3 | that right? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A.
I've never seen this article. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did you read Mr. Gertz's articles prior to entering into |\n| 6 | the research agreement? |\n| 7 | A.
No, not all of them. |\n| 8 | Q.
You see this particular article was dated May 23rd of 2017, |\n| 9 | which is before the research agreement was entered into, |\n| 10 | correct? |\n| 11 | A.
Correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
Mr. Chuff, let's go to page 2, please. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I assume that there's no dispute, |\n| 14 | Mr. Greim, as to the authenticity of this document or its date? |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
No, your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay, thank you. |\n| 17 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 18 | Q.
So just, Ms. Wallop, I direct your attention to page 2, the |\n| 19 | fourth paragraph.
The first sentence says:
\"Guo has close |\n| 20 | ties to senior Chinese Communist Party leaders, including |\n| 21 | government ministers and Politburo members.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 22 | A.
I see it. |\n| 23 | Q.
Your testimony is you weren't aware of this notion prior to |\n| 24 | entering the research agreement? |\n| 25 | I've never seen this article.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Did you ever discuss this content with Mr. Gertz? |\n| 2 | A.
No, not to my recollection. |\n| 3 | Q.
Chris, can you keep scrolling down on that page, please. |\n| 4 | That's good there. |\n| 5 | There's a paragraph that starts \"Guo's knowledge of |\n| 6 | Chinese intelligence operations.\"
I'll highlight that for you. |\n| 7 | The paragraph says:
\"Guo's knowledge of Chinese intelligence |\n| 8 | operations could provide an intelligence windfall for the CIA |\n| 9 | and FBI, based on his access to Ministry of State security |\n| 10 | operations overseas and in the United States.\"
Do you see |\n| 11 | that? |\n| 12 | A.
I do. |\n| 13 | Q.
Were you aware of that before entering into the research |\n| 14 | agreement? |\n| 15 | A.
No. |\n| 16 | Q.
You never talked to Mr. Gertz about that concept? |\n| 17 | A.
No, not to my recollection. |\n| 18 | Q.
So when Mr. Gertz offered to introduce you to Mr. Guo, you |\n| 19 | never asked him if he had ever written anything publicly |\n| 20 | available on Mr. Guo? |\n| 21 | A.
No.
He vouched for him.
He came -- no. |\n| 22 | Q.
And if we turn to the third page of this article, at the |\n| 23 | top of the page there there's a sentence that says: |\n| 24 | \"Additionally, Guo's wife and daughter currently have been |\n| 25 | allowed by Chinese authorities to visit him in New York but are |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | required to return to China after 20 days, where they can be |\n| 2 | used for political leverage against Guo.\" |\n| 3 | Were you aware of that prior to entering into the |\n| 4 | research agreement? |\n| 5 | A.
No. |\n| 6 | Q.
You never spoke to Mr. Gertz about that fact? |\n| 7 | A.
No, nor did he reveal it to me. |\n| 8 | Q.
Chris, can you please pull up DX32. |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Sorry, your Honor, plaintiffs offer DX43? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I assume you're just offering it for what |\n| 11 | it says and not for the truth, correct? |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
Correct. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 14 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX43 received in evidence) |\n| 15 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 16 | Q.
So turning now -- Mr. Chuff, can you pull up DX32. |\n| 17 | I'll just ask you to take a look.
So this is another |\n| 18 | article written by Bill Gertz.
This one dated October 9th, |\n| 19 | 2017.
Do you see that? |\n| 20 | A.
I do. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I take it, Mr. Greim, no dispute as to |\n| 22 | authenticity or the date of the article? |\n| 23 | MR. GREIM:
No, no, this is our own exhibit.
Or was. |\n| 24 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 25 | And, Chris, let's turn to the third page, please.
Q.
So I'll |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | direct your attention to a paragraph that starts with \"Guo |\n| 2 | said.\"
\"Guo said he maintains close ties to supporters within |\n| 3 | the Chinese government and security system and is able to |\n| 4 | obtain many internal documents.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And again, even by October of 2017, this wasn't a topic |\n| 7 | that you discussed with Mr. Gertz? |\n| 8 | A.
No, because Mr. Gertz didn't come to see me until |\n| 9 | mid-November. |\n| 10 | Q.
And you just relied -- instead of doing your own due |\n| 11 | diligence into Mr. Guo's background, you just relied on the |\n| 12 | recommendation of Mr. Gertz and Dr. Han; you decided to enter |\n| 13 | into the research agreement? |\n| 14 | A.
That's not a very fair question, no. |\n| 15 | Q.
So just -- so my question is -- well, you didn't do any due |\n| 16 | diligence into Mr. Guo's background prior to entering into the |\n| 17 | contract, correct? |\n| 18 | A.
We did.
In December, and I think towards the end of |\n| 19 | November, both Mr. Lianchao Han and Bill Gertz discussed what |\n| 20 | it was that had been -- some of the stuff that had been |\n| 21 | discussed in print and what they knew about him, but this was a |\n| 22 | preliminary discussion.
You must remember they were talking |\n| 23 | about creating a social profile in Washington and looking at |\n| 24 | real estate.
It had nothing to do with the deeper dive. |\n| 25 | Mr. Chuff, let's pull up the deposition transcript from
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | February.
Okay.
So Ms. Wallop, we're looking again from your |\n| 2 | deposition transcript from February of 2019.
This is the first |\n| 3 | page; do you see that? |\n| 4 | I do.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And I'll ask Mr. Chuff to turn, please, to page 90.
And |\n| 6 | looking, for starters, at line 4, the interrogator says: |\n| 7 | \"Okay.
So you didn't do any work regarding Mr. Guo or his |\n| 8 | business prior to the execution of the contract on or about |\n| 9 | January 6, 2018? |\n| 10 | \"A.
No.\" |\n| 11 | Do you see that? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
\"You didn't access your network to determine whether this |\n| 14 | was someone you wanted to do business with or not, correct?\" |\n| 15 | I'm sorry, did I read that correctly? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes, you read it correctly. |\n| 17 | Q. |\n| 18 | \"A.
We had Bill Gertz, who was one of the finest intellects on |\n| 19 | Chinese corruption and reporters, journalists and also |\n| 20 | Lianchao, again, of the highest Sterling standards.
When they |\n| 21 | asked us to look into it, that's what we did.
That was looking |\n| 22 | into putting together a program that would help somebody that |\n| 23 | we believed at the time was absolutely anticommunist.\"
Did I |\n| 24 | read that correctly? |\n| 25 | Yes, and that's --
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, what did you say?
I didn't |\n| 2 | hear what you said. |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
I said yes, your Honor.
Something has |\n| 4 | happened to my microphone. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Did you -- |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
I didn't touch anything. |\n| 7 | (Pause) |\n| 8 | Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I think we solved the problem. |\n| 10 | Ms. Wallop, were you asked those questions and did you |\n| 11 | give those answers in your deposition? |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
May I ask to have that |\n| 13 | question repeated? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Sure.
Were you asked those questions? |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, I was. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And gave those answers? |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, I did. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Were they truthful? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 21 | (Continued on next page) |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 2 | Q.
And then just to finish up the line, starting at line 22 of |\n| 3 | page 90, it says: |\n| 4 | \"Q.
Strategic Vision relied upon the recommendation of Bill |\n| 5 | Gertz and Lianchao Han in terms of deciding to do business with |\n| 6 | or deciding to enter into the research agreement? |\n| 7 | \"A.
Correct.\" |\n| 8 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I take it that was your answer and it was |\n| 11 | truthful? |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir. |\n| 13 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 14 | Q.
But you were, by the way, aware of an allegation, before |\n| 15 | entering the agreement, that Mr. Guo had defrauded a family in |\n| 16 | the United Arab Emirates of over \\$2 billion? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
And you entered into the research agreement notwithstanding |\n| 19 | awareness of that allegation, correct? |\n| 20 | A.
I didn't know the details. |\n| 21 | Q.
You were aware of the allegation, and you, nevertheless, |\n| 22 | entered into the research agreement, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Correct, without knowing the details, yes. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cline, are you at a convenient |\n| 25 | breaking point, or will you be at a convenient breaking point |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | soon? |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
Yes.
Two more minutes, Judge, if that's |\n| 3 | okay? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Absolutely. |\n| 5 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 6 | Q.
You didn't actually know what Eastern was going to do with |\n| 7 | the investigation results; is that correct? |\n| 8 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 9 | Q.
And you even thought that Mr. Guo might, quote, \"run it |\n| 10 | both ways\" against and in favor of the Chinese Communist Party, |\n| 11 | right? |\n| 12 | A.
It was Guo who hired us, essentially, via Eastern Profit, |\n| 13 | and I can't answer that yes or no. |\n| 14 | Q.
But you knew, didn't you, that Mr. Guo -- you thought that |\n| 15 | maybe he was going to run it both ways; isn't that true? |\n| 16 | A.
I made that statement, yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
It was accurate at the time you made it? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | And Strategic did not require Eastern to make a written
Q. |\n| 20 | representation in the research agreement that Mr. Guo was a |\n| 21 | Chinese dissident who opposes the CCP, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
Correct. |\n| 23 | MS. CLINE:
Okay.
Now, your Honor, would be a good |\n| 24 | time, if it works. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Why don't we take ten minutes.
It's now |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 11:55.
We'll reconvene at 12:05 and go to about 1:00 o'clock. |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | (Recess) |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cline, you may inquire. |\n| 5 | Ms. Wallop, you're reminded that you're still under |\n| 6 | oath. |\n| 7 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 8 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 9 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, I just wanted to start with a housekeeping |\n| 10 | matter. |\n| 11 | When you mentioned the name of the litigation funder, |\n| 12 | I think you spelt it C-i-r-a-n-u-s.
Is it possible it's |\n| 13 | actually C-y-r-a-n-u-s? |\n| 14 | A.
It could be, yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you know whether it's located out of Tennessee? |\n| 16 | A.
I don't. |\n| 17 | Q.
In connection with its fraud claim, Strategic takes the |\n| 18 | position that it sustained over \\$763,000 in reliance damages; |\n| 19 | is that correct? |\n| 20 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 21 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, can we pull up Strategic's |\n| 22 | findings of fact. |\n| 23 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, you're aware that in connection with sort of |\n| 24 | the pretrial preparation, Strategic submitted a proposed |\n| 25 | findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Court? |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, could you please turn to |\n| 3 | footnote 140 on page 23. |\n| 4 | You're there.
Is there any way you could make the |\n| 5 | font a little bigger? |\n| 6 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes. |\n| 7 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 8 | Q.
So, directing your attention to footnote 140 of Strategic's |\n| 9 | proposed findings of fact, does footnote 140 set forth |\n| 10 | Strategic's allocation of fraud damages in this case? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
So the first category is a \\$200,000 allocation for your own |\n| 13 | business expenses; is that correct? |\n| 14 | A.
Correct. |\n| 15 | Q.
Then there are two allocations for Mr. Waller's personal |\n| 16 | allocations which totaled 250,000, right? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
25,000 in travel expenses attributed to Mr. Waller, right? |\n| 19 | Correct.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And then there's a \\$200,000 payment made to Team 1.
Is |\n| 21 | that one of the subcontractors that Strategic Vision contracted |\n| 22 | with? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And then Team 2, is that another subcontractor? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And that was a payment there of a little over \\$5,400, |\n| 2 | right? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | And then Team 1's search cost for \\$17,686, do you see that
Q. |\n| 5 | there? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And that was a payment made to a company called Fletcher, |\n| 8 | right? |\n| 9 | A.
In the U.K., yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
And then there was one more disbursement to |\n| 11 | Georgetown Research in May of 2018 for \\$15,000, right? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
And Georgetown Research is owned by Mr. Waller, right? |\n| 14 | A.
Dr. Waller, yes. |\n| 15 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, I don't know if this is possible, |\n| 16 | but could you pull up our chart sort of simultaneously. |\n| 17 | Q.
While he's doing that, Ms. Wallop, by any chance, in your |\n| 18 | prep for trial, did you ever come to realize that the amounts |\n| 19 | contained in footnote 140 were \\$50,000 short of \\$763,000? |\n| 20 | A.
In addition to, I believe.
We did find that there were |\n| 21 | some additional monies that had been paid. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay.
So, what we've tried to do here on the right-hand |\n| 23 | side is just kind of put in a chart form what you're saying |\n| 24 | that -- what Strategic is saying in footnote 140 and that I |\n| 25 | think we caught the amount error, which we'll walk through it, |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and you can tell me if we're right or wrong. |\n| 2 | So, again, comparing footnote 140 to PDX 1, see |\n| 3 | category 1 is your business expenses for \\$200,000, so we're |\n| 4 | square on that one, right? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Okay.
And then Mr. Waller's personal allocation is 250, as |\n| 7 | reflected in 140, correct? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And then his travel expenses were 25,000, correct? |\n| 10 | A.
At least, yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Okay.
And then this category, this fourth category, in the |\n| 12 | amounts paid to Team 1, is this where you discovered an error? |\n| 13 | Because it looks like, in footnote 140, it attributes a |\n| 14 | \\$200,000 payment to Team 1.
We think it might be 250.
Does |\n| 15 | that sound right to you? |\n| 16 | A.
It does, but I honestly have to rely upon my counsel |\n| 17 | because we worked on making sure that the numbers were correct. |\n| 18 | Q.
Okay.
We'll get into some detail.
I'm just trying to get |\n| 19 | the big picture. |\n| 20 | Category 5 is the amount paid to Team 2, right, |\n| 21 | \\$5,412? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And category 6 is Fletcher for \\$17,686? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | And then category 7 is another amount to Georgetown
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Research for \\$15,000? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And if you total all of those up, they total \\$763,098, |\n| 4 | which is consistent with what Strategic claims in the findings |\n| 5 | of fact, correct? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes, I'm sure that's correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
Now I'd like to move to another chart we've made that takes |\n| 8 | this information and just displays it a little differently. |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
So, Chris, can you pull up slide 5. |\n| 10 | Q.
I'll go through all of these with you. |\n| 11 | At the top is the million dollars that went into |\n| 12 | Strategic Vision.
Do you see that? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
Let's start on the right-hand side, there's the 200,000 for |\n| 15 | your business expenses.
Does that make sense? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And the 17,686 to Fletcher, do you see that? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | And then the \\$50,000 for Team 1.
Q.
I'll show you in an |\n| 20 | exhibit related to that in a second. |\n| 21 | And, then, is it your understanding that the remainder |\n| 22 | of the disbursements made for which Strategic was claiming |\n| 23 | damages were made to Mr. Waller or entities owned or controlled |\n| 24 | by Mr. Waller; is that accurate? |\n| 25 | It appears to be so.
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And, then, your understanding is that with respect to the |\n| 2 | amounts distributed to Mr. Waller, he kept some of those for |\n| 3 | himself and -- a portion of those for himself, but also |\n| 4 | allocated some of those to subcontractors, correct? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
So let's start -- what I didn't put on here is the \\$5,412 |\n| 7 | allegedly paid to Team 2. |\n| 8 | Is your understanding that that amount was actually |\n| 9 | paid directly by Georgetown Research? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
So that amount of money didn't come directly from |\n| 12 | Strategic Vision, it came out of one of Mr. Waller's |\n| 13 | allocations, correct? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And Team 2 was comprised of an entity called Allied Special |\n| 16 | Operations Group; is that correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes.
Known as ASOG, yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
And ASOG -- this is a yes-or-no question.
ASOG never |\n| 19 | provided any research results to Strategic; isn't that true? |\n| 20 | A.
No. |\n| 21 | Q.
Let me ask it differently.
Did ASOG ever provide any |\n| 22 | research results to Strategic? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Is your testimony that Allied Special Operations Group |\n| 25 | provided a report to Strategic Vision? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
They gave us an oral report. |\n| 2 | Q.
It's correct to say that ASOG never provided a written |\n| 3 | report, correct? |\n| 4 | That's correct.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And you're not able to identify any benefit that was |\n| 6 | achieved by Eastern Profit in exchange for the \\$5,412 that went |\n| 7 | to ASOG, are you? |\n| 8 | A.
Benefit?
Is that your question? |\n| 9 | Q.
That's correct.
I'm asking what -- you're not able to |\n| 10 | identify anything that Eastern Profit got in exchange for that |\n| 11 | \\$5,412, are you? |\n| 12 | A.
We relayed the information we'd gotten from ASOG to |\n| 13 | Lianchao, and, therefore, he relayed it to Guo, so it was |\n| 14 | verbal. |\n| 15 | Q.
And there were no reports -- there were no written reports |\n| 16 | passed along to Eastern Profit, correct? |\n| 17 | A.
There were not allowed to be. |\n| 18 | Q.
But the answer is there were no written reports? |\n| 19 | Correct.
A. |\n| 20 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, could you pull up — and, again, |\n| 21 | I'll see if we can simultaneously — PX 23 and PX 22. |\n| 22 | Q.
So, Ms. Wallop, hopefully appearing on your screen |\n| 23 | simultaneously are two exhibits.
PX 22 is on the left.
That |\n| 24 | is a compilation of Strategic Vision's bank account statements, |\n| 25 | right? |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Correct. |\n| 2 | Q.
And PX 23 is a damages chart that you put together, |\n| 3 | correct? |\n| 4 | An allocation of the expenses.
A.
I don't know how it was |\n| 5 | defined. |\n| 6 | Q.
Okay.
But Exhibit 23 is a document that you prepared in |\n| 7 | connection with -- |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
-- Strategic's damages calculation in this case? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
What I'd like to do is start with Exhibit PX 23.
You've |\n| 12 | got a color code there pursuant to which things marked in red |\n| 13 | are for wires out; is that right? |\n| 14 | A.
Correct. |\n| 15 | Q.
And that's for wires of payments made via wire going out of |\n| 16 | Strategic Vision's bank account, correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Correct. |\n| 18 | MS. CLINE:
And, actually, Chris, instead of PX 22, |\n| 19 | can you pull up the PDX one, the fifth slide again, and do that |\n| 20 | side by side. |\n| 21 | Okay.
So, Mr. Chuff, if you could turn to page 2 of |\n| 22 | Exhibit 23. |\n| 23 | Just for the Court's edification, PX 23 has three |\n| 24 | colors on it — green, yellow, and red — and at least in the |\n| 25 | paper copies, I'm not certain that the yellow highlighting came |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | through, but you can see it on the screen.
So I just wanted |\n| 2 | everyone to be aware of that. |\n| 3 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 4 | Q.
So, Ms. Wallop, going back to PX 23, the colors that are |\n| 5 | highlighted here correspond to the color code that you put on |\n| 6 | the first page of the document, right? |\n| 7 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 8 | Q.
And so the column on the right-hand side represents wires |\n| 9 | going out, and that's marked in red, correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Correct. |\n| 11 | Q.
Going back to the mistake we thought we'd identified in |\n| 12 | footnote 140, do you see your first entry under the \"Wires Out\" |\n| 13 | category is a \\$50,000 wire where it says \"Hill invoice\"?
Do |\n| 14 | you see that? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And Hill is affiliated with Team 1; is that correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Correct. |\n| 18 | Is it fair to say that that \\$50,000 was an allocation for
Q. |\n| 19 | Team 1? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And then the next wire out is \\$200,000 to Cyber Solutions. |\n| 22 | Do you see that? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | And that was another entity that was owned by Mr. Waller;
Q. |\n| 25 | is that right? |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
So, just to take a step back, the \\$50,000 wire that went to |\n| 3 | Hill, that went directly from Strategic to Hill, correct? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
The \\$200,000 went to Cyber Sol, and then from Cyber Sol, to |\n| 6 | Team 1; is that correct? |\n| 7 | A.
I think, and it's been some time ago, but I believe that |\n| 8 | the 200,000 to Cyber Sol went to -- well, it was to one of |\n| 9 | Mike's companies to Mike for his participation, and then the |\n| 10 | next two figures went out to Team 1, and I may have had those |\n| 11 | reversed.
I just can't remember at this point. |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, if you would, could you bring back |\n| 13 | up the findings of fact, footnote 140. |\n| 14 | Is there any chance, Chris, that you can put that next |\n| 15 | to the -- Mr. Chuff, could you put the footnote 140 next to the |\n| 16 | exhibit that talks about wires out. |\n| 17 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 18 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, sort of comparing the two to try to get the |\n| 19 | dates right, if you look at footnote 140, there's a |\n| 20 | disbursement, but the \\$50,000 to Hill isn't in 140, correct? |\n| 21 | A.
I'm sorry, I've lost track.
Where is it -- it's not here |\n| 22 | on the left-hand, page 23? |\n| 23 | Q.
Our understanding is that the \\$50,000 that was wired to |\n| 24 | Hill is not accounted for in footnote 140.
I'm asking if you |\n| 25 | agree with that. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
No, it doesn't appear to be.
I'm not sure why not. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
And then in your wires out chart on the right-hand |\n| 3 | side, there's an entry, \\$200,000 to Cyber Solutions.
Do you |\n| 4 | see that? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And this page we're looking at on PX 23 is for the wires |\n| 7 | that went out in January of 2018, correct? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And the \\$200,000 Cyber Sol entry on PX 23 corresponds with |\n| 10 | the notation in footnote 140 for Team 1, Cyber Solutions, |\n| 11 | 200,000, in January 2018, correct? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 13 | Q.
All right. |\n| 14 | And then going back to Exhibit 23, there's a \\$25,000 |\n| 15 | disbursement to GRG.
Do you see that? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And if you compare that back over to footnote 140, that's |\n| 18 | the amount that was disbursed to Mr. Waller for his travel |\n| 19 | expenses in January of 2018? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And then the \\$200,000 wire to GRG, that goes to Michael |\n| 22 | Waller's personal allocation, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 24 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you pop back up the chart -- |\n| 25 | yes, perfect. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
So, you see on the chart on the left-hand side, there's a |\n| 2 | wire that goes directly from Strategic Vision to Team 1 for |\n| 3 | \\$50,000.
Do you see that? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And then at the bottom on the left, there's the payment for |\n| 6 | \\$200,000 to Team 1 that goes through Cyber Sol to Team 1, |\n| 7 | correct? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes.
Yes. |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, could you turn to page 7 of |\n| 10 | Exhibit PX 23. |\n| 11 | Q.
Again, we're going to be focusing just on the wires out |\n| 12 | column.
I'm just trying to make sure you and I are on the same |\n| 13 | page, Ms. Wallop. |\n| 14 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you scroll down, so we can see |\n| 15 | the date at the top. |\n| 16 | Q.
So this page 7 of PX 23 on the right-hand side shows the |\n| 17 | wires going out of Strategic Vision in May of 2018, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | And the 17,686, that goes to Fletcher, correct?
Q. |\n| 20 | A.
Yes, for work done in February. |\n| 21 | Q.
And there's another \\$15,000 disbursement to Georgetown |\n| 22 | Research, correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 24 | Q.
That was for Mr. Waller's personal allocation, correct? |\n| 25 | Not personal allocation.
A.
It was for legal costs. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
It was for, I'm sorry? |\n| 2 | A.
It was for a legal cost relating to this contract. |\n| 3 | Q.
Okay.
This is the first time we're hearing that. |\n| 4 | What was the nature of the legal cost? |\n| 5 | A.
To give us a legal opinion on the work that we were doing |\n| 6 | overseas. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did Strategic submit any invoices or receipts in connection |\n| 8 | with that legal cost? |\n| 9 | A.
No, I don't know, I don't remember, but you would have to |\n| 10 | ask Dr. Waller. |\n| 11 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you scroll to the next page in |\n| 12 | PX 23. |\n| 13 | Q.
And then page 8 of PX 23, in the wires out column, it shows |\n| 14 | a wire of \\$50,000 to OE.
Do you see that? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes.
And that's my handwriting.
It should be OA, not OE. |\n| 16 | Q.
It's an abbreviation for Oceanic Advisors, correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 18 | Q.
That's another entity owned by Mr. Waller? |\n| 19 | Yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
So now that we have kind of the lay of the land, I'd like |\n| 21 | to talk through each of the categories.
So let's start first |\n| 22 | and talk about the monies wired to Team 1. |\n| 23 | So, between the 50,000 that Strategic sent directly |\n| 24 | and the 200 that went through Cyber Sol, Team 1 was paid |\n| 25 | \\$250,000; is that right? |\n| | |\n\nL4JKEAS3 Wallop - Cross of 225\n\n| 1 | A.
Yes, I believe -- yes, at least.
It could have been more, |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | but I was not privy to that.
It could have been more from -- |\n| 3 | sorry.
It could have been more from -- through Georgetown |\n| 4 | Research.
We had to compartmentalize a number of things where |\n| 5 | he was aware of some things and I was aware of some things. |\n| 6 | Q.
But in terms of the damages allocation or claim in this |\n| 7 | case in footnote 140, Strategic is claiming -- in footnote 140, |\n| 8 | Strategic is claiming \\$200,000, and in your own damages chart, |\n| 9 | you're claiming \\$50,000 on top of that, right?
That's what -- |\n| 10 | with respect to Team 1, Strategic is claiming a total of |\n| 11 | \\$250,000? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes.
I believe that's true, yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
And Team 1 supposedly submitted an invoice in connection |\n| 14 | with its work on this case, right? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And the invoice was for \\$200,000; isn't that right? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, could you please bring up PX 24. |\n| 19 | Q.
Do you recognize this to be the invoice that was submitted |\n| 20 | on behalf of Team 1? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
There are a bunch of redactions.
Can you tell us the |\n| 23 | reason for those redactions? |\n| 24 | A.
Because they were the identity of Team 1 overseas. |\n| 25 | Q.
The identity?
The identity -- |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Team 1's invoice. |\n| 2 | Q.
I'm just -- |\n| 3 | A.
I'm not sure.
You'll have to ask Dr. Waller.
He was the |\n| 4 | one that was most familiar with this. |\n| 5 | Q.
Okay.
But, to your knowledge, this is the only invoice |\n| 6 | ever attributed to Team 1, correct? |\n| 7 | A.
I'm not sure.
Dr. Waller would know best. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Are you offering PX 24? |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Yes, please, your Honor. |\n| 10 | (Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 received in evidence) |\n| 11 | MS. CLINE:
Let's go, please, Mr. Chuff, to |\n| 12 | Exhibit 22. |\n| 13 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 14 | Q.
We're going now, Ms. Wallop, to Strategic's bank |\n| 15 | statements. |\n| 16 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, if you could please scroll to |\n| 17 | page 2. |\n| 18 | Q.
If we look at the top of the page, on January 9th, there is |\n| 19 | a -- that signifies the wire that went out to Team 1? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes.
That was the initial payment for computers and |\n| 21 | telephones, laptops, the work that we were preparing to do. |\n| 22 | Q.
And that invoice number there matches the one on Exhibit 24 |\n| 23 | that was supposedly submitted by Team 1, right? |\n| 24 | A.
I presume so.
I don't know. |\n| 25 | Did you ever come into possession of the computers and
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | other equipment for which this supposedly paid? |\n| 2 | A.
It wasn't supposedly.
They did pay them overseas. |\n| 3 | Q.
Did you get receipts, invoices? |\n| 4 | I personally did not.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Has Strategic Vision ever seen any proof of payment as to |\n| 6 | what this \\$50,000 went to? |\n| 7 | A.
You'd have to ask Dr. Waller. |\n| 8 | Q.
Scrolling down again, so we're at -- by your color coding |\n| 9 | system, we're focusing now on the things in red that match the |\n| 10 | wires out? |\n| 11 | A.
Correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
So there's a wire out on January 12th for \\$200,000? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
And the information as to that wire has been redacted.
Do |\n| 15 | you see that? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And why is that? |\n| 18 | A.
That was to Team 1. |\n| 19 | I guess my question is:
Q.
So why is the information related |\n| 20 | to Team 1 redacted? |\n| 21 | A.
Because it was compartmentalized, and we were very careful |\n| 22 | about having the PRC looking into the work we were doing. |\n| 23 | Q.
Well, right now, you're not compartmentalizing it from |\n| 24 | anyone other than us, right? |\n| 25 | Is there any evidence on this document as to whom that |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS3
Wallop - Cross |\n| 1 | \\$200,000 went to? |\n| 2 | A.
Again, you'd have to discuss it with Dr. Waller. |\n| 3 | Q.
Team 1 never delivered any written reports in connection |\n| 4 | with its \\$250,000 price tag, did it? |\n| 5 | A.
We delivered USB keys and -- with data on it.
That's how |\n| 6 | Guo wanted it to be done.
He didn't want anything in writing |\n| 7 | as far as reports. |\n| 8 | Q.
So the information that you didn't see that came in on the |\n| 9 | USB drive, your understanding is that that was from Team 1? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes, it was from Team 1. |\n| 11 | Q.
But those two USB drives didn't contain any of the reports |\n| 12 | called for under the research agreement, right? |\n| 13 | A.
I can't -- I would say they did.
I was not privy to them |\n| 14 | because Dr. Waller had to fly overnight to pick them up, and |\n| 15 | bring them back, and deliver them to Yvette Wang in the train |\n| 16 | station. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wallop, I think you testified before, |\n| 18 | you don't know what was on the USB drives? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, I don't know. |\n| 20 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 21 | Q.
Let's move now and talk about the money that was paid to |\n| 22 | Fletcher. |\n| 23 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, could you pull up PX 29. |\n| 24 | Before I forget, your Honor, we're going to -- I'm |\n| 25 | still using them, but we're going to move the admission of 22 |\n| | |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| and 23. |\n| (Plaintiff's Exhibits 22 and 23 received in evidence) |\n| BY MS. CLINE: |\n| Ms. Wallop, is this the invoice that Strategic received in
Q. |\n| connection with the payment to Fletcher? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
But there was no written contract with Fletcher as to the |\n| services it was going to perform, right? |\n| A.
No, because it was highly sensitive, and we did produce the |\n| report. |\n| Q.
Yes. |\n| So the report that you received from Fletcher was |\n| provided to Strategic on March 21st, 2018; isn't that right? |\n| A.
It was, but it was contracted in February. |\n| Q.
But my question is just Strategic received the report on |\n| March 21st of 2018, right? |\n| A.
I guess so. |\n| Q.
And Eastern had terminated the contract a month earlier; |\n| isn't that true? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
And you didn't call up Fletcher and say pencils down, the |\n| contract has been terminated, did you? |\n| A.
No, because we were still in negotiations with Lianchao, |\n| and we'd already contracted with Fletcher to do the work on two |\n| individuals in the file. |\n| |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, I just really need you to answer my question. |\n| 2 | So you agree that Eastern terminated the research |\n| 3 | agreement on February 23rd? |\n| 4 | Yes, they did.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And Fletcher didn't deliver its report until March 21st, |\n| 6 | right? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
You did nothing in the interim to stop Fletcher from |\n| 9 | continuing to accrue money that you're now claiming as damages |\n| 10 | in this case; isn't that true? |\n| 11 | A.
No. |\n| 12 | Q.
I'm sorry, I thought I'd asked this:
Upon receipt of the |\n| 13 | termination notice from Eastern, did you call up Fletcher or |\n| 14 | otherwise communicate with him and ask them to stop incurring |\n| 15 | costs? |\n| 16 | A.
It was already in play; it was already being done. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wallop, would you please answer the |\n| 18 | question. |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
I apologize. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
The question, as I think it is, is:
Did |\n| 21 | you call them up and tell them stop all work? |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
No, I did not, your Honor. |\n| 23 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you pull up slide number 5. |\n| 24 | Sorry, your Honor.
We would move the admission of |\n| 25 | PX 29. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | (Plaintiff's Exhibit 29 received in evidence) |\n| 3 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 4 | So just sort of looking at this chart, and we're getting
Q. |\n| 5 | stakes in the ground, we've talked about Team 1, we've talked |\n| 6 | about Fletcher, we talked about some of the amounts that went |\n| 7 | to Mr. Waller and his entities.
We'll ask Mr. Waller about |\n| 8 | some of those as well. |\n| 9 | Let's turn now to the box in yellow, the \\$200,000 in |\n| 10 | business expenses that Strategic is claiming with respect to |\n| 11 | your business expenses. |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, let's go back to Exhibit 22. |\n| 13 | Q.
So following the color code on your Exhibit 22, Ms. Wallop, |\n| 14 | is it correct that the amounts highlighted in yellow are what |\n| 15 | comprise the business expenses attributable to you? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | MS. CLINE:
I'm sorry, Chris, can you also pop up 23 |\n| 18 | just for a second. |\n| 19 | Chris, can you go to January? |\n| 20 | Q.
Just so we're all understanding what you did, for each |\n| 21 | month, you tallied all of the business expenses in your bank |\n| 22 | account statement, and then you came up with a total for the |\n| 23 | month; is that right? |\n| 24 | A.
In yellow, yes. |\n| 25 | So, in January, at the bottom of the yellow column, I think
Q. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | it goes on to the next page -- well, sorry, page 2, at the |\n| 2 | bottom, it's hard to see, but there's an amount for \\$5,856? |\n| 3 | A.
Correct. |\n| 4 | And then if you go to February, I think February leaks over
Q. |\n| 5 | into the next page, and there's a total for February of |\n| 6 | business expenses of -- scroll that up a bit -- \\$14,325? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And so on, you did that in Exhibit 23 for every month, |\n| 9 | correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes, I did. |\n| 11 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you go to PDX -- the slide that |\n| 12 | has Ms. Wallop's monthly tallies. |\n| 13 | Q.
So, originally, when you put the damages calculation |\n| 14 | together, you had put in amounts for every month, and it |\n| 15 | totaled something like approximately \\$175,000, right? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
But then when we took your deposition, and we had a |\n| 18 | discussion around these damages, your counsel conceded that |\n| 19 | Strategic was only going to claim damages for January, |\n| 20 | February, and March, correct? |\n| 21 | A.
Which counsel? |\n| 22 | Q.
Mr. Greim, on behalf of Strategic. |\n| 23 | A.
All right.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
So now instead of claiming \\$175,000 in business expenses, |\n| 25 | if you turn to the next page, Strategic's -- just in terms of |\n| | |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| your business expenses, Strategic's just claiming an amount no | | | |\n| greater than \\$39,251, right? | | | |\n| A.
Of whatever my counsel has agreed to, yes.
Yes. | | | |\n| Okay.
Q.
Now let's go back to Exhibit 22.
I just want to go | | | |\n| through some of these examples of the expenses. | | | |\n| | | | |\n| MS. CLINE:
So, Chris, can you turn back a page, | | | |\n| please. | | | |\n| Q.
So there is a charge for \\$36.99 on January 4th.
Do you see | | | |\n| that? | | | |\n| A.
Yes, for the Wall Street Journal. | | | |\n| Q.
It's for the Wall Street Journal.
You're claiming that as | | | |\n| a business expense? | | | |\n| A.
Yes. | | | |\n| Q.
And then there's -- the next entry is for \\$123 of a cash | | | |\n| withdrawal.
Do you see that? | | | |\n| A.
Yes. | | | |\n| Q.
Do you have any invoices or receipts supporting what you | | | |\n| spent that \\$123 on? | | | |\n| No.
A. | | | |\n| MS. CLINE:
Turn to the next page, please, Mr. Chuff. | | | |\n| Q.
Just by way of example, on January 10th, there's a payment | | | |\n| for \\$2,000.
That was, I think you told me in your deposition, | | | |\n| in connection with your own personal income taxes, right? | | | |\n| A.
Yes.
Strategic Vision's, yes. | | | |\n| Well, it was for your income taxes, wasn't it?
Q. | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | A.
Yes, it's one and the same thing. | | | |\n| 2 | Q.
And then if you look down further, on January 10th, there's | | | |\n| 3 | an expense for \\$1,315 that was spent at Hermès, right? | | | |\n| 4 | Yes.
A.
But then I made it green and not yellow. | | | |\n| 5 | Q.
Oh, okay.
So that one comes out, you agree? | | | |\n| 6 | A.
Yes.
It was a gift for Yvette. | | | |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
That's quite a gift. | | | |\n| 8 | A.
She likes Hermès. | | | |\n| 9 | Q.
Well, she paid for it. | | | |\n| 10 | January 12th, there's another ATM withdrawal for | | | |\n| 11 | \\$102.50? | | | |\n| 12 | A.
I have no idea what that was for.
Taxies, I don't know. | | | |\n| 13 | MS. CLINE:
Let's turn the page, again, just by way of | | | |\n| 14 | example only, Mr. Chuff. | | | |\n| 15 | Q.
So now I'd like to look at the exhibit -- sorry, the | | | |\n| 16 | calendar date of January the 19th.
There's a purchase at Tumi | | | |\n| 17 | for \\$206.71? | | | |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 19 | You charged that as a business expense, right?
Q. | | | |\n| 20 | A.
I did. | | | |\n| 21 | Q.
That was a laptop envelope, right? | | | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 23 | Q.
Going down a little bit, there's entries for 1446 and 3796. | | | |\n| 24 | Those are Amazon purchases, right? | | | |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. | | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | Q.
Do you have any idea what those were for? | |\n| 2 | A.
No.
Not three years later, no. | |\n| 3 | Q.
And then there's a restaurant receipt for \\$263.58.
Do you | |\n| 4 | see that? | |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 6 | Q.
Cafe Milano, the place to see and be seen, right?
Isn't | |\n| 7 | that how they advertise themselves? | |\n| 8 | A.
I have no idea.
It's a restaurant. | |\n| 9 | Q.
Did you submit an invoice with the name of the people you | |\n| 10 | dined with and the business justification for the expense? | |\n| 11 | A.
I would have, yes. | |\n| 12 | Q.
Would you have produced it in this case? | |\n| 13 | A.
I wasn't asked to. | |\n| 14 | MS. CLINE:
Let's scroll down. | |\n| 15 | Q.
There's an entry for \\$249 on January the 25th.
That's a | |\n| 16 | subscription to the Financial Times.
You're claiming that as a | |\n| 17 | business expense? | |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 19 | MS. CLINE:
Now, Chris, if you could pop up 22 and 23 | |\n| 20 | simultaneously. | |\n| 21 | On PX 22, Mr. Chuff, could you please go to PX 22 at | |\n| 22 | 5. | |\n| 23 | Q.
So on the left-hand side, PX 22, there's an entry for | |\n| 24 | 199.95.
Do you see that? | |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | Q.
That's another restaurant bill, right? | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q.
And you didn't submit any invoices including the name of | |\n| 4 | the person and the business reason? | |\n| 5 | A.
I wasn't asked to. | |\n| 6 | MS. CLINE:
Scrolling down -- the next page of PX 22, | |\n| 7 | please, Chris.
That's good there. | |\n| 8 | Q.
So at the top of PX 22, there are entries for 38.89 -- | |\n| 9 | there are several entries that appear to have been yellow, but | |\n| 10 | then they're green, but my understanding is that those numbers | |\n| 11 | appear in the business expense column in the PX 23, right? | |\n| 12 | A.
They should. | |\n| 13 | Q.
So you're including -- everything there -- | |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 15 | Q.
-- is being included as a business expense in Strategic's | |\n| 16 | damages calculation, right? | |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 18 | Q.
So you're seeking reimbursement for Whole Foods and Trader | |\n| 19 | Joe's, right? | |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 21 | Q.
And a donation to the Swiss Foundation? | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 23 | Q.
That's a business expense? | |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 25 | And Sheridan Press, that's a newspaper, right?
Q. | |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | L4JKEAS3
Wallop - Cross | | |\n| 1 | A. | Yes. | | |\n| 2 | Q. | And how about the OSS Society, that's a business expense? | | |\n| 3 | A. | Yes. | | |\n| 4 | Q. | And the \\$575, if you continue to scroll down, for a | | |\n| 5 | LinkedIn subscription, Strategic Vision didn't already have | | | |\n| 6 | one? | | | |\n| 7 | A. | It did, but it was probably the updated -- I mean the | | |\n| 8 | annual one. | | | |\n| 9 | Q. | Okay.
And then -- | | |\n| 10 | A. | The premium account. | | |\n| 11 | Q. | At the bottom of the page, \\$418.70, that's another trip to | | |\n| 12 | Tumi, right? | | | |\n| 13 | A. | It wasn't another trip, as you put it.
It was a briefcase. | | |\n| 14 | Q. | And it's a briefcase for you, right? | | |\n| 15 | A. | Yes. | | |\n| 16 | Q. | Tumi -- | | |\n| 17 | A. | For business. | | |\n| 18 | Q. | It's a high-end luxury store, right? | | |\n| 19 | A. | No.
It's an airport shop. | | |\n| 20 | Q. | And Strategic is including -- | | |\n| 21 | | THE COURT:
These days, those two are not necessarily | | |\n| 22 | | inconsistent with one another. | | |\n| 23 | | THE WITNESS:
I know, your Honor.
You're right. | | |\n| 24 | | BY MS. CLINE: | | |\n| 25 | Q. | But Strategic is seeking reimbursement for your Tumi | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS3
Wallop - Cross |\n| 1 | briefcase, right? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | MS. CLINE:
Next page, please, Mr. Chuff. |\n| 4 | There is a --
Q. |\n| 5 | MS. CLINE:
And I'm almost done, your Honor.
A few |\n| 6 | more minutes. |\n| 7 | Q.
At the top of the page, there's a \\$1,534 purchase from |\n| 8 | Bloomingdale's, right? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
That was for a coat for yourself, correct? |\n| 11 | A.
I think I actually found the receipt.
It was two suits, a |\n| 12 | skirt, and a jacket, a coat, yes. |\n| 13 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I know it's in my opening, but |\n| 14 | I stipulated we are not claiming the business expenses here.
I |\n| 15 | let it go on for a while to have some fun, but I think, if |\n| 16 | we're trying to use our time wisely, we are not seeking this |\n| 17 | yellow category.
I've said -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I know it's your time, counsel.
If it's |\n| 19 | not being sought, think about how you want to spend your time. |\n| 20 | MS. CLINE:
Yes, that's the first I've heard that, |\n| 21 | your Honor.
So our understanding was that the stipulation was |\n| 22 | that Strategic was claiming expenses subsequent to March of |\n| 23 | 2018.
If they're going to agree that they're not seeking any |\n| 24 | of Ms. Wallop's business expenses, then I'll end the line. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, none of what's in yellow, |\n| | |\n\nL4JKEAS3 Wallop - Cross of 225\n\ncorrect? 1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMR. GREIM: That's right, your Honor. And I probably should have said in my opening, I would have said what's in yellow, I gave a few examples, so I meant -- and I should have cut it off to save her some time, but that is our stipulation.\n\nMS. CLINE: So there's -- in Eastern's -- sorry, in Strategic's damages calculation, in footnote 140, there's a claim for \\$200,000 of Ms. Wallop's personal business expenses. Am I understanding Strategic is not claiming those?\n\nMR. GREIM: No, that's not correct. The amount in yellow equals something like \\$40,000. That is not what the \\$200,000 is. That is for her time and effort. It's nothing to do with the yellow column.\n\nMS. CLINE: Okay.\n\nMR. GREIM: We will do this on direct or --\n\nTHE COURT: You'll have time, counsel, over the lunch break to figure out what you want to do on this line of examination. Why don't you go to your next line, unless this is your last one.\n\nMS. CLINE: Yes, I'm just about done, your Honor. If we are all in agreement that Strategic is not claiming any of the expenses illuminated in yellow, then I think we can stop with this line of questioning. 20 21 22 23\n\nBear with me one moment.\n\nMay I just consult with my colleague for one second?\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS3
Wallop - Cross |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Absolutely. |\n| 2 | (Pause) |\n| 3 | MS. CLINE:
Okay, your Honor, we have no further |\n| 4 | questions right now. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | It is about 12:53.
Why don't we take our lunch break |\n| 7 | until 1:55.
When we return, you'll still be under oath, |\n| 8 | Ms. Wallop. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 10 | (Luncheon recess) |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A F T E R N O O N
S E S S I O N |\n| 2 | 1:58 P.M. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Before we get started, Mr. Greim, as to |\n| 4 | any of the exhibits that were offered this morning, is the |\n| 5 | defense going to have an objection to any of them?
It didn't |\n| 6 | seem like any were objectionable. |\n| 7 | MR. GREIM:
I think -- your Honor, I think we'll be |\n| 8 | able to meet your deadline by tonight.
I think the answer is |\n| 9 | no, but we haven't actually pow-wowed to compare notes on that |\n| 10 | question quite yet. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I would ask that if there are going |\n| 12 | to be any objections as to the authenticity or the foundation |\n| 13 | for a document, you let me know when the document is being |\n| 14 | offered.
That way, the proponent of the exhibit can establish |\n| 15 | the foundation.
That's fine for both. |\n| 16 | MR. GREIM:
Actually, I will say this, just to make it |\n| 17 | easier.
We have no objection to the authenticity or foundation |\n| 18 | of any of the exhibits that we saw earlier, and I think, while |\n| 19 | I'll look to see if we have something more substantive, but I |\n| 20 | can say that right at this moment. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Very well.
All right.
Counsel, you may |\n| 22 | inquire. |\n| 23 | Ms. Wallop, you're reminded that you are still under |\n| 24 | oath. |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300 |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 2 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 3 | Ms. Wallop, I'm going to run through sort of a quasi-direct
Q. |\n| 4 | examination of you, and I'm going to run through the same |\n| 5 | topics generally that you heard from Ms. Cline this morning, |\n| 6 | with a few others added in. |\n| 7 | First, I want to ask you just a little bit more about |\n| 8 | your background.
Where, again, did you get your degree from? |\n| 9 | A.
I was in school in Switzerland for many years, and I was at |\n| 10 | Ecole d'Interpretes, in Geneva, and then transferred to |\n| 11 | Georgetown University to the language and linguistics |\n| 12 | department. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
And what was the degree that you got? |\n| 14 | A.
Simultaneous interpreting. |\n| 15 | Q.
And is that linguistics program part of a broader school |\n| 16 | there? |\n| 17 | A.
It is now.
It's part of the school for foreign service. |\n| 18 | Q.
After you graduated, did you go into politics? |\n| 19 | A.
I began to work on various campaigns some years later.
I |\n| 20 | think it was 1972. |\n| 21 | Q.
Okay.
And did you work on campaigns into the '80s, as |\n| 22 | well? |\n| 23 | A.
I did.
One of my companies, Corporate Travel Services, |\n| 24 | managed all of the Reagan-Bush campaign travel, and logistics |\n| 25 | for both campaigns, along with many associations and law firms |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and corporations. |\n| 2 | Q.
During the '80s, what was your career?
What did you do? |\n| 3 | A.
Well, I had Corporate Travel Services and Corporate |\n| 4 | Consulting International, and the travel services speaks for |\n| 5 | itself.
The consulting firm did very similar things to what |\n| 6 | I'm doing now, with a greatly reduced staff. |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
Just so that's clear, the Corporate Consulting |\n| 8 | International, that's the entity that Eastern mentioned on your |\n| 9 | other examination? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
I'm sorry.
Was that entity much smaller than Strategic |\n| 12 | Vision? |\n| 13 | A.
No, it was much larger. |\n| 14 | Q.
Okay.
How many people worked there? |\n| 15 | A.
We had, over a 20-some-year period, between 200 to 300, and |\n| 16 | some were independent contractors. |\n| 17 | Q.
Now, did you also marry a politician? |\n| 18 | A.
I did. |\n| 19 | Okay.
Q.
Who was that? |\n| 20 | A.
I married Malcolm Wallace, who was the senior Senator from |\n| 21 | Wyoming. |\n| 22 | Q.
And -- |\n| 23 | A.
In 1984. |\n| 24 | Q.
Did you meet many people through your prior political work |\n| 25 | and your marriage to Senator Wallace? |\n| | |\n\nL4JPEAS4 Wallop - Redirect\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\nA. Yes. My career in Washington had developed as a result of my family's long-standing relationships in Washington and Maryland, both politically, as well as in banking, as well as\n\ninvestments and real estate.\n\nQ. Let me -- let's now talk about Strategic Vision. You talked about some of your typical work with -- on your last examination, and you mentioned overseas investigations. Can you recall, sitting right here, any recent overseas investigate -- or I'm sorry, overseas investigations that were similar to what you were trying to do for Mr. Guo here? A. One of them would have been -- and there were several. One of them would have been for Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was one of my clients in the United States, although he's based in London, and we did some investigations, background in London on his behalf and also in Russia. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nQ. Ms. Wallop, now I'm going to ask you about your work on the Eastern Profit project. Did Strategic investigate any crimes or civil wrongs on the Eastern Profit project? 16 17 18\n\nA. No. 19\n\nQ. Did it do any investigation to recover stolen property? A. No. Q. Or to locate stolen property? A. No. 20 21 22 23\n\nQ. Did it do any investigation for asset recovery?\n\nA. No. 25\n\n24\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Now, you did testify that one of the things that you |\n| 2 | thought you might have found was finding money taken out of |\n| 3 | China by the CCP illegally.
Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 4 | Actually, I don't.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Okay.
Well, let me ask you.
Was one of the things you |\n| 6 | thought you might find in this Eastern investigation, money |\n| 7 | taken out of China by CCP members illegally? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 10 | A.
I don't recall. |\n| 11 | Q.
Okay.
Let me ask you.
Did Mr. Guo ever claim to you to be |\n| 12 | a victim of the CCP taking money out of China illegally? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did Mr. Guo ever identify for you other people who would be |\n| 15 | victims of CCP officials sending money out of China illegally? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
Did he ever -- and let me expand it out now, not to just |\n| 18 | Mr. Guo, but Mr. Guo, Yvette Wang or Lianchao Han, did they |\n| 19 | ever claim to you to be involved in or getting ready to start a |\n| 20 | case for asset recovery? |\n| 21 | A.
Not with us. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did they ever tell you that they wanted to use the research |\n| 23 | that you were going to find for some legal proceeding for asset |\n| 24 | recovery? |\n| 25 | No.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Did they ever identify for you any victim of a crime? |\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
Did Mr. Guo ever claim he wanted to use -- let me go back |\n| 4 | out and run into all three. |\n| 5 | Did Mr. Guo, Yvette Wang, or Lianchao Han ever claim |\n| 6 | to you that they wanted to use your research to recovery some |\n| 7 | specific asset of theirs that had been stolen? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, from even before the time you formed Strategic |\n| 10 | Vision, through your time with Strategic Vision, have you ever |\n| 11 | considered being licensed as a PI? |\n| 12 | A.
Never. |\n| 13 | Q.
Have any of your projects, including this one, been done at |\n| 14 | a time when you knew your client was in an open law enforcement |\n| 15 | investigation relating to that research project? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
Let me now move to Mr. Gertz and Lianchao Han.
We'll talk |\n| 18 | more about the circumstances here.
Now, I think you testified |\n| 19 | before you'd known Mr. Gertz for some decades before he |\n| 20 | approached you? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Where was your first meeting with Mr. Gertz, by the way? |\n| 23 | A.
Regarding this project? |\n| 24 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 25 | At my home.
A. |\n\n| | L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
So did he physically -- he physically came to your house? |\n| 2 | A.
Well, he called me up and he said:
French, I'd like to |\n| 3 | come see you about something, and I think it might be of |\n| 4 | interest.
And I said:
Bill, it's great to hear from you. |\n| 5 | Yes, come for lunch one day this week.
And since his office is |\n| 6 | very close to my home, he walked over, and we had lunch that |\n| 7 | week. |\n| 8 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, in fact, had you worked earlier in 2017 with |\n| 9 | Bill Gertz for one of your clients? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
What was that? |\n| 12 | It was also for -- to give Bill Gertz an exclusive because
A. |\n| 13 | we're both very anticommunist, and it was for an exclusive |\n| 14 | interview with Mikhail Khodorkovsky. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Gertz has authored books about |\n| 16 | national security? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, he has. |\n| 18 | Has he authored one on Guo?
Q. |\n| 19 | A.
Yes, he has. |\n| 20 | Q.
But that was after this contract; is that right? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did you trust -- I'm sorry.
I know I keep drifting.
Did |\n| 23 | you trust Mr. Gertz? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
Let me ask you about Lianchao Han.
You told us a little |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | bit before about what you knew about him.
What did you know |\n| 2 | about Mr. Lianchao Han's background? |\n| 3 | A.
Well, I've known Lianchao many years, off and on.
He |\n| 4 | was -- he worked on the Hill with several Senators, including |\n| 5 | my late husband, and he -- my husband was then on the |\n| 6 | Intelligence Committee, and Lianchao worked with Angelo |\n| 7 | Codevilla, and then also with Lianchao. |\n| 8 | They -- we were all very focused on Taiwan at the |\n| 9 | time, and that's how I knew him, during Taiwan, as well as |\n| 10 | other dissident organizations in Washington that he was |\n| 11 | involved with, anticommunist, anti-CCP. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you have any understanding as to whether Lianchao |\n| 13 | actually immigrated here from China? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes, I knew he had. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did you, yourself, consider him a dissident? |\n| 16 | Yes.
A. |\n| 17 | Q.
Let me ask you now about a name that's come up several |\n| 18 | times.
We haven't heard from him yet, Dr. J. Michael Waller. |\n| 19 | Was he at the first meeting with Gertz that had both Gertz and |\n| 20 | Lianchao at it? |\n| 21 | A.
Not the first -- oh, sorry.
Let me back up.
Bill Gertz |\n| 22 | and I had lunch together, and then the subsequent meeting was |\n| 23 | with Mike Waller and Lianchao and Bill Gertz at my home over |\n| 24 | lunch. |\n| 25 | Q.
Was he there at your invitation? |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Why did you invite him? |\n| 3 | A.
Because Bill Gertz suggested that he had been in touch with |\n| 4 | Lianchao, and they apparently were close friends of Guo's, and |\n| 5 | I didn't know the gentleman's name at the time as being Miles |\n| 6 | Guo; so Bill suggested that I invite or include Lianchao, and |\n| 7 | at that time, I also included Mike Waller. |\n| 8 | Q.
And so my question is, why did you include Mr. Waller, |\n| 9 | then -- Dr. Waller? |\n| 10 | A.
Oh, because he is an expert on intelligence analysis.
He's |\n| 11 | written substantially over the past 25 years on dissidents and |\n| 12 | also on Russian, as well as Chinese or Asian scenarios, as well |\n| 13 | as Central American tactics that are used to turn countries |\n| 14 | from being democratic to being more communist, I guess, is the |\n| 15 | best word. |\n| 16 | Q.
I'm sorry, are you saying he was trying to make countries |\n| 17 | more communist? |\n| 18 | A.
No, he was trying to turn countries from being communist. |\n| 19 | How long have you known Mr. Waller?
Q. |\n| 20 | A.
Oh, 30, 35 years. |\n| 21 | Q.
Had you worked with him before at a professional context? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes.
When he was at the Institute of World Politics, John |\n| 23 | Lenczowski was the head of it.
I was on the board of trustees |\n| 24 | of Boston University, and I worked with John Silber, who was |\n| 25 | chairman, to assist IWP in Washington to get their credentials. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And I met Mike, although I knew Mike, but I met Mike and spent |\n| 2 | more time with him while he was at IWP. |\n| 3 | Q.
Had he worked on Strategic Vision projects in the past |\n| 4 | before this project? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes, he had. |\n| 6 | Q.
What was that? |\n| 7 | A.
He worked on one Middle Eastern project with me, and then |\n| 8 | he also worked on a Russian project. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay.
Let's talk about the first meeting with Mr. Guo.
Do |\n| 10 | you recall when that was? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
When was it? |\n| 13 | A.
I believe it was November -- I'd have to look at the |\n| 14 | calendar, but I think the 21st. |\n| 15 | Q.
Okay.
Well, let's -- |\n| 16 | A.
It might have been earlier. |\n| 17 | Q.
Let's put up Exhibit 62. |\n| 18 | And, Ms. Wallop, I'm going to ask, do you have a |\n| 19 | binder back there yourself? |\n| 20 | A.
No, I do not. |\n| 21 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, is it possible to let the |\n| 22 | witnesses also have a hard copy binder? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I'm fine with that.
Do you have a copy |\n| 24 | for the witness? |\n| 25 | MR. GREIM:
It's somewhere in here.
We'll get to it. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I don't want to take a pause. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
That's all right.
I'm good. |\n| 3 | MR. GREIM:
Take up our time. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I can look at the exhibits from my video. |\n| 5 | You can borrow my binder. |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Thank you.
We won't take it from you |\n| 7 | right this second.
I'll just forge ahead.
If we take a break, |\n| 8 | we'll try to find it.
We'll find it around here somewhere. |\n| 9 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
Let's look at exhibit -- if you could scroll through |\n| 11 | that, please. |\n| 12 | A.
November. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
Do you recognize this document? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
What exhibit number are we on? |\n| 16 | MR. GREIM:
We're on Defendant's Exhibit 62, DX62. |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you recognize this document? |\n| 18 | A.
I do. |\n| 19 | What is it?
Q. |\n| 20 | A.
It's a calendar, one of my calendars. |\n| 21 | Q.
Is it a calendar that you kept during the course of the |\n| 22 | events that are indicated here? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Is that your general practice to do that? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| 1 | | MR. GREIM:
We move the Court for its admission. |\n| 2 | | THE COURT:
Received, subject to objections. |\n| 3 | | (Defendant's Exhibit DX62 received in evidence) |\n| 4 | | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 5 | Q. | All right.
Ms. Wallop, from looking at this exhibit, can |\n| 6 | | you tell when that first meeting was? |\n| 7 | A. | Yes, it was the 21st of November 2017. |\n| 8 | Q. | Who all was in attendance there? |\n| 9 | A. | It was myself and Mike and Miles and Lianchao. |\n| 10 | Q. | Okay.
You said Miles, who is that? |\n| 11 | A. | That's Guo, sorry. |\n| 12 | Q. | All right.
Guo Wengui? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q. | Does he go by another name? |\n| 15 | A. | He goes by about eight different names.
Let's just call it |\n| 16 | | Miles Guo, or Miles Kwok. |\n| 17 | Q. | Miles Kwok.
By the way, was Han Chunguang there? |\n| 18 | A. | Yes, he introduced us. |\n| 19 | Q. | Did you observe what Han Chunguang was doing? |\n| 20 | A. | I'm sorry.
I thought you meant Lianchao, excuse me. |\n| 21 | Q. | I'm sorry.
Not Lianchao.
This is Han Chunguang.
Was he |\n| 22 | there? | |\n| 23 | A. | Yes, he was there. |\n| 24 | Q. | Was he introduced to you? |\n| 25 | A. | No. |\n| | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
How do you know it was him? |\n| 2 | A.
Well, I recognized him when we finally had the deposition |\n| 3 | for the signature, the faked, forged signature on the contract. |\n| 4 | Ms. Wallop, what was he doing at the meeting?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
He was serving lunch. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Was there a motion with respect to that |\n| 7 | prior answer, the \"faked, forge signature\"? |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Yes, your Honor.
Objection, lack of |\n| 9 | foundation. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'll strike the language \"faked, forged |\n| 11 | signature\" for foundation and outside the scope. |\n| 12 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 13 | Q.
Was Yvette Wang at this meeting? |\n| 14 | A.
She was. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did she actually participate in it? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
What did you see her doing there? |\n| 18 | A.
She was serving tea, or she was in and out of the room at |\n| 19 | Guo's request. |\n| 20 | Q.
How did you understand Lianchao Han's role at this meeting? |\n| 21 | A.
Lianchao was a close advisor to Guo, and he was the one |\n| 22 | that introduced us to Guo, via Bill Gertz as well. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did he ever translate on behalf of Guo? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes, he did. |\n| 25 | What was your initial impression of Guo?
Q. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I thought he was a very suave, sophisticated, show-off-y |\n| 2 | individual who liked to boast about how much money he had and |\n| 3 | how much influence he had. |\n| 4 | Q.
Could he speak English? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes, his English was pretty good. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did he appear to understand when you spoke English to him? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes, he did. |\n| 8 | Q.
But did he still require Lianchao's services, to some |\n| 9 | degree, as far as you could tell? |\n| 10 | A.
I think \"to some degree\" is a fair assessment, yes, when |\n| 11 | the conversation became a bit more complex. |\n| 12 | Can we put up Defense Exhibit 38.
Q. |\n| 13 | Now, Ms. Wallop, do you recognize this as the same |\n| 14 | exhibit that the plaintiff showed you -- |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
-- before the break? |\n| 17 | A.
I do. |\n| 18 | And you testified that Lianchao Han helped in its
Q. |\n| 19 | preparation? |\n| 20 | A.
He did. |\n| 21 | Q.
Were you present for that? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
Counsel showed you a few statements in here.
I'm going to |\n| 24 | ask you to take a look at the very first part that was skipped |\n| 25 | over here.
Do you see where it says:
\"This is a vision for |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. G to remain safely in this country and accomplish his |\n| 2 | mission back home\"? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Did you understand that, at this time, that that was what
Q. |\n| 5 | you were supposed to be trying to do for Mr. Guo? |\n| 6 | MS. CLINE:
Objection, leading. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
This is a bench trial.
Overruled. |\n| 8 | A.
I'm sorry, that was part of what he was looking for us to |\n| 9 | consider. |\n| 10 | Q.
Yes.
And actually, I should have asked a better question |\n| 11 | anyway; so let me ask you.
Did you understand whether Mr. Guo |\n| 12 | had any goals, other than those two main goals, at this time? |\n| 13 | A.
Oh, no. |\n| 14 | Q.
And so did Mr. Guo represent to you in this meeting that he |\n| 15 | was concerned about being sent back to China? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And what did he say his mission back home was?
Or let me |\n| 18 | ask you, did he indicate what his mission back home was? |\n| 19 | Yes, to dismantle the CCP in China and overturn the
A. |\n| 20 | government. |\n| 21 | Q.
What did Guo tell you about himself? |\n| 22 | A.
Well, he told us a little bit about his growing up, his |\n| 23 | childhood in a rural area, and he had a number of brothers and |\n| 24 | sisters.
He didn't have much in the way of education; that he |\n| 25 | had made his way to, I guess, must have been Beijing and became |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | friends with a number of people within the hierarchy through |\n| 2 | different activities. |\n| 3 | Q.
Did Mr. Guo mention an asylum application in this meeting? |\n| 4 | I know it was mentioned.
A.
I'm not entirely sure if it was |\n| 5 | in this meeting, but it probably wasn't.
I'm sure he mentioned |\n| 6 | that he had applied for asylum. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did you have any understanding as to whether Lianchao Han, |\n| 8 | or anyone else, was working with Guo on that application? |\n| 9 | A.
So this -- this particular meeting would have been the 21st |\n| 10 | of November, if I'm correct.
Is that what -- yes, it would |\n| 11 | have been the first meeting; so 2017.
And I think Lianchao was |\n| 12 | the attorney, he told us, to file the asylum paperwork for |\n| 13 | Mr. Guo. |\n| 14 | Q.
Let's fast forward.
We won't go through all of the |\n| 15 | different meetings you had, but I will ask you actually if you |\n| 16 | can pull up Exhibit 62 again.
I'm going to ask you, do you see |\n| 17 | any other meetings, or can you tell us when you had follow-up |\n| 18 | meetings with Mr. Guo? |\n| 19 | Yes.
A.
This is the December 2017 calendar.
My calendar.
It |\n| 20 | appears 20 -- I'm sorry, the 4th of December Yvette and |\n| 21 | Lianchao, myself and Mike and, obviously, Guo. |\n| 22 | And then there was another meeting with Mike, myself, |\n| 23 | Lianchao on the -- sorry, on the 10th.
And then we had |\n| 24 | another -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And was that one where Mr. Guo was present |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | also? |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, it was on the 11th.
We arrived for |\n| 3 | meetings on the 10th, and then we met with Guo on the 11th. |\n| 4 | I'm sorry, your Honor. |\n| 5 | MR. GREIM:
If I can clear that up, your Honor. |\n| 6 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 7 | Q.
So was the meeting on the 10th without Guo? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Only with Lianchao? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And then the following day you all met with Guo? |\n| 12 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 13 | Q.
All right.
And then do you see any other meetings in |\n| 14 | New York with Guo? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes.
On the -- sorry, on the 21st. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
And again, Lianchao was present for that? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, he was. |\n| 18 | Q.
And then yourself and -- let me ask you.
Who was present? |\n| 19 | Well, Lianchao, myself and Michael, Dr. Waller.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Was Yvette Wang at that meeting? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes, she was.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
And I'm sorry, how are you able to tell that by looking at |\n| 23 | your calendar? |\n| 24 | A.
Because I put a \"Y\" down there in the corner; so it must |\n| 25 | have meant Yvette. |\n| | |\n\nL4JPEAS4 Wallop - Redirect of 225\n\n| 1 | Q.
Very good.
Okay.
We won't try to run through each of |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | those meetings.
I want to ask you, though, did there come a |\n| 3 | time when Guo or Lianchao proposed a research project to you? |\n| 4 | A.
It was sort of done in stages.
So yes, it would have been |\n| 5 | on the 4th of December, and then subsequently on the 11th of |\n| 6 | December, during those meetings. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did Guo tell you anything about whether he, himself, had |\n| 8 | any goals from that research project? |\n| 9 | A.
He did.
We were initially having the conversation about |\n| 10 | identifying real estate in Washington, substantial homes or |\n| 11 | home, as well as for substantial office building. |\n| 12 | The home budget, he said, would go anywhere from 65 to |\n\nThe home budget, he said, would go anywhere from 65 to 80 million, and the office building complex for his foundation would be in downtown Washington and there was a budget for that --\n\nQ. Mrs. Wallop, I'm going to stop you there. I'm going to focus you on the question of what he said to you, or whether he told you he had any goals for the research project. I understand you're trying to give some background, but just try to focus on the answer. 16 17 18 19 20\n\nA. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. 21\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\nQ. Okay. And what did he say his goals were? A. He wanted to establish a presence in Washington. He wanted to have a sort of social and political presence of power and influence, and he was looking for a team that would be able to 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | do that for him. |\n| 2 | Q.
My question, though, is about the research project. |\n| 3 | A.
Right. |\n| 4 | Okay?
Q.
So what did he say to you were his goals about the |\n| 5 | research project? |\n| 6 | A.
So that began on the 11th and the 21st by saying he wanted |\n| 7 | to create a research project that would expose a number of the |\n| 8 | CCP hierarchy and their children in the United States, as well |\n| 9 | as in the mainland. |\n| 10 | Q.
Did he tell you why he wanted to do that? |\n| 11 | A.
Because he felt at the time that that would help topple the |\n| 12 | regime that he felt was corrupt. |\n| 13 | Q.
Now, did you -- sometime in mid to late December, did you |\n| 14 | reach an agreement in principle with Guo that you would try to |\n| 15 | undertake that kind of a project? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes, after the 21st of December, we had done a PowerPoint |\n| 17 | presentation to him on the foundation.
We waited about a week, |\n| 18 | until we had heard back one way or the other from Lianchao Han |\n| 19 | as to working on an agreement. |\n| 20 | Q.
Now, that agreement, we already heard, was finally signed |\n| 21 | on January 6th, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 23 | Q.
Before deciding whether to finally enter into this |\n| 24 | agreement, did you rely on Guo's representations about himself? |\n| 25 | I did.
A. |\n| | |\n\n| of 225
L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| Q.
Did you rely on Guo's representations about how he wanted |\n| to use the research you were going to provide? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Would you have entered into the contract with Guo if you
Q. |\n| thought he was not a true dissident? |\n| A.
Never. |\n| Q.
Would you have entered into the contract if you thought he |\n| did not intend to use the research to undermine the CCP? |\n| A.
No. |\n| Q.
Now, did Guo's statements about himself seem reliable to |\n| you? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
Why is that? |\n| A.
He had Lianchao and Bill Gertz as sort of references, and |\n| he seemed initially to be very committed to being a dissident |\n| and anti-CCP. |\n| Q.
With Lianchao -- let me ask you.
You said he had Lianchao |\n| as a reference.
Do you have any understanding as to whether |\n| Lianchao would also be working on the project with you? |\n| A.
Yes.
He was the -- the correspondent and the advisor to |\n| Guo during the entire time, up until the last part of December. |\n| Q.
Now, in your last examination, we noticed -- we pulled up a |\n| research agreement and saw that there was no reference to Guo |\n| or to the CCP or even to China within the research agreement. |\n| |\n| |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Why not ask that Guo's statements about himself and his |\n| 3 | plans to use the research be put into the research agreement as |\n| 4 | representations? |\n| 5 | A.
Because he was adamant about keeping this secret and away |\n| 6 | from prying eyes and the CCP working knowledge as to the |\n| 7 | project. |\n| 8 | Q.
By the way, did you ever tell Guo, Yvette Wang or Lianchao |\n| 9 | that you were a licensed private investigator in the laws of |\n| 10 | many states? |\n| 11 | A.
No. |\n| 12 | Q.
Was licensure ever discussed with them? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | Q.
Have you ever had a client ask you whether you are a PI |\n| 15 | before you can begin the work? |\n| 16 | A.
Never. |\n| 17 | Q.
Have you ever had a client demand that you be a PI before |\n| 18 | you do the work? |\n| 19 | No.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Have you ever heard from Virginia that you were out of |\n| 21 | compliance with its licensure law? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
Have you ever heard that from any state? |\n| 24 | A.
Never, no. |\n| 25 | Now, did there come a time when Lianchao Han was replaced
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | by anyone else as the main point of contact with Guo? |\n| 2 | A.
Well, at the end of the negotiations of the contract, |\n| 3 | Yvette became -- Yvette Wang became the -- I guess, the liaison |\n| | |\n| 4 | with Guo. |\n| 5 | Q.
Okay.
When was that? |\n| 6 | A.
That would have been about the 28th -- 28th, 29th of |\n| 7 | December. |\n| 8 | Q.
Did you personally meet with Yvette around that time? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes, I did. |\n| 10 | Q.
Where was that? |\n| 11 | A.
In Washington. |\n| 12 | Q.
So what day did she actually arrive in DC? |\n| 13 | A.
She arrived on the 29th, according to my calendar. |\n| 14 | Q.
I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you to take a closer look at |\n| 15 | your calendar, Ms. Wallop.
Are you certain -- |\n| 16 | A.
Well, it was the 28th.
She arrived on the night of the |\n| 17 | 28th, as I understood it, and then we met on the 29th. |\n| 18 | Q.
Very good.
And did anyone accompany her -- I'm sorry, let |\n| 19 | me back up.
What did you do with Yvette in DC? |\n| 20 | A.
Well, Lianchao and Yvette and myself drove around with |\n| 21 | Yvette and Lianchao in the back seat of my car, and I drove her |\n| 22 | to a number of estates or larger properties in Washington, in |\n| 23 | Georgetown and Kalorama, Spring Valley and so forth, to give |\n| 24 | her an idea about some of the homes that may be -- it might be |\n| 25 | possible to buy under a private listing or pocket listing, as |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | they call it in the real estate business. |\n| 2 | And then also, we looked at several large office |\n| 3 | buildings, including the one that Guo wanted, which was the old |\n| 4 | Riggs Bank Building across from the U.S. Treasury. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, Ms. Wallop, you didn't show any of those properties to |\n| 6 | them? |\n| 7 | A.
I didn't get out and walk them through the houses, no, but |\n| 8 | I drove them around to see them from the outside.
And we could |\n| 9 | have had access.
That was not a reason -- we would have had |\n| 10 | access if they liked them. |\n| 11 | Q.
Okay.
So at some point, did the discussion turn to the |\n| 12 | research agreement? |\n| 13 | A.
It did. |\n| 14 | Q.
When was that? |\n| 15 | A.
That was also on the 29th of December. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
And did you have any understanding as to why Yvette |\n| 17 | had come down to talk about the research agreement? |\n| 18 | A.
Because they kept changing the terms after we would agree |\n| 19 | to certain things in the agreement. |\n| 20 | Q.
Let me ask you this.
Did you have any understanding as to |\n| 21 | whether the agreement was supposed to be signed on that day? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes, it was supposed to be signed on the 29th. |\n| 23 | Q.
And was it signed on the 29th? |\n| 24 | A.
No. |\n| 25 | Why not?
Q. |\n| | |\n\n| | of 225
L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Because Yvette Wang got into some sort of argument with Guo |\n| 2 | and another individual on the phone about the payment. |\n| 3 | Q.
Let's take a step back just for a second.
We didn't really |\n| 4 | talk much about Yvette Wang to this point.
I actually also |\n| 5 | didn't ask you whether Guo formally introduced you to her.
Did |\n| 6 | he do that at some point? |\n| 7 | A.
He did at his apartment in New York. |\n| 8 | Q.
Okay.
So is this back earlier in December? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes, it would have been the 4th of December. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
December the 21st? |\n| 11 | A.
No, the 4th. |\n| 12 | Oh, the 4th.
Q.
Okay.
Fourth day, not the fourth week? |\n| 13 | A.
Right. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did he introduce her in any way -- let me ask you this. |\n| 15 | What did he introduce her as? |\n| 16 | A.
Well, originally as his assistant. |\n| 17 | Q.
Did he say anything else about what she did for him? |\n| 18 | A.
He said that she did, you know, what personal assistants do |\n| 19 | and -- but he sent her from the room. |\n| 20 | Q.
Okay.
When he formally introduced her, did he say anything |\n| 21 | else about her role to you? |\n| 22 | A.
Not at that time. |\n| 23 | Q.
Okay.
Now, I'm going to ask you what Yvette Wang told you |\n| 24 | about her role.
So what did Yvette Wang tell you was her role |\n| 25 | with respect to this contract? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Well, first of all, she said:
Guo is my boss.
I am |\n| 2 | project manager, and I will be handling this project moving |\n| 3 | forward. |\n| 4 | Now, did she tell you that she had sole authority on the
Q. |\n| 5 | project? |\n| 6 | A.
She did. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did she tell you whether things had to be approved by Guo |\n| 8 | ultimately? |\n| 9 | A.
Ultimately by Guo, yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Was that something that she said to you? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, but there were others. |\n| 12 | Q.
Now, you say \"but there were others.\"
Did there come a |\n| 13 | time when she mentioned that she had to report to other people |\n| 14 | as well? |\n| 15 | A.
She did. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
Who did she say she was reporting to? |\n| 17 | A.
She refused to tell me.
There were three or four other |\n| 18 | \"investors,\" as she called them. |\n| 19 | When did she tell you that she was reporting to other
Q. |\n| 20 | investors? |\n| 21 | A.
Probably during that time, the 28th and 29th of December. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did she indicate whether those investors, those three or |\n| 23 | four other investors, had any role in deciding whether to |\n| 24 | approve the contract? |\n| 25 | My understanding was that Guo was the final go-ahead on
A. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | approval, but that the others had some kind of sway internally, |\n| 2 | and I think there's some text messages that refer to that. |\n| 3 | Q.
By the way, were you still conferring with Lianchao during |\n| 4 | this time, even after Yvette took over as the main point of |\n| 5 | contact? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes.
I believe so.
I mean, he wasn't doing the |\n| 7 | negotiating by that time, but we were, obviously, all supposed |\n| 8 | to be on the same team. |\n| 9 | Q.
And so my question is, were you still conferring with him? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
About the contract? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
By the way, did Lianchao ever mention Eastern Profit to you |\n| 14 | before the contract was signed? |\n| 15 | A.
No, we never heard of it. |\n| 16 | Q.
Did he ever mention Eastern Profit to you? |\n| 17 | A.
No. |\n| 18 | Q.
And did there come a time when you just quit talking to |\n| 19 | Lianchao for good? |\n| 20 | A.
No.
In what time sequence, I'm sorry? |\n| 21 | Q.
Let me ask you.
Were you still talking to Lianchao about |\n| 22 | the contract in January? |\n| 23 | A.
I'm sure we were, yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
In February? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A.
I'm sure we were, even though he was not the |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | negotiating person for the contract by that time. |\n| 2 | Q.
Now we're in the performance time. |\n| 3 | A.
That's right. |\n| 4 | Did you still talk to Lianchao about the contract in
Q. |\n| 5 | February? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And in March? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
At any point did he ever mention Eastern Profit to you? |\n| 10 | A.
He never knew about Eastern Profit.
He never mentioned it. |\n| 11 | Q.
Well -- |\n| 12 | A.
Never mentioned it as far as -- no, not to my knowledge. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
And did he ever mention to you that there was some |\n| 14 | entity in Hong Kong trying to use the contract to recover |\n| 15 | frozen assets? |\n| 16 | MS. CLINE:
Objection. |\n| 17 | A.
No. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Hold on just a second.
There's an |\n| 19 | objection. |\n| 20 | What's the basis of your objection? |\n| 21 | MS. CLINE:
Leading, your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I'll permit it.
Overruled. |\n| 23 | A.
I think the answer was \"no.\" |\n| 24 | Q.
When did you first hear of Eastern Profit? |\n| 25 | We heard about Eastern Profit in the -- probably either the
A. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | 29th of December or the following week, which would have been |\n| 2 | the 6th of January -- 5th of January, 5th or 6th.
It must have |\n| 3 | been the 6sixth of January. |\n| 4 | Did anyone ever suggest to you -- and by \"anyone,\" I mean
Q. |\n| 5 | anyone at all, we're not limiting it to Lianchao here -- did |\n| 6 | anyone ever suggest to you that Eastern Profit was itself going |\n| 7 | to use the research? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
By the way, who told you the name Eastern Profit? |\n| 10 | A.
Yvette. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did she tell you anything else about Eastern? |\n| 12 | A.
No, I asked her.
She wouldn't tell me. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did Yvette tell you who was going to be using the research? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did Lianchao tell you who was going to be using the |\n| 16 | research? |\n| 17 | A.
Let me rephrase that on that.
Guo was going to be using |\n| 18 | the information, but we didn't know if he was passing it on to |\n| 19 | anyone else. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did you make any assumptions about what Eastern was before |\n| 21 | you signed the contract? |\n| 22 | A.
We felt it was probably one of his many shell companies. |\n| 23 | MS. CLINE:
Objection. |\n| 24 | Q.
Guo's? |\n| 25 | MS. CLINE:
Objection, lacks foundation.
Move to |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | strike. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
It's asking for understanding, her |\n| 3 | understanding.
Overruled. |\n| 4 | We understood that it was one of his shell companies, one
A. |\n| 5 | of many. |\n| 6 | Q.
So I take it you said this before Yvette's December 29th |\n| 7 | visit ended without the contract being signed? |\n| 8 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 9 | Q.
And it finally was signed when? |\n| 10 | A.
It was signed on the 6th of January. |\n| 11 | Q.
When did you hear that the contract was back on?
When did |\n| 12 | you first hear that? |\n| 13 | A.
Well, it was, I guess, during that weekend, and then Mike |\n| 14 | and Lianchao came to discuss the contract on, looks like, the |\n| 15 | 2nd of January at my home to try to figure out what was going |\n| 16 | on with these changes that were being made after we had had |\n| 17 | verbal agreements, and then they would change it again. |\n| 18 | Q.
And so do you recall when the date -- let me ask you this. |\n| 19 | Did there come a time when Yvette told you, yes, I can |\n| 20 | sign the agreement after all? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Do you recall when that was? |\n| 23 | A.
I believe that must have been -- and, again, there are text |\n| 24 | messages to it; so I think it was about the 4th or 5th of |\n| 25 | December -- I'm sorry, January.
Excuse me. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Let's pull up Defense Exhibit 16.
All right.
Do you |\n| 2 | recognize -- why don't you scroll through it so she can see all |\n| 3 | three pages? |\n| 4 | A.
Okay. |\n| 5 | Q.
And I might tell the witness, this might not be a bad time |\n| 6 | to go ahead and pick up one of the binders in front of you. |\n| 7 | A.
Oh, where, 38? |\n| 8 | Q.
Yes, we're at Exhibit 16.
These are text messages, and a |\n| 9 | lot of times you have to do a lot of flipping back and forth |\n| 10 | that the computer might not be good for. |\n| 11 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, can I approach the witness? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I'm not so sure.
Why don't we let her |\n| 13 | find it. |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
I think she may have the wrong binder. |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
I have the wrong binder.
I'm sorry, |\n| 16 | your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Take your time. |\n| 18 | A.
DX16 or 32? |\n| 19 | Q.
16. |\n| 20 | A.
16. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, I don't want you to approach |\n| 22 | the witness because of all of the restrictions in the |\n| 23 | courthouse. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor.
I think I've got |\n| 25 | it.
Okay.
I've got it. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
Now, do you recognize Exhibit 16? |\n| 3 | A.
I do. |\n| 4 | What is it?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
It is a text message between Yvette and myself on the, it |\n| 6 | looks like, the 5th of 2018, January 5th, 2018. |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
And is one color Yvette and one you? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes.
The darker color, which is normally blue, is Yvette's |\n| 9 | in this case. |\n| 10 | Q.
Does reviewing this document refresh your recollection |\n| 11 | regarding the time that Yvette reached out to you to say that |\n| 12 | she could sign the contract? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
When was it? |\n| 15 | A.
When we met or -- |\n| 16 | Q.
When did she reach out to you? |\n| 17 | A.
This was the 5th of January. |\n| 18 | Q.
And do you see she says:
\"Hi, both L and M advised me that |\n| 19 | we supposed to meet again\"? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did you understand who \"L\" was when that abbreviation was |\n| 22 | used? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes, it was Lianchao. |\n| 24 | Q.
And who was \"M\"? |\n| 25 | That was Miles Guo or Guo.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And so did you, in fact, meet her the following day? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
Before you got to that point, did you have one last |\n| 4 | discussion with Ms. Wang about what exactly the terms of the |\n| 5 | agreement were going to be? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And is that discussion reflected on -- |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
-- pages -- well, this is an Eastern production; so Eastern |\n| 10 | page 209 to Eastern page 213? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
And do you recall that Ms. Wang gave you her understanding |\n| 13 | of what the monthly payments were supposed to be? |\n| 14 | A.
That's correct, for the three months' initial term. |\n| 15 | Q.
All right.
And do you see she says:
\"I was advised that |\n| 16 | you agree with 15 fish and monthly 750,000 for January, |\n| 17 | February, March.
From April to December you agree with the |\n| 18 | adjustable monthly payment based on what we actually buy\"?
Do |\n| 19 | you read that? |\n| 20 | A.
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, is that consistent with your recollection of your |\n| 22 | discussions with her? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Now, did you actually agree with her comment here? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
She says:
\"The waterline of monthly 750,000 won't be |\n| 2 | written in the contract, please confirm.\"
Did you agree with |\n| 3 | that? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did you respond to her by text? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
Is your response right below? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And you respond:
\"The agreement for three months is |\n| 10 | correct\"? |\n| 11 | A.
Correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
\"January we have allowed 15 fish,\" is that what you say? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, was it going to be 15 fish for all the first three |\n| 15 | months? |\n| 16 | A.
We were supposed to back down to 10 per month because of |\n| 17 | the circumstances, the complications of these additional five |\n| 18 | fish, as we were calling them, five units, but that -- go |\n| 19 | ahead. |\n| 20 | Q.
Go ahead. |\n| 21 | A.
That was part of the reason they couldn't get their |\n| 22 | agreement coordinated, because we had always agreed to having |\n| 23 | ten units per month, not 15, and at the last minute they said, |\n| 24 | well, we need to have five more.
We need to put five more in, |\n| 25 | and I agreed to that. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
Now, let me ask you.
First of all, we never really laid |\n| 2 | the groundwork for this.
The Court may have seen this in all |\n| 3 | of our briefing, but what's a fish? |\n| 4 | It was a -- an individual to be researched.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And then for the 15 fish, how many of the three subjects of |\n| 6 | research were to be done for each of those 15; do you recall? |\n| 7 | A.
No. |\n| 8 | Q.
Okay.
Did you agree with Yvette Wang that the waterline |\n| 9 | wasn't even written into the contract? |\n| 10 | A.
Well, I mentioned it, and we had agreed that we'd always |\n| 11 | have a 10-fish minimum, which was the waterline. |\n| 12 | Q.
And did you believe that was, in fact, written into the |\n| 13 | agreement? |\n| 14 | A.
It was certainly our understanding. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did you have a follow-up discussion with -- well, actually, |\n| 16 | it turns out -- let's put up Exhibit 17.
We're going to flip |\n| 17 | back and forth because, for some reason, this discussion was |\n| 18 | split. |\n| 19 | Yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Let me ask you, first of all, do you recognize Exhibit 17? |\n| 21 | A.
I do. |\n| 22 | Q.
What is this? |\n| 23 | A.
She says I'm -- |\n| 24 | Q.
I'm just asking you what it is first. |\n| 25 | Oh, I'm sorry.
A.
It's a text between Yvette Wang and myself. |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Okay.
And once again, did each of you have a certain color |\n| 2 | here? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes.
She was the darker color in this case, and I was the |\n| 4 | white color. |\n| 5 | Q.
Okay.
So let's go back.
I'm going to ask you to go back |\n| 6 | and forth between the two of them. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Are you offering 16 and 17? |\n| 8 | MR. GREIM:
I will be.
I thought I would just, for |\n| 9 | the extent, and then just go to the foundation I thought I'd |\n| 10 | wait on that. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | Q.
So do you see kind of the -- later on the 5th, it looks |\n| 13 | like the evening of the 5th, does she ask you or do you recall |\n| 14 | whether she sent you to or asked you to send her the contract? |\n| 15 | A.
I remember that conversation.
Let me just find it here. |\n| 16 | And I told her we couldn't send it.
So what page was that? |\n| 17 | Q.
Let me ask you to take a look at the last page of |\n| 18 | Exhibit 16. |\n| 19 | Oh, okay.
A.
Sorry, sorry.
Yes.
\"Could you please send the |\n| 20 | contract here?
I get the right person to do.\"
This is from |\n| 21 | Yvette.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | Q.
Now, did you actually e-mail her the contract? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
Why not? |\n| 25 | Because both Guo and ourselves had emphatic instructions
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | never to e-mail anything regarding this contract. |\n| 2 | Q.
And then below that, you see she says:
\"There is, of |\n| 3 | course, no impasse here.
I work with several people -- M is |\n| 4 | one of them -- saying for this project, he is not the only |\n| 5 | boss.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 7 | Q.
Now, did you ask her who the other people she was working |\n| 8 | for were? |\n| 9 | A.
Not in this communique, but when I saw her on Saturday. |\n| 10 | Q.
And then if you look at the beginning of 17, at the very |\n| 11 | top -- |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
-- you see this actually continues on:
\"So I'm luckily the |\n| 14 | sole communicator on behalf of all of them\"? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
\"Looking forward to working with you\"? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
Now, did that concern you? |\n| 19 | It should have, had we not believed that Guo was the one
A. |\n| 20 | that was in charge, which is what he was telling us. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did you tell her who you thought the only people who should |\n| 22 | be privy to the contract were? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Who were those people? |\n| 25 | Lianchao, myself, Dr. Waller and Guo and herself, I guess,
A. |\n\n|----|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | | obviously. |\n| 2 | Q. | Did Yvette Wang confirm to you that your understanding was |\n| 3 | | correct? |\n| 4 | A. | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q. | Do you remember when she did that? |\n| 6 | A. | It must have been -- it must have been on the 5th, 5th and |\n| 7 | 6th. | |\n| 8 | Q. | Okay.
If you look at page 217 on Exhibit 17 -- |\n| 9 | A. | Yes.
Sorry, yes. |\n| 10 | Q. | Okay.
Look for page 217 on Exhibit 17. |\n| 11 | A. | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q. | Do you see a long, dark -- |\n| 13 | A. | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q. | -- box? |\n| 15 | A. | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q. | Now, the dark boxes are from Yvette? |\n| 17 | A. | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q. | And do you see where -- does she indicate in there who she |\n| 19 | | believes the exclusive communicants on the contract are? |\n| 20 | A. | Yes.
She says:
\"To sign tomorrow, are exclusively between |\n| 21 | | New York\" -- meaning Guo -- \"you\" -- meaning myself -- \"Mike |\n| 22 | | and me.\" |\n| 23 | Q. | \"Me\" is Yvette? |\n| 24 | A. | And \"me\" is Yvette.
Sorry. |\n| 25 | Q. | So did you -- I think you testified you met the next day |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and you signed the contract, right? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n| 3 | Q.
Did Eastern or Yvette or Guo ever tell Strategic Vision |\n| 4 | that the information from the research project would be given |\n| 5 | to ACA Capital? |\n| 6 | A.
Never. |\n| 7 | Q.
How would it have changed your plan and work if Guo or |\n| 8 | Lianchao or Yvette had communicated that the research from this |\n| 9 | project was meant to be used on specific crimes to recover |\n| 10 | specific property or for specific proceeds? |\n| 11 | A.
We would have never taken the client. |\n| 12 | Q.
Why is that? |\n| 13 | A.
Because it's not what we do. |\n| 14 | Q.
Let me forge ahead here.
Now, the contract was signed the |\n| 15 | 6th.
Was there a negotiated new start date for the contract? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes, there was. |\n| 17 | Q.
What was that date? |\n| 18 | A.
It would have been, I think, the 16th of January. |\n| 19 | Were there any issues in getting the research, sort of the
Q. |\n| 20 | starter information for the research, to get out to the |\n| 21 | researchers in Europe? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
What were those issues, just if you could walk through |\n| 24 | quickly? |\n| 25 | The first set of flash drives that she brought to my home
A. |\n| | |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\nL4JPEAS4 Wallop - Redirect of 225\n\non the 6th of January, there were three flash drives, I put all three into one of my laptops. They were all corrupted. They were all bad flash drives. So I said: Just a minute, Yvette. I'll be right back.\n\nSo I went down the street to a neighbor, who has an extensive operation with computers and so forth, plenty of screens and such, and I asked him if he would mind testing these three flash drives. And he said: Sure, fine. I've got fire walls. It should be okay.\n\nSo we inserted all three into several of his computers, and we got a massive amount of, I don't know another word for it, but sort of garbled trash across. There were no files in it. There was nothing that could be decoded or downloaded, and at that point, we began to pull the plugs immediately from the computers that were digesting this flash drive. We yanked the flash drives out, of course. Q. Let me stop you there, Ms. Wallop. Did you ultimately get replacements for those flash drives? A. I did that -- Q. Wait. Let's try to do more of a Q and A. I want to try to move this along, make sure we don't have a narrative. A. I know. Q. So, Ms. Wallop, did you have to travel to get the new ones? A. Yes. Q. Where did you go? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
That was Saturday when we got the bad ones.
Went to |\n| 2 | New York in Monday.
Met Yvette there in the lobby.
She gave |\n| 3 | me three more flash drives.
Out of those flash drives, only |\n| 4 | one worked. |\n| 5 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, let me stop you.
Who gave those to you? |\n| 6 | A.
Yvette. |\n| 7 | Q.
So ultimately, was the one that worked, were you able to |\n| 8 | duplicate those? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
And then what happened to those -- that information?
Where |\n| 11 | was it sent next? |\n| 12 | A.
I brought it back to Washington, or Virginia, and we then |\n| 13 | had set up some printers to -- that were not connected to the |\n| 14 | internet, to download the files that were part of this entire |\n| 15 | research project. |\n| 16 | Q.
Now, and so then those files were sent out to Team 1; is |\n| 17 | that right? |\n| 18 | A.
Team 1 came and collected them that week. |\n| 19 | What else had to be done with Team 1 to -- let me withdraw
Q. |\n| 20 | that question. |\n| 21 | Did you stay in touch with Yvette Wang during the |\n| 22 | first few weeks after January 16th? |\n| 23 | A.
Oh, yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay.
If we could, let's pull up Exhibit 19.
Do you |\n| 25 | recognize Exhibit 19, Ms. Wallop? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JPEAS4
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Before I do this, the Court prompted me, and then I |\n| 3 | promptly forgot. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
I would like to move the admission of |\n| 5 | Exhibits 16 and 17. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Those are received subject to motion to |\n| 7 | strike.
I take it there's no objection as to the authenticity |\n| 8 | or the time of those documents, correct? |\n| 9 | MS. CLINE:
Correct. |\n| 10 | (Defendant's Exhibits DX16 and DX17 received in |\n| 11 | evidence) |\n| 12 | (Continued on next page) |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 2 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't hear you, do you |\n| 3 | recognize Exhibit 19? |\n| 4 | I do.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
What is this? |\n| 6 | A.
This is, again, from Yvette to me on the 9th of January. |\n| 7 | Q.
During this time, did Yvette ever tell you that she was now |\n| 8 | reporting to someone other than Guo? |\n| 9 | A.
Well, she did on the 6th. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 11 | A.
I'm sorry. |\n| 12 | Q.
Right.
We're moving now into the 9th. |\n| 13 | A.
I know. |\n| 14 | Q.
So from the 9th, let's say, to the end of January, did |\n| 15 | Yvette tell you that she was getting research for someone other |\n| 16 | than Guo? |\n| 17 | A.
Not to my knowledge, unless it's in here. |\n| 18 | Q.
Well, take a second if you need to look through to be sure. |\n| 19 | I don't see that in here, and if I'm missing it, if you
A. |\n| 20 | would kindly point out to which page I should be looking at.
I |\n| 21 | don't see it. |\n| 22 | Q.
Ms. Wallop, did Yvette work to schedule a lunch between |\n| 23 | you, and Mr. Waller, and Guo? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | And she started those efforts in mid-January?
Q. |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | of 225
L4JKEAS5
Wallop - Redirect | |\n| 1 | A.
She did. | |\n| 2 | Q.
Did she refer to Guo in any particular way in these | |\n| 3 | messages? | |\n| 4 | Yes.
A.
She either called him captain, or boss, or chief. | |\n| 5 | Q.
If you look on exhibit-- I'm sorry, page 229 of this | |\n| 6 | exhibit, the dark color -- | |\n| 7 | A.
Yep. | |\n| 8 | Q.
-- on January 16th, you see she says, \"Good morning.
No | |\n| 9 | worries at all.
Totally understood about the food.
I'll let | |\n| 10 | the captain and chef know.\"
Do you see that? | |\n| 11 | A.
That's right. | |\n| 12 | Q.
Is this what you were referring to? | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q.
Was this meeting ultimately set up? | |\n| 15 | A.
Yes, it was. | |\n| 16 | Q.
Did Yvette tell you that the purpose of the meeting was for | |\n| 17 | Guo to review the research? | |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, but that was only five days after the signing of the | |\n| 19 | contract. | |\n| 20 | Q.
Well, if you look at -- I'm sorry, page 231, can you go | |\n| 21 | there? | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes, I have that. | |\n| 23 | Q.
You see that's on the 16th, that was the negotiated first | |\n| 24 | starting day of the contract? | |\n| 25 | That's correct.
A. | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | L4JKEAS5
Wallop - Redirect | |\n| 1 | Q.
And she says, \"Check with the captain\"? | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q.
Then \"He suggested to meet next week to review the weekly | |\n| 4 | result together with you, plus the private part.\"
Do you see | |\n| 5 | that? | |\n| 6 | A.
Correct. | |\n| 7 | Q.
What was \"the private part\"?
Do you have an understanding | |\n| 8 | of what that was? | |\n| 9 | A.
I would have to refer to Dr. Waller on that.
Right now, | |\n| 10 | I'm not quite sure. | |\n| 11 | MR. GREIM:
Move to admit Exhibit 19. | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Received subject to later motion to | |\n| 13 | strike. | |\n| 14 | I take it no questions as to authenticity? | |\n| 15 | MS. CLINE:
Correct. | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Very well. | |\n| 17 | (Defendant's Exhibit 19 received in evidence) | |\n| 18 | BY MR. GREIM: | |\n| 19 | You ultimately did meet with Mr. Guo, correct?
Q. | |\n| 20 | A.
Yes, that's correct. | |\n| 21 | Q.
That was at the end of January? | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 23 | Q.
What did Mr. Guo say at that meeting? | |\n| 24 | A.
That he wanted to have the reports right away, and he | |\n| 25 | needed everything by the 26th for some reason, so -- well | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | L4JKEAS5
Wallop - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q. | Did he tell you why he needed them on the 26th? |\n| 2 | A. | He did not. |\n| 3 | Q. | Did he tell you that he had a case or a lawsuit and he |\n| 4 | | needed to use it for that? |\n| 5 | A. | No, he did not. |\n| 6 | Q. | I want to fast forward a little bit here, Ms. Wallop, and |\n| 7 | | go to the period where the agreement was terminated. |\n| 8 | A. | Okay. |\n| 9 | Q. | Do you recall the date of that termination letter? |\n| 10 | A. | The date on the termination letter was the 23rd of |\n| 11 | | February. |\n| 12 | Q. | Did that come to your home? |\n| 13 | A. | I didn't receive it.
It went to the Las Vegas office, the |\n| 14 | | registered agent's office. |\n| 15 | Q. | When did you finally receive that letter? |\n| 16 | A. | I think it was at the very end of February. |\n| 17 | Q. | Could you look at something to help refresh your |\n| 18 | | recollection? |\n| 19 | A. | If I could see your -- yes. |\n| 20 | Q. | Your calendar? |\n| 21 | A. | Possibly. |\n| 22 | | MR. GREIM:
Let's put up Exhibit 62. |\n| 23 | Q. | What month should we be looking at? |\n| 24 | A. | February, I guess. |\n| 25 | Q. | Were you in the country when this letter was sent? |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I guess -- yes -- no, I was not.
I was in London. |\n| 2 | Q.
Why were you in London? |\n| 3 | A.
I was working with Fletcher and others to retrieve some |\n| 4 | information. |\n| 5 | Q.
We heard about Fletcher on your last examination.
What was |\n| 6 | Fletcher being used for again? |\n| 7 | A.
For two of the fish that were in the file. |\n| 8 | Q.
Why did you go to Fletcher for those two fish? |\n| 9 | A.
First of all, because it's the sort of thing he does, and |\n| 10 | he is an expert or they are an expert at retrieving |\n| 11 | information, particularly in the U.K., on individuals. |\n| 12 | Q.
When did you first make contact with Fletcher? |\n| 13 | A.
Oh, I've known him for many years, but -- |\n| 14 | Q.
I'm sorry.
On this matter? |\n| 15 | A.
Okay.
On this matter, I think I called him around the |\n| 16 | 12th, I would say the 12th of February, to let him know that I |\n| 17 | was probably headed to London. |\n| 18 | Q.
So you met with Fletcher.
Your meeting with Fletcher, |\n| 19 | then, that week of February looks like it starts with Monday |\n| 20 | the 19th? |\n| 21 | A.
19th, that's correct. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 23 | A.
But I had given him sort of a heads-up during that |\n| 24 | conversation, not on the background reasons, but on the names. |\n| 25 | Ms. Wallop, the Foley Hoag termination letter terminates
Q. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the contract immediately, right, or purports to do so? |\n| 2 | A.
I guess it did, yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
Now, did the research agreement allow for immediate |\n| 4 | termination of the contract? |\n| 5 | A.
No. |\n| 6 | Q.
What did it require? |\n| 7 | A.
It required a 30-day notice -- |\n| 8 | Q.
What was the purpose -- |\n| 9 | A.
-- by both parties. |\n| 10 | Q.
What was the purpose for that? |\n| 11 | A.
So that we could dismantle our teams and sort of wrap |\n| 12 | things up either way. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did it have any other purpose, 30 days' notice? |\n| 14 | A.
Well, we also wanted to make sure that we had the time to |\n| 15 | perhaps -- I wouldn't say renegotiate, but discuss whatever the |\n| 16 | issues were.
And, in fact, we had been having conversations |\n| 17 | with Lianchao -- |\n| 18 | Q.
Let's make sure we keep our answer -- I was going to ask |\n| 19 | you, though, did you, in fact, attempt to confer with Guo after |\n| 20 | receiving the Foley Hoag letter? |\n| 21 | A.
Oh, we did through Lianchao. |\n| 22 | Q.
Was that effort successful? |\n| 23 | A.
In contacting him, yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Were you successful at getting through to Guo? |\n| 25 | Yes, through Lianchao.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Did you continue trying to do what work was still possible |\n| 2 | to do in February after receiving that letter? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | I want to ask you now about damages.
Q.
I know we spent some |\n| 5 | time with some color charts before, and I want to see if we can |\n| 6 | clear a few things up. |\n| 7 | MR. GREIM:
So why don't we put up what was marked as |\n| 8 | Exhibit-- well, it's actually our Exhibit 64 and 65, |\n| 9 | Defendant's 64 and Defendant's 65. |\n| 10 | Very good.
Let's actually focus on 64. |\n| 11 | Q.
Now, Ms. Wallop, I understand you were walked through this |\n| 12 | using a footnote in the proposed findings and conclusions.
My |\n| 13 | question to you -- I'm going to focus just on this exhibit, |\n| 14 | okay -- there are two different \\$200,000 wires for Guo in the |\n| 15 | month of January; is that correct? |\n| 16 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 17 | Q.
And where did they go?
Where were the two different |\n| 18 | entities? |\n| 19 | One went to Cyber Sol, and the other went to GRG.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Now, which one of those actually went on through to Team 1? |\n| 21 | A.
The GRG, I believe. |\n| 22 | Q.
Now, you understand you testified earlier today that it was |\n| 23 | Cyber Sol? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes.
I wasn't sure which was which. |\n| 25 | Okay.
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
But now I guess I am, looking at it more closely. |\n| 2 | Q.
And, also, you testified that -- and, again, I understand |\n| 3 | this was walking you through the footnote to the proposed |\n| 4 | findings.
You testified that you paid yourself 200,000 for |\n| 5 | your own efforts? |\n| 6 | A.
I paid 250,000. |\n| 7 | Q.
No, right.
Well, let's just do this:
So earlier today, |\n| 8 | you testified you paid yourself 200,000, correct? |\n| 9 | A.
Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with that chart that the |\n| 10 | counsel had. |\n| 11 | Q.
Well, let me ask you, Ms. Wallop:
Did you carefully review |\n| 12 | counsel's footnotes to the proposed findings of fact before it |\n| 13 | was filed? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
No? |\n| 16 | A.
I did not. |\n| 17 | Q.
I'm not blaming you, Ms. Wallop.
Okay? |\n| 18 | Let me ask you -- |\n| 19 | I should have.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
-- based on Exhibit 54, how much did you reserve for your |\n| 21 | own efforts here? |\n| 22 | A.
It was 250,000. |\n| 23 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 24 | MR. GREIM:
All right.
I don't have any other |\n| 25 | questions. |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Any recross? |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't hear. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Any reexaminations? |\n| 4 | MS. CLINE:
Yes, please. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
How long do you think your reexamination |\n| 6 | will be? |\n| 7 | MS. CLINE:
Probably 20 minutes, maybe. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You may proceed. |\n| 9 | Excuse me for a moment.
I take it we've got the next |\n| 10 | witness ready to go after we're finished with Ms. Wallop? |\n| 11 | MR. GREIM:
He's right here, your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Very well. |\n| 13 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can we pull up footnote 140, |\n| 14 | please. |\n| 15 | RECROSS EXAMINATION |\n| 16 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 17 | Q.
So, Ms. Wallop, I just want to just touch on this money -- |\n| 18 | the money that Strategic is claiming with respect to -- the |\n| 19 | damages Strategic is claiming with respect to this payment to |\n| 20 | you or the payment to you. |\n| 21 | So you would agree there's nowhere in footnote 140 |\n| 22 | that makes reference to an allocation of \\$250,000 to you, |\n| 23 | correct? |\n| 24 | A.
Apparently so. |\n| 25 | Okay.
Q. |\n| | |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n| L4JKEAS
5 |\n|--------------|\n|--------------|\n\nL4JKEAS5 Wallop - Recross of 225\n\n| 1 | I think if I'm understanding the colloquy here, |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Strategic's not tying this now claimed payment of \\$250,000 to |\n| 3 | any particular business expense; is that correct? |\n| 4 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 5 | Q.
And so what is the basis of the claimed damages for |\n| 6 | \\$250,000 payment to you? |\n| 7 | A.
I don't really understand the question. |\n| 8 | Q.
You're asking my client to be on the hook for \\$250,000 |\n| 9 | allocable to you, and I'm asking, what's the basis? |\n| 10 | A.
Well, the basis would be, obviously, the 30 days' notice |\n| 11 | that we were not given -- |\n| 12 | Q.
So you're not -- |\n| 13 | A.
-- in the contract. |\n| 14 | Q.
So it has nothing to do with out-of-pocket expenses? |\n| 15 | A.
No, it does have to do with out-of-pocket expenses, but, |\n| 16 | you see, I think this is where it gets complicated, perhaps, |\n| 17 | for some people.
I left the 250,000 in the account, and I drew |\n| 18 | down from it because my own accounting person, lawyer, said |\n| 19 | that I could, not this counsel.
I then set up the business |\n| 20 | expenses, of which there are a number that really are allocated |\n| 21 | to this particular contract, and I went through -- honestly, |\n| 22 | through the bank account and highlighted what I felt were |\n| 23 | legitimate business expenses, plus showing the wires out and to |\n| 24 | whom the wires went. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Excuse me for a moment. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Are you saying that some of the expenses that were |\n| 2 | reflected in yellow on that list that we looked at form part of |\n| 3 | the \\$250,000? |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
No, they're not part of the 250,000, |\n| 5 | your Honor.
They're separate. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | You may inquire. |\n| 8 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 9 | Q.
So is there anywhere in footnote 140, Exhibit PX 23, or |\n| 10 | anywhere else, where we're to understood the basis for the |\n| 11 | \\$250,000 allocable to you? |\n| 12 | A.
I would refer to my counsel.
I don't know how to answer. |\n| 13 | Q.
When Mr. Greim was questioning you about the notice |\n| 14 | provision in the contract, part of your answer was that, in |\n| 15 | your understanding, the 30 days would give the parties time to |\n| 16 | work out their differences; is that right? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
You would agree that there's no dispute resolution |\n| 19 | mechanism in the contract, correct? |\n| 20 | A.
Well, the 30 days would have normally done that, under |\n| 21 | normal circumstances, yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
There's no provision in the contract that requires the |\n| 23 | principals of each side to meet, or go to mediation, or |\n| 24 | anything like that, correct? |\n| 25 | A.
We were doing that with Lianchao. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
My question is:
Is there anything -- |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
-- in the contract that requires particular dispute |\n| 4 | resolution where the parties would get together, where they |\n| 5 | would go to a settlement conference, or they would go to a |\n| 6 | mediator, anything like that? |\n| 7 | A.
Not that -- no, not directly, but certainly verbally. |\n| 8 | Q.
You testified that the terms of the contract were |\n| 9 | confidential, right? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And the subject matter of the contract was confidential, |\n| 12 | right? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
In fact, it was so secret, that you had to redact the names |\n| 15 | of your subcontractors in connection with this litigation, |\n| 16 | correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Correct. |\n| 18 | Q.
And you used the code name in your text exchanges, right, |\n| 19 | the code name of Paris, right? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes.
It was just my signal call. |\n| 21 | Q.
And, in fact, there was such a concern about |\n| 22 | confidentiality, that you didn't want to add representation to |\n| 23 | the contract about Mr. Guo's dissident status, right? |\n| 24 | A.
I'm sorry, you'll have to run that by me one more time. |\n| 25 | I thought your testimony, upon a question from Mr. Greim as
Q. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to why there wasn't representation built into the contract |\n| 2 | about the fact that Mr. Guo was a dissident, I thought your |\n| 3 | answer was because you wanted the contract to be very secret? |\n| 4 | Yes, that's correct.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 6 | But upon receipt of the thumb drive that contained the |\n| 7 | names of the subjects to be researched, you walked down to your |\n| 8 | neighbor's house and handed him a thumb drive? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes.
Since there was nothing on it, there was no problem. |\n| 10 | Q.
When you signed the contract in January of 2018, the |\n| 11 | counterparty name at the top of the contract was Eastern |\n| 12 | Profit, correct? |\n| 13 | A.
On January 6th, that's correct. |\n| 14 | Q.
And you didn't refuse to sign the contract when you saw the |\n| 15 | name Eastern Profit, correct? |\n| 16 | A.
Yvette said it was a shell company. |\n| 17 | Q.
You didn't refuse -- |\n| 18 | A.
No.
Obviously, I signed it; she didn't. |\n| 19 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can we bring up DX 16, please. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
The last portion of that answer, which |\n| 21 | says \"She didn't,\" will be stricken. |\n| 22 | Ms. Wallop, you're instructed to please just answer |\n| 23 | the questions that are asked. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
Okay. |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 2 | Q.
Your counsel was asking you questions about DX 16.
Do you |\n| 3 | recall this text exchange used as an exhibit a few moments ago? |\n| 4 | What about it?
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
You recall that you and he were discussing this exhibit? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | MS. CLINE:
Chris, can you scroll down to -- scroll a |\n| 8 | little bit here. |\n| 9 | Next page, please.
Page 3. |\n| 10 | Q.
And you recall this portion of the text message in which |\n| 11 | Ms. Wang tells you that she doesn't want the monthly fee to be |\n| 12 | written -- the contemplated monthly fee to be written into the |\n| 13 | contract, correct? |\n| 14 | A.
That was on the 5th of January, yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 16 | MS. CLINE:
And then, Mr. Chuff, can you scroll down |\n| 17 | to page 5. |\n| 18 | Q.
Later on in the text exchange, you represent that in order |\n| 19 | to make sure that there is predictable pricing, that the |\n| 20 | reports were going -- sorry, that the pricing was going to be |\n| 21 | tied to units of reports per month, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
Correct. |\n| 23 | Q.
And then subsequent to this text exchange, the contract was |\n| 24 | signed, correct? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And the contract contains language on pricing that we |\n| 2 | looked at earlier, on page 3, that says the prices for each |\n| 3 | deliverable are 300,000 each, correct? |\n| 4 | Correct.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Mr. Greim asked you if you had relied on certain |\n| 6 | representations allegedly made by Mr. Guo when you entered into |\n| 7 | the contract.
Do you recall that? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
You did no due diligence with respect to those |\n| 10 | representations you supposedly relied on, correct? |\n| 11 | A.
When? |\n| 12 | Q.
Before entering into the contract? |\n| 13 | A.
We relied on Lianchao Han, and we relied on Bill Gertz's |\n| 14 | reputation and affirmation. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cline, haven't we covered this |\n| 16 | already? |\n| 17 | MS. CLINE:
Yes.
I'm just cleaning it up after her |\n| 18 | counsel's examination.
I'll move on. |\n| 19 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 20 | Q.
In your testimony this morning, I asked you about what the |\n| 21 | contract itself said about its purpose, and then Mr. Greim this |\n| 22 | afternoon asked you about what subjects Strategic Vision |\n| 23 | actually investigated. |\n| 24 | Do you recall that? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And you testified confidently that Strategic Vision didn't |\n| 2 | investigate crimes or civil wrongs.
Do you remember that? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, in the United States. |\n| 4 | So they did investigate crimes or civil wrongs overseas?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
No.
We didn't know what we would find until information |\n| 6 | was given to us.
So we did not purposefully do that, no. |\n| 7 | Q.
So purposefully or otherwise, did you investigate crimes or |\n| 8 | civil wrongs overseas? |\n| 9 | A.
No. |\n| 10 | Q.
And, in fact, you testified that you had no idea what was |\n| 11 | on the USB drives that were delivered, correct? |\n| 12 | A.
Which time? |\n| 13 | Q.
At the time the two USBs were delivered to Eastern Profit, |\n| 14 | I thought your testimony was that you didn't see them, you had |\n| 15 | no personal knowledge of what was on them, correct? |\n| 16 | A.
Other than what Yvette told me was on them.
They were |\n| 17 | supposed to be the files. |\n| 18 | Q.
Sorry, I'm talking about the USBs that Mr. Waller delivered |\n| 19 | to Eastern Profit.
Your testimony, I thought, was that you had |\n| 20 | no -- |\n| 21 | A.
I'm sorry, you said Mr. Guo delivered to Eastern Profit. |\n| 22 | Q.
Let me start over. |\n| 23 | A.
Okay. |\n| 24 | Q.
We all agree there were two USBs that Strategic delivered |\n| 25 | to Eastern Profit, correct? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JKEAS5
Wallop - Recross |\n| 1 | A.
Yes.
That was Dr. Waller. |\n| 2 | Q.
And your testimony was that you had no personal knowledge |\n| 3 | of what was on those USBs, correct? |\n| 4 | Other than what Dr. Waller had told me.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
So you don't know, one way or the other, what Team 1 |\n| 6 | investigated; isn't that true? |\n| 7 | A.
No. |\n| 8 | Q.
Do you have any personal knowledge of what Team 1 |\n| 9 | investigated? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes, because we met with them, and they told us later what |\n| 11 | was on some of them.
I didn't have any direct visual because |\n| 12 | we were told by Guo he only wanted one channel for this highly |\n| 13 | sensitive information, and that was with Team 1, Dr. Waller |\n| 14 | going to Europe to pick up the USB, return within 24 hours to |\n| 15 | have the meeting with Yvette Wang.
So there was no way I could |\n| 16 | see them because I was in Washington and he was in New York. |\n| 17 | Q.
Mr. Greim asked you some questions about whether or not |\n| 18 | Strategic -- the nature of Strategic Vision's investigation. |\n| 19 | You recall in your deposition, your second deposition |\n| 20 | where I deposed you, do you recall testifying that you had |\n| 21 | engaged in some surveillance in Turks and Caicos? |\n| 22 | A.
I wouldn't call it surveillance.
We were following up a |\n| 23 | tip that somebody had said that one of the fish was going to be |\n| 24 | in the Turks and Caicos, and we -- I went to the Turks and |\n| 25 | Caicos to see if that was the case because we did not know who |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JKEAS5
Wallop - Recross |\n| 1 | the person was meeting with. |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
So let's take a look, Mr. Chuff, at |\n| 3 | Ms. Wallop's second deposition, please. |\n| 4 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 5 | Q.
So, Ms. Wallop, this is the transcript from your deposition |\n| 6 | in November 2019. |\n| 7 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, let's go to page 98, please. |\n| 8 | Q.
So let's start, Ms. Wallop, at page 98, line 5, I ask: |\n| 9 | \"Q.
Why did you need to be in the Turks and Caicos? |\n| 10 | \"A.
Because that's where the two Chinese were those two |\n| 11 | nights. |\n| 12 | \"Q.
And what did you do to investigate them? |\n| 13 | \"A.
I suppose that when you are tracking somebody, you are |\n| 14 | trying to gather intelligence, and that's what I was doing. |\n| 15 | \"Q.
That's what I'm asking you about.
Were you surveilling |\n| 16 | them? |\n| 17 | \"A.
Yes.
To some degree, yes.\" |\n| 18 | Do you see that? |\n| 19 | I do, but I think there's --
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
My question is do you see it? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes, yes, yes, I see it. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did I read it correctly? |\n| 23 | A.
You did. |\n| 24 | Q.
Was that a truthful statement when you gave that testimony? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS5
Wallop - Recross |\n| 1 | Q.
And then down on page 99, I say: |\n| 2 | \"Q.
Did you conduct any other surveillance yourself in |\n| 3 | connection with the Eastern Profit contract? |\n| 4 | Yes.\"
\"A. |\n| 5 | Do you see that? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | \"Q.
Would you describe that? |\n| 8 | \"A.
I wouldn't know where to begin.\" |\n| 9 | Do you see that? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did I read that accurately? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | MS. CLINE:
Your Honor, may I have one moment to |\n| 14 | consult my colleagues? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 16 | (Pause) |\n| 17 | MS. CLINE:
That's all I have, your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Reexamination? |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
I do.
I just have one or maybe two |\n| 20 | questions, your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Limit it to one or two. |\n| 22 | MR. GREIM:
I was always told never to say that. |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 2 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 3 | Q.
I have just one area for you, Ms. Wallop.
This goes back |\n| 4 | again to our damages. |\n| 5 | You recall that we just talked about the \\$250,000 and |\n| 6 | what that was for, correct? |\n| 7 | A.
Correct. |\n| 8 | Q.
Now, did you pay yourself -- let me ask you first, did you |\n| 9 | pay Mr. Waller some amount for the time and effort he put into |\n| 10 | the matter? |\n| 11 | A.
I did. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you pay yourself some amount for the time and effort |\n| 13 | you put into the matter? |\n| 14 | A.
I drew down on it, I didn't pay it out directly, no. |\n| 15 | Q.
Is that amount the \\$250,000? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | MR. GREIM:
No further questions. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Why don't we take a ten-minute |\n| 19 | break now, just for -- Ms. Wallop, you're excused. |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 21 | (Witness excused) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
And then we'll begin with the testimony of |\n| 23 | Mr. Waller, and we'll go until 4:45. |\n| 24 | Thank you very much, Ms. Wallop. |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS5
Waller - Cross |\n| 1 | (Recess) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Would you call the next witness, please. |\n| 3 | MR. CHUFF:
Eastern calls J. Michael Waller to the |\n| 4 | stand. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Waller, you may have a seat in the |\n| 6 | jury box, please. |\n| 7 | J. MICHAEL WALLER, |\n| 8 | called as a witness by the Plaintiff, |\n| 9 | having been duly sworn, testified as follows: |\n| 10 | THE DEPUTY CLERK:
Could you please state your full |\n| 11 | name for the record and spell your last name. |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:
John Michael Waller, W-a-l-l-e-r. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Mr. Waller, I would ask you to try to keep |\n| 14 | your voice loud and speak slowly for the benefit of the court |\n| 15 | reporter. |\n| 16 | You may inquire. |\n| 17 | MR. CHUFF:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 18 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 19 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 20 | Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Waller. |\n| 21 | You are acting as Strategic's corporate designated |\n| 22 | representative for this trial; is that correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Could you please state the full legal name of the entity |\n| 25 | that is paying Strategic's bills in this litigation? |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JKEAS5
Waller - Cross |\n| 1 | A.
I do not want to surrender my right to privileged |\n| 2 | conversation with counsel. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
If you know the name of the entity, you |\n| 4 | have to answer the question, give the name of the entity. |\n| 5 | THE WITNESS:
I do, okay. |\n| 6 | Circinus. |\n| 7 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 8 | Q.
How do you spell that? |\n| 9 | A.
C-i-r-c-i-n-u-s. |\n| 10 | Q.
And, Mr. Waller, is that its full legal name? |\n| 11 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q.
Do you know what kind of entity it is? |\n| 13 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 14 | Q.
Do you know where it is based? |\n| 15 | A.
Either in California or United Arab Emirates. |\n| 16 | Q.
But you're not sure where it's based? |\n| 17 | A.
I'm not sure. |\n| 18 | Q.
Do you know who the owners of Circinus is or are? |\n| 19 | I know -- I don't know who the owners are.
A.
I know who one |\n| 20 | of the officials are, but I don't know the owners. |\n| 21 | Q.
Do you know who the management of -- |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And who is that? |\n| 24 | A.
That would be Elliott Broidy. |\n| 25 | Do you know any other members of the management of
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Circinus? |\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
And Elliott Broidy was involved with a -- pled guilty to |\n| 4 | conspiracy to try to get Guo Wengui evicted from the country; |\n| 5 | is that correct? |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, your Honor; foundation. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'll permit it. |\n| 8 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 9 | Q.
Are you aware that Elliott Broidy was convicted -- excuse |\n| 10 | me, pled guilty to conspiring with members of the CCP to have |\n| 11 | Guo Wengui removed from the country? |\n| 12 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, on this question, too, |\n| 13 | foundation. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
I'm aware he pled and that he was |\n| 16 | pardoned. |\n| 17 | Q.
You're aware that he pled guilty for conspiring with CCP |\n| 18 | members to have Guo Wengui deported from this country? |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, there has to be a good-faith |\n| 20 | basis, and I object. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I'll hear counsel as to the basis.
I |\n| 22 | assume that you will offer the guilty plea and the indictment? |\n| 23 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
But I am aware I think it's generally |\n| 25 | known that there's a good-faith basis Mr. Broidy pleaded |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | guilty.
What is the good-faith basis with respect to the |\n| 2 | question? |\n| 3 | MR. CHUFF:
So, I'm sorry, I was going to -- there are |\n| 4 | a few exhibits.
There's a press release, and there are guilty |\n| 5 | pleas.
So we can show them to the witness or, if you'd like, |\n| 6 | we can show them to your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Why don't you pass them up to me. |\n| 8 | MR. CHUFF:
Okay.
They may be in your binder. |\n| 9 | They're PX 67, PX 61. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, 57? |\n| 11 | MR. CHUFF:
No, I'm sorry.
Six-seven, PX 67. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Can you hand them to my deputy? |\n| 13 | MR. CHUFF:
And, your Honor, with respect to PX 67, I |\n| 14 | direct you to paragraph 4. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
What's the basis for the objection? |\n| 16 | MR. GREIM:
Well, your Honor, the question is about -- |\n| 17 | first of all, the entire basis for this is that supposedly the |\n| 18 | client is being paid by a CCP member or affiliate.
Now we've |\n| 19 | come to an effort to lobby on behalf of -- it isn't mentioned |\n| 20 | in this article, this is all hearsay.
This is actually about |\n| 21 | someone else named Joe Blow, but the question assumes a |\n| 22 | conspiracy directly with the CCP.
It's nowhere established, |\n| 23 | even in these hearsay articles, and that's the basis for the |\n| 24 | objection. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
The objection is overruled. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | There's a good-faith basis for the examination. |\n| 2 | My courtroom deputy can hand you back the binder.
You |\n| 3 | may inquire. |\n| 4 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 5 | Q.
So, Mr. Waller, we've established that, one, part of the |\n| 6 | management team of Circinus is Elliott Broidy, right? |\n| 7 | Circinus.
A. |\n| 8 | Q.
And part of the management team is Elliott Broidy? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
He pled guilty to conspiring with CCP members to have Guo |\n| 11 | Wengui deported from this country? |\n| 12 | A.
I know that he pled guilty to working with China to have |\n| 13 | Guo Wengui deported.
I don't know the nature of the CCP |\n| 14 | members. |\n| 15 | Q.
You're here to testify, in part, about a research agreement |\n| 16 | between Eastern and Strategic Vision; is that correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | MR. CHUFF:
I'd like to publish for the witness and |\n| 19 | the Court PX 01. |\n| 20 | MR. GREIM:
I'm sorry, while we're waiting, we were |\n| 21 | given something by accident.
It looks like it's your trial |\n| 22 | exhibits, not ours. |\n| 23 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 24 | Q.
Mr. Waller, this is the research agreement between Eastern |\n| 25 | and Strategic; is that right? |\n\n| | of 225
L4JKEAS5
Waller - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
And you were involved in negotiating this agreement? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | And you were involved in drafting this agreement, right?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And it was Strategic that actually typed up the words on |\n| 7 | this page and delivered it to representatives of Eastern; is |\n| 8 | that correct? |\n| 9 | A.
Well, I typed up some of them and then passed it on, and it |\n| 10 | was modified after that.
So, I typed some of them, and |\n| 11 | Strategic would have typed some of them. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
Under this research agreement, Eastern Profit is the |\n| 13 | client and Strategic is the contractor; is that correct? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. CHUFF:
We can depublish the research agreement, |\n| 16 | PX 01, for now.
It's already been offered. |\n| 17 | Q.
And Strategic was founded by Ms. Wallop; is that correct? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | And Ms. Wallop is the sole member and manager of
Q. |\n| 20 | Strategic Vision? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
You're a long-time friend of Ms. Wallop's; is that correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
You have known Ms. Wallop for approximately 35 years? |\n| 25 | Approximately, yes.
A. |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And you have worked with Strategic Vision on various |\n| 2 | projects since 2016; is that correct? |\n| 3 | A.
On two other projects besides the one in question. |\n| 4 | So three total?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And the projects that you worked on with Strategic involved |\n| | |\n| 7 | investigation work, right? |\n| 8 | A.
Involved research work. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did it involve investigation work? |\n| 10 | A.
Well, it depends on what you mean by \"investigation.\"
As |\n| 11 | a -- to some of the Ph.D.s who is an investigative journalist, |\n| 12 | you can use the words pretty interchangeably, but I understand |\n| 13 | the law views it differently. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, you used the word investigation at your deposition. |\n| 15 | Do you recall that? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And you testified that this project and your other two |\n| 18 | projects involved investigation work; is that correct? |\n| 19 | In the sense of research, not in the sense of certain
A. |\n| 20 | interpretations of law, yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
You used the word investigation? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And that was truthful? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | And that was accurate?
Q. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
It was accurate as I just explained with the caveat. |\n| 2 | Q.
And that investigation work included good old-fashioned |\n| 3 | detective type work; isn't that correct? |\n| 4 | May I see that in the transcript?
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Just first answer the question.
Is that true? |\n| 6 | A.
I'd like to see the transcript. |\n| 7 | Was it something that I said, or is it -- |\n| 8 | Q.
I'm just asking you right now here today if the |\n| 9 | investigation work that you did for the three projects for |\n| 10 | Strategic Vision involved good old-fashioned detective type |\n| 11 | work? |\n| 12 | A.
No. |\n| 13 | Q.
It did not? |\n| 14 | A.
No, not for all three. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you recall testifying at two depositions in this matter? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you recall at the beginning of that -- of each of those |\n| 18 | depositions, you were given -- you took an oath to tell the |\n| 19 | truth, much like you did today? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And you told the truth at those depositions, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | MR. CHUFF:
If we could go to Mr. Waller's first |\n| 24 | deposition.
If we could turn to -- yep, you're there, page 13. |\n| 25 | Actually -- yes. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JKEAS5
Waller - Cross |\n| 1 | Q.
So page 13, if you look at line 12, you were asked:
\"Other |\n| 2 | than the project that we're going to discuss in this case with |\n| 3 | Eastern Profit, how many other projects have you done for |\n| 4 | Strategic Vision?\" |\n| 5 | You answered:
\"Probably two.\" |\n| 6 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And then on page 14, line 3, you were asked:
\"So the three |\n| 9 | total that you performed work for Strategic Vision?\" |\n| 10 | And you respond:
\"This is the third one, yes.\" |\n| 11 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
If you scroll down to line 21, you were asked:
\"So was it |\n| 14 | investigation work?\" |\n| 15 | You respond:
\"Yes.\" |\n| 16 | Then you were asked:
\"What kind of investigation |\n| 17 | work?
Can you describe it?\" |\n| 18 | And you respond:
\"Computer research, sort of academic |\n| 19 | research, good old-fashioned detective type work.\" |\n| 20 | Mr. Waller, were you asked those questions, and did |\n| 21 | you give those answers at your first deposition? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes, but this is out of context with the previous -- |\n| 23 | Q.
Mr. Waller, please, I just asked if you were asked those |\n| 24 | questions -- |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
-- and gave those answers at your first deposition? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And they were truthful? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
So let's talk a little bit more about the research |\n| 6 | agreement specifically. |\n| 7 | So, in late 2017, you and Ms. Wallop were introduced |\n| 8 | to a man by the name of Guo Wengui; is that correct? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
After you and Ms. Wallop were introduced to Mr. Guo in late |\n| 11 | 2017, you had a number of meetings with him? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
And during these meetings, you and Ms. Wallop outlined the |\n| 14 | services that you could provide; is that correct? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And investigation work was among the services that was |\n| 17 | offered, isn't it? |\n| 18 | A.
I don't recall those words -- that word being used. |\n| 19 | MR. CHUFF:
If we could bring up Mr. Waller's first |\n| 20 | deposition again, and this time, we'll look at page 29.
Page |\n| 21 | 29, start with line 4. |\n| 22 | Q.
You were asked:
\"Did you or Ms. Wallop explain what either |\n| 23 | your capabilities or Ms. Wallop's capabilities were in terms of |\n| 24 | providing this research?\" |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Q.
And then after an objection, at line 10, you were asked: | | | |\n| 2 | \"Did you explain what you could provide as a service in | | | |\n| 3 | connection with this research?\" | | | |\n| 4 | You responded:
\"Yes.\" | | | |\n| 5 | Then you were asked:
\"And what did you explain to the | | | |\n| 6 | parties present?\" | | | |\n| 7 | And you answered:
\"That I would assemble the research | | | |\n| 8 | team and supervise the research team.\" | | | |\n| 9 | Then you were asked:
\"That's the research team that | | | |\n| 10 | would perform investigatory research?\" | | | |\n| 11 | You responded:
\"Yes.\" | | | |\n| 12 | Mr. Waller, were you asked those questions, and did | | | |\n| 13 | you give those answers at your first deposition? | | | |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 15 | Q.
And were they truthful? | | | |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 17 | Q.
Now, at the time of the research agreement, you understood | | | |\n| 18 | that Mr. Guo's primary goal for the project was to uncover | | | |\n| 19 | information about members of the Chinese Communist Party, the | | | |\n| 20 | CCP; is that correct? | | | |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 22 | Q.
And it was your understanding that Mr. Guo wanted high | | | |\n| 23 | quality information, right? | | | |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 25 | You also understood that he wanted to uncover that
Q. | | | |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | | | |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | information very quickly? | | | | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | | | | |\n| 3 | Q.
And, in fact, you knew that it was critical that quality | | | | |\n| 4 | information be uncovered within the very first month of the | | | | |\n| 5 | contract, right? | | | | |\n| 6 | A.
Within the very first phase of the contract, the very first | | | | |\n| 7 | 90 days, yes. | | | | |\n| 8 | Q.
But you knew that -- and it happened in the first month; | | | | |\n| 9 | isn't that right? | | | | |\n| 10 | A.
Well, let's go over the wording of the contract, and we can | | | | |\n| 11 | talk about it. | | | | |\n| 12 | Q.
I'm just asking you your understanding. | | | | |\n| 13 | Did you understand, at the time the research agreement | | | | |\n| 14 | was signed, that it was critical to have quality information | | | | |\n| 15 | within the first month? | | | | |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. | | | | |\n| 17 | Q.
And among that information, Mr. Guo wanted Strategic to | | | | |\n| 18 | uncover evidence that the CCP members, various CCP members, | | | | |\n| 19 | broke the law; is that correct? | | | | |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. | | | | |\n| 21 | Q.
And that included finding evidence of money stolen by CCP | | | | |\n| 22 | officials for their own enrichment, right? | | | | |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | | | | |\n| 24 | Q.
And you told Mr. Guo that you and Ms. Wallop could do that | | | | |\n| 25 | type of work, right? | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JKEAS5
Waller - Cross |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | MR. CHUFF:
Your Honor, may I confer with my colleague |\n| 3 | for one second? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 5 | (Pause) |\n| 6 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 7 | Q.
Sorry, Mr. Waller. |\n| 8 | And then the services that we were just describing, |\n| 9 | you, and Ms. Wallop, and Strategic actually set out to conduct |\n| 10 | those services, right? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
But you are not licensed as a private investigator, are |\n| 13 | you? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
And you never have been? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
Now let's talk a little bit more about the terms, the |\n| 18 | specific terms of the research agreement. |\n| 19 | Eastern -- and, first, I just want to confirm for the |\n| 20 | record, Eastern and Strategic entered into the research |\n| 21 | agreement on January 6, 2018; is that right? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And the explicit purpose of the research agreement was |\n| 24 | detecting, stopping, and preventing crime; isn't that correct? |\n| 25 | This would require a complex answer.
A.
It's not a yes-or-no |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | L4JKEAS5
Waller - Cross | | | |\n| 1 | answer. | | | |\n| 2 | Q.
Doesn't it say in the research agreement itself that the | | | |\n| 3 | purpose of it is to detect, stop, and prevent crime? | | | |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. | | | |\n| 5 | Q.
And to accomplish that goal, Strategic was going to provide | | | |\n| 6 | detailed reports of a very high quality revealing the true, | | | |\n| 7 | complete, and full profile of the subjects; is that correct? | | | |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 9 | Q.
And specifically, Strategic was required to provide Eastern | | | |\n| 10 | with the following three types of deliverables — financial | | | |\n| 11 | forensic reports, current tracking reports, and social media | | | |\n| 12 | reports; is that accurate? | | | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 14 | Q.
You mentioned the timing, so let's take a look at that. | | | |\n| 15 | The current tracking reports required weekly reports | | | |\n| 16 | in the first month and then another report at month's end, did | | | |\n| 17 | it not? | | | |\n| 18 | A.
I believe so.
It would help if I could look at the actual | | | |\n| 19 | wording, but I believe that to be the case, the way you said | | | |\n| 20 | it. | | | |\n| 21 | Q.
We'll go off your understanding for now. | | | |\n| 22 | And all the deliverables were to be provided by USB | | | |\n| 23 | only; is that correct? | | | |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 25 | And Eastern agreed to pay Strategic \\$300,000 for each
Q. | | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | deliverable delivered on the agreement; is that correct? |\n| 2 | A.
Averaged over the course of a year, yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
So the contract provided that the price of each deliverable |\n| 4 | was \\$300,000; is that correct? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes, per month over a one-year period. |\n| 6 | Q.
\\$300,000 per month over a one-year period for each |\n| 7 | deliverable? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Now I'm doing this from memory, so if I can see the |\n| 10 | wording, I can answer it conclusively. |\n| 11 | Q.
Now, if a deliverable was not provided by Strategic, no |\n| 12 | payment would be due under the research agreement; is that |\n| 13 | correct? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | MR. CHUFF:
Could we open PX 01. |\n| 16 | First, can we scroll to B, current tracking. |\n| 17 | Q.
Mr. Waller, just to confirm what we already went over, in |\n| 18 | the second paragraph, you see B, \"Current Tracking Research,\" |\n| 19 | it says:
\"The contractor will produce concurrent tracking |\n| 20 | research per individual subject to the client on a monthly |\n| 21 | basis except in the first month when weekly reports shall be |\n| 22 | delivered.\" |\n| 23 | And so, again, weekly reports for the first month and |\n| 24 | then a monthly report? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n| 1 | Q.
And now -- | | | |\n| 2 | A.
There's another word, \"weekly or report nightly to the | | | |\n| 3 | client direct,\" yes. | | | |\n| 4 | But that required more frequent reporting, right?
Q. | | | |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 6 | Q.
Now, if we could turn to page 3.
We'll get back to the | | | |\n| 7 | deliverables. | | | |\n| 8 | A.
Mmm, hmm. | | | |\n| 9 | Q.
So if you look at the paragraph, the second one from the | | | |\n| 10 | bottom on the screen, it says \"Prices\"? | | | |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 12 | Q.
And it says that prices for each deliverable, A, B and C, | | | |\n| 13 | are 300,000 each, per subject, per year? | | | |\n| 14 | A.
Correct. | | | |\n| 15 | Q.
So again, the price is for deliverable, right? | | | |\n| 16 | A.
Correct. | | | |\n| 17 | Q.
And then if you go to -- | | | |\n| 18 | A.
I wish to amend my previous comment taken from memory. | | | |\n| 19 | This paragraph is correct. | | | |\n| 20 | Q.
All right.
The research also authorized the parties to | | | |\n| 21 | terminate the contract with 30 days' written notice; is that | | | |\n| 22 | correct? | | | |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 24 | Q.
And termination was permitted without cause? | | | |\n| 25 | Yes.
A.
By either party. | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And the research agreement also required Eastern to provide |\n| 2 | a \\$1 million deposit; is that correct? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | And the \\$1 million deposit was not meant to be a signing
Q. |\n| 5 | bonus, right? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes, correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
And the deposit, instead, was supposed to be treated by |\n| 8 | Strategic as a down payment to be credited on a prorated basis |\n| 9 | at the end of the contract, right? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And the research agreement authorized Eastern to direct |\n| 12 | other entities to pay Strategic, and that such payments will be |\n| 13 | deemed satisfactory compensation by Strategic; is that right? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And on or about January 2nd, 2018, Strategic received the |\n| 16 | \\$1 million deposit from ACA Capital; is that correct? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
And that was a few days before the research agreement was |\n| 19 | signed? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, at that point, did Strategic say, oh, no, we can't |\n| 22 | take this because it wasn't paid by Eastern? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
And then it signed the research agreement just days later? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A.
This was an explicit work we had with Mr. Guo Wengui. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And to this day, Strategic has not returned the deposit; is |\n| 2 | that right? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Now, let's talk a little bit about the events that occurred
Q. |\n| 5 | after the research agreement was signed.
On January 8th, 2018, |\n| 6 | Ms. Wang delivered to Strategic the USB drive containing the |\n| 7 | names of 15 individuals to be investigated under the research |\n| 8 | agreement; is that correct? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
And can we bring up, publish for the witness and the Court |\n| 11 | PX07. |\n| 12 | And, Mr. Waller, do you recognize this document? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
This is the list of 15 names to be researched under the |\n| 15 | research agreement, right? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And all of the individuals on this list were members of the |\n| 18 | CCP or closely related to members of the CCP; is that correct? |\n| 19 | That's what Mr. Guo told us, yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Is that your understanding? |\n| 21 | A.
Almost all of them, at least, yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
And do you -- can you point to any of the individuals that |\n| 23 | are not CCP members or closely related to CCP members? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes.
There is one on the list that I recall -- I'd have to |\n| 25 | scroll through the list to see his page -- he was the senior |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Hong Kong police official. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
But most of them -- it is your understanding that |\n| 3 | most of them are CCP members? |\n| 4 | They or their immediate family or immediate associates are
A. |\n| 5 | CCP members, yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And you and Ms. Wallop did, in fact, set out to investigate |\n| 7 | certain or all of the individuals on this list, right? |\n| 8 | A.
We set out to research them, yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Now, your own word was investigate; wasn't that right? |\n| 10 | A.
Okay.
As long as we keep in mind the different |\n| 11 | understandings of the word \"investigate,\" yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
In early January 2018, you traveled to Europe and the |\n| 13 | Middle East to retain certain private investigators; is that |\n| 14 | right? |\n| 15 | A.
I traveled to Europe, not the Middle East at that time. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
And Strategic claimed that it, in fact, retained |\n| 17 | certain private investigators? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Now, you confirmed earlier that Strategic would provide the
Q. |\n| 20 | research that Strategic would provide would be delivered by USB |\n| 21 | drive? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And Strategic delivered a total of two USB drives; is that |\n| 24 | correct? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And one of those drives was delivered on January 26, 2018; |\n| 2 | is that correct? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, I believe it was the 26th. |\n| 4 | And the other was delivered on January 30th, 2018?
Q.
I'm |\n| 5 | sorry, I think I said 2016. |\n| 6 | A.
Fine.
I understood it as 2018 also. |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
So two drives, one on January 26th, 2018, and the |\n| 8 | second, January 30th, 2018? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
And the information on the first drive, the drive delivered |\n| 11 | on January 26th, that was of no use to Mr. Guo or Eastern |\n| 12 | Profit because it was nothing more than the researcher's work |\n| 13 | to familiarize themselves with the 15 subjects, using open |\n| 14 | source information; is that correct? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And the information on the second drive delivered on |\n| 17 | January 30th, 2018, also contained data that was not of any use |\n| 18 | or actionable by Eastern; isn't that right? |\n| 19 | That's not correct.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Okay.
Well, let's pull up DX23.
Mr. Waller, do you |\n| 21 | recognize this document? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
Is this a text message exchange between Yvette Wang and |\n| 24 | you? |\n| 25 | I can't see this.
A.
I can't read the Mandarin, but I think |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | it is, yes.
Certainly it is mine. |\n| 2 | Q.
And who is Pyratz? |\n| 3 | A.
That's my name on the signal. |\n| 4 | All right.
Q.
And your text is in light gray, is the lighter |\n| 5 | of the two shades? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
So the one on the bottom? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes.
This is from Yvette Wang, yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And you respond to her inquiry by saying:
\"The reports are |\n| 10 | not actionable but to show how the work is being executed.\" |\n| 11 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
All right.
And then if we can turn to Mr. Waller's second |\n| 14 | deposition, tab 11, and scroll to page 115.
So we'll look at |\n| 15 | page 115, line 19.
Do you see that, Mr. Waller? |\n| 16 | A.
No, not yet. |\n| 17 | Q.
Oh, sorry.
Can you expand that, please.
Can you scroll |\n| 18 | down just a little bit to line 2. |\n| 19 | So you were asked:
And what was the nature of the |\n| 20 | other USB deliverable?
You responded:
It was raw code.
Then |\n| 21 | you were asked:
When was the delivery made?
And you |\n| 22 | responded:
On or about January 30th of January 2018. |\n| 23 | And then, if you go down to line 21 of the same page, |\n| 24 | you're asked:
You see that there are three indented bullets, |\n| 25 | financial, forensic, historical research, current tracking |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 225
L4JPEAS6
Waller - Cross |\n| 1 | research and social media research.
Do you see that?
And you |\n| 2 | responded:
Yes. |\n| 3 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And those are the three pieces of research that were owed |\n| 6 | under the research agreement, right? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And then if you go to page 116, at the top, line 2, you're |\n| 9 | asked:
And the second USB that was all code, does that relate |\n| 10 | to any of those three subject matter areas? |\n| 11 | And you respond:
It related to all three.
Let me |\n| 12 | say, it potentially related to all three. |\n| 13 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And then you were asked:
What do you mean by |\n| 16 | \"potentially\"?
And you responded:
It was still encrypted |\n| 17 | code, and Ms. Wang and Mr. Guo were insistent that we deliver |\n| 18 | it regardless.
I said, it hasn't been decrypted yet, and they |\n| 19 | essentially said, we don't care; we want it anyway.
We said, |\n| 20 | it won't be of any use to you until it's decrypted.
So I went |\n| 21 | and retrieved it from them anyway. |\n| 22 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And, Mr. Waller, were you asked those questions, and did |\n| 25 | you give those answers at your second deposition? |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS6
Waller - Cross |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
And were they truthful? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Now, was that code ever decrypted for Eastern Profit?
Q. |\n| 5 | A.
I don't know because they -- I don't know if it was. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did Strategic decrypt that code for Eastern Profit? |\n| 7 | A.
No, I gave them the USB drive.
I did not retain a copy.
I |\n| 8 | was never returned the USB drive for decryption. |\n| 9 | Q.
So the answer is no? |\n| 10 | A.
Correct. |\n| 11 | Q.
You can set that aside for now. |\n| 12 | Okay.
Let's switch gears a little bit here.
Are you |\n| 13 | aware that Strategic has asserted a fraud claim against Eastern |\n| 14 | Profit in this action? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And Strategic claims that Mr. Guo represented that he was a |\n| 17 | dissent who opposes the CCP, but in reality, he's a double |\n| 18 | agent that supports the CCP.
Is that the nature of Strategic's |\n| 19 | allegation? |\n| 20 | A.
Not quite, not double agent because that would have meant |\n| 21 | he was a recruited U.S. agent, who was turned by the Chinese |\n| 22 | Communist or vice versa.
So I'm not familiar with the |\n| 23 | double-agent allegation. |\n| 24 | Q.
Supporter of the CCP? |\n| 25 | Yes.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
Okay.
So he represented that he was an opponent and a |\n| 2 | dissident, but you claim that he was actually a supporter of |\n| 3 | the CCP? |\n| 4 | Correct.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, as part of its fraud claim Strategic claims it would |\n| 6 | have never entered into the research agreement had it known |\n| 7 | that Mr. Guo was actually, as you claim, a supporter of the |\n| 8 | CCP; is that correct? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Now, you say that Mr. Guo was part of an intra-party power |\n| 11 | struggle within the CCP before he left China, and that that |\n| 12 | fact is evidence that he is a supporter of the CCP; is that |\n| 13 | correct? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes, but that was after the fact, after the contract was |\n| 15 | signed.
I didn't know that earlier. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
Well, in fact, you actually were aware before the |\n| 17 | research agreement was signed that some believed Mr. Guo simply |\n| 18 | represented a faction in an internal leadership struggle within |\n| 19 | CCP, weren't you? |\n| 20 | A.
I was aware others thought that, yes.
I did not think that |\n| 21 | myself. |\n| 22 | Q.
But you were aware that some suspected that? |\n| 23 | A.
Some people did, yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And you were also aware, before the research agreement was |\n| 25 | signed, that there were reports that Mr. Guo owed his fortune |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to ties to the CCP; is that correct? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And you actually didn't see anything unusual about that? |\n| 4 | Not in my line of work, no.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
So you actually thought that the fact that Mr. Guo |\n| 6 | allegedly maintains ties after he left China as the evidence |\n| 7 | that shows that he's still a supporter or he is a supporter of |\n| 8 | the CCP you claim? |\n| 9 | A.
No. |\n| 10 | Q.
So it's not your position in this case that the fact that |\n| 11 | Mr. Guo allegedly has ties to the CCP after he left China, is |\n| 12 | evidence that he is pro-CCP? |\n| 13 | A.
This is a complicated answer.
Your Honor, if I may |\n| 14 | explain? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I think so. |\n| 16 | A.
Okay.
I've worked a lot with communist defectors over the |\n| 17 | years, actually since I was an undergraduate at George |\n| 18 | Washington University, and had some of them as professors.
I |\n| 19 | learned over the years, as well as talking, learning through a |\n| 20 | lot of people in U.S. intelligence and counter-intelligence, |\n| 21 | that it's very hard to discern whether someone who has broken |\n| 22 | with a communist system, whether it's Soviet or Chinese or |\n| 23 | others, to discern conclusively whether or not they still |\n| 24 | maintain a loyalty. |\n| 25 | Now, many of them would still maintain ties because |\n\nof 225\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller - Cross\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\nthey had families or other connections, and those ties would be valuable if they were indeed dissidents or genuine opponents because they could mine those ties for information that would\n\nsystem. So simply because someone has, quote, ties to the CCP isn't relevant. What's relevant is the intent of maintaining those ties. In Mr. Guo's case, he made it clear from the beginning, and he was very public about it, that he rose up through the Chinese Communist Party apparat and the NSS secret police apparat.\n\nbe useful to the United States, to do damage to their own\n\nSo to get someone like him, with inside knowledge of the entire leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the secret police was a valuable find to weaponize that against the Chinese Communist Party, to bring them down. That's why I found it so appealing to work with him. Q. So you're saying the fact that there were ties with Mr. Guo and members of the CCP is not evidence of fraud? 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nA. I'm not trying to be difficult. Evidence of what type of fraud? 19 20\n\nQ. The fraud that you're claiming in this case, that Mr. Guo represented that he was an opponent of the CCP, but he's actually, as you claim, a supporter? 21 22 23\n\nA. Correct. The fraud that we are alleging is that he presented to us that he's a dissident of the Chinese Communist 24 25\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Party and wants to bring the whole party down.
We subsequently |\n| 2 | found, after the lawsuit was filed -- |\n| 3 | Q.
I'm sorry -- |\n| 4 | -- that he supported Xi Jinping.
A.
So that's the evidence of |\n| 5 | the fraud. |\n| 6 | Q.
All I'm asking is, I think what you just said was the fact |\n| 7 | that Mr. Guo may have ties to CCP members is not evidence that |\n| 8 | he's pro-CCP? |\n| 9 | A.
It's not a \"yes\" or \"no\" answer.
It's the question of the |\n| 10 | nature of those ties -- |\n| 11 | Q.
All right. |\n| 12 | A.
-- and of his intent. |\n| 13 | Q.
But either way -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
So are you saying that, on its own, the |\n| 15 | evidence of a relationship that somebody has with people within |\n| 16 | the Chinese Communist Party, on its own, isn't necessarily |\n| 17 | indicative of the fact that they are a supporter of the Chinese |\n| 18 | Communist Party; there needs to be something more? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes.
Correct, your Honor. |\n| 20 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, either way, you were aware before the research |\n| 22 | agreement was signed that Guo maintained close ties with senior |\n| 23 | CCP leaders even after he left China, right? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Now, I think you just alluded to this a moment ago.
Q. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Strategic also points to Mr. Guo's former -- or relationship |\n| 2 | with Ma Jian, the former head of the Ministry of -- so |\n| 3 | Strategic also points to Mr. Guo's relationship with Ma Jian -- |\n| 4 | M-a, J-i-a-n, he's the former head of the Ministry of State |\n| 5 | Security in China -- as evidence that Mr. Guo is pro-CCP; is |\n| 6 | that right? |\n| 7 | A.
No, Ma Jian was Deputy Minister of State Security, not the |\n| 8 | head of State Security.
So he was Deputy Minster of State |\n| 9 | Securities in charge of foreign intelligence. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
But Strategic asserts that Mr. Guo's relationship |\n| 11 | with him is evidence that he's pro-CCP; is that right? |\n| 12 | A.
No. |\n| 13 | Q.
It doesn't? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
Could we turn to Mr. Waller's second deposition, and we'll |\n| 16 | be looking at page 139.
So if you look at -- I direct your |\n| 17 | attention to page 139, at line 18.
Counsel was reading from |\n| 18 | Strategic's counterclaim, and you were asked:
Then drop down |\n| 19 | to paragraph 53.
Paragraph 53 says:
Guo's protector, |\n| 20 | beginning at about 2004, was Ma Jian, Vice Minister of the |\n| 21 | Ministry of State Security, until Ma's arrest and expulsion |\n| 22 | from the party in December 2014, after losing an intra-party |\n| 23 | power struggle.
Do you see that?
And you responded:
Yes. |\n| 24 | And then you were asked:
What is Strategic Vision's |\n| 25 | basis for that allegation?
And you responded:
Guo told us |\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller - Cross\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\nof 225\n\nthis personally himself, and it was widely recorded in the press. And I might add that -- excuse me. I might add that this intra-party power struggle is important because that was another clue that he was not a real dissident.\n\nSo again, Strategic is citing Mr. Guo's relationship with Ma Jian as evidence that he was pro-CCP; is that correct? A. No, this is not accurate. We're looking at two different time frames. So he came up through the party apparatus with Ma Jian. Of course he was pro-CCP.\n\nMa Jian, who made his fortune for Guo, was then arrested and, to my knowledge, expelled from the communist party in or around 2014. That was the trigger point for Guo to start turning against the CCP. That changed the nature of Guo's relationship with the CCP from being a tool or a member of an app or an ally, or whatever, to becoming an opponent.\n\nThat's where he -- it would be at that point, where he would break with the CCP, that he would become of interest to somebody like me, to want to help him to get his word out and to get his agenda moved forward to take down the party. Q. Okay. All right. So the relationship with Ma Jian is not evidence of fraud in this case?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Okay.\n\nA. Unless it was a continuing relationship, of course, and then it would depend on the nature of that continuing 24 25\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | relationship. |\n| 2 | Q.
But you're not alleging a continuing relationship? |\n| 3 | A.
I don't have -- I believe there is one, but I don't think |\n| 4 | it's part of the complaint. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, you also say that in a May 2017 meeting in which |\n| 6 | Mr. Guo met with certain CCP members in his home is yet more |\n| 7 | evidence that Mr. Guo is pro-CCP; isn't that correct? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
But again, you knew about this meeting before entering into |\n| 10 | the research agreement; isn't that right? |\n| 11 | A.
No, I didn't know until after he filed the lawsuit. |\n| 12 | Q.
All right.
Could we look at DX34?
Now, this document, |\n| 13 | marked as DX34, it was on Strategic's exhibit list.
And you'll |\n| 14 | see this is a Wall Street Journal article entitled \"China's |\n| 15 | pursuit of fugitive businessman Guo Wengui kicks off Manhattan |\n| 16 | caper, worthy of spy thriller.\"
And as we scroll down a little |\n| 17 | bit, the date is October 22nd, 2017.
So this article is dated |\n| 18 | before the research agreement was signed, correct? |\n| 19 | Yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
And it's available publicly? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay.
If we go to page 1 and we take a look at the first |\n| 23 | paragraph:
Guo Wengui, a wealthy Chinese businessman, sat in |\n| 24 | the sun room of his apartment on the 18th floor of the Sherry |\n| 25 | Netherland Hotel, on New York's Fifth Avenue.
With him are |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | four officials from China's Ministry of State Security, whom |\n| 2 | Mr. Guo had agreed to meet. |\n| 3 | And then if you go to paragraph 3, it says:
Liu Yen |\n| 4 | Ping, a league official, said they had come on behalf of |\n| 5 | Beijing to find a solution, according to Mr. Guo in a partial |\n| 6 | audio recording Mr. Guo said he made of the May encounter. |\n| 7 | You weren't aware of this before the research |\n| 8 | agreement was signed? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes, I was aware of this article, and actually, Mr. Guo |\n| 10 | explained that visit to us. |\n| 11 | Q.
Mr. Waller, I'm just asking, were you aware of this visit? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
All right. |\n| 14 | A.
But I will say this gets back to the nature of the |\n| 15 | relationship because I knew of the meeting.
I didn't know -- |\n| 16 | Q.
Mr. Waller, Mr. Waller.
No question is pending, and you're |\n| 17 | going to get your chance. |\n| 18 | A.
Fine. |\n| 19 | Now, despite knowing all this, Strategic still entered into
Q. |\n| 20 | the research agreement with Eastern Profit; is that correct? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
And Strategic did not require Eastern to make a written |\n| 23 | representation in the research agreement that Mr. Guo was a |\n| 24 | Chinese dissident that opposed to CCP, did it? |\n| 25 | No.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
All right.
Let's change gears a bit here.
So from this |\n| 2 | project, you and Ms. Wallop agreed that you would split the |\n| 3 | profits made under the research agreement 50/50; is that |\n| 4 | correct? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And your understanding of profits is revenue minus |\n| 7 | expenses, right? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And you were also separately reimbursed for certain of your |\n| 10 | expenses; is that correct? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And your half of the profits, to that extent, was \\$265,000; |\n| 13 | is that right? |\n| 14 | A.
No, that was not all profit.
There were expenses as part |\n| 15 | of that. |\n| 16 | Q.
So let's look at your deposition, your second deposition, |\n| 17 | Waller 2, at page 66.
So if you look at page 66, line 20, you |\n| 18 | were asked:
And ballpark, how much money was expended in costs |\n| 19 | by Strategic with respect to this contract?
And you responded: |\n| 20 | That question would be best put to my colleague, but I can tell |\n| 21 | you by negative reasoning, my half of the residual was about |\n| 22 | 250.
And you were asked:
So your half of the earnings was |\n| 23 | 250,000?
You responded:
Yes. |\n| 24 | Mr. Waller, do you recall being asked those questions |\n| 25 | and giving those answers at your deposition? |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
And those were truthful? |\n| 3 | A.
Those were truthful, but there's a -- there's an add on to |\n| 4 | that. |\n| 5 | Q.
That was a truthful statement? |\n| 6 | A.
That was a truthful statement, but they were not all |\n| 7 | profits.
It was not all residual.
I used some of my private |\n| 8 | funds to settle certain outstanding matters. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did you produce any documentation of these outstanding |\n| 10 | matters? |\n| 11 | A.
I ate those costs myself. |\n| 12 | Q.
So there's no proof in the record that would show those |\n| 13 | costs? |\n| 14 | A.
I don't believe so. |\n| 15 | Q.
Could we turn to same page 182 of this deposition.
After |\n| 16 | further questioning, we came back to this issue, and you were |\n| 17 | asked at line 8:
So the total amount of your personal payment |\n| 18 | ended up being 275,000; is that correct?
And you responded: |\n| 19 | Is that how it adds up?
And you were asked:
Well, let's just |\n| 20 | do it again.
So there's 200 from Psyber Solutions, right? |\n| 21 | 50,000 from Oceanic Advisors.
So we're at 250, correct?
And |\n| 22 | you responded:
Yes, 265, that sounds better. |\n| 23 | And then you were asked:
265, is that consistent with |\n| 24 | your recollection?
And you respond:
Right.
That's why I had |\n| 25 | corrected before when I said approximately 250.
That was the |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | approximation. |\n| 2 | So you corrected that your half of the residual was |\n| 3 | not 250, it was really 265; is that correct? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
If we could open up the pretrial order binder.
Excuse me, |\n| 6 | the Strategic's findings of fact, and we'll look at page 23, |\n| 7 | paragraph -- yes, right there.
So there's seven categories |\n| 8 | here.
First one, French allocation for business expenses, we |\n| 9 | covered that this morning.
The second one, Michael Waller's |\n| 10 | personal allocation, 200 in January 2018, and 50,000 in |\n| 11 | June 2018.
Then there's a third category, travel disbursed to |\n| 12 | Waller via Georgetown Research, that's \\$25,000. |\n| 13 | And then if you look at the last category, Georgetown |\n| 14 | Research, \\$15,000 in May 2018.
Do you see that? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
So you have the second category, which is Michael Waller's |\n| 17 | personal allocation, 200 and 250,000, that's 250,000, and then |\n| 18 | Georgetown Research for 15,000 in May of 2018.
That's the 265 |\n| 19 | that we were just talking about, right? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And then the third category there, it starts with the word |\n| 22 | \"travel;\" do you see that? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And so in addition to the 265, you were also disbursed |\n| 25 | \\$25,000 for your travel expenses? |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Now, in the record, you produced three invoices that |\n| 3 | purport to detail your expenses in this matter; is that |\n| 4 | correct? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Okay.
Let's take a look at those.
If we could open up |\n| 7 | DX58. |\n| 8 | MR. CHUFF:
And, your Honor, just a point of |\n| 9 | housekeeping, I offer DX34 for the sole purpose of showing that |\n| 10 | it says what it says, not for the truth of the matter asserted. |\n| 11 | I hope to get to that point. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So that's received for that limited |\n| 13 | purpose, subject to motions to strike. |\n| 14 | I take it there's no objection to the authenticity or |\n| 15 | the date of the article? |\n| 16 | MR. GREIM:
None, your Honor. |\n| 17 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX34 received in evidence) |\n| 18 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 19 | And DX58, is this one of the invoices that you submitted,
Q. |\n| 20 | you personally, Mr. Waller, submitted to Georgetown Research |\n| 21 | for your expenses? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And the total down there, it says \\$3,037.50? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | And but then it has minus \\$464.30?
Q. |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Do you see that? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | And was that because you were refunded some money from
Q. |\n| 5 | Delta for a flight? |\n| 6 | A.
It was a canceled airline flight, yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
Right.
And so the total of that invoice is \\$2,573.20? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Is that right? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And then if we look at -- |\n| 12 | MR. CHUFF:
Actually, could we offer that into |\n| 13 | evidence, your Honor? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Received subject to motion to strike. |\n| 15 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX58 received in evidence) |\n| 16 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 17 | Q.
Now, if we can go to pull up DX59.
And, Mr. Waller, is |\n| 18 | this a February 27th, 2018, invoice from you, personally, to |\n| 19 | your company, Georgetown Research, for expenses? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And the total amount at the bottom there is \\$6,890.06? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | MR. CHUFF:
Okay.
And I offer that into evidence as |\n| 24 | well, your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Same ruling.
It's received subject to |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | motion to strike. |\n| 2 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX59 received in evidence) |\n| 3 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 4 | And then can we open up DX60, please?
Q.
Again, this is a |\n| 5 | third invoice from you, personally, to your company, Georgetown |\n| 6 | Research; is that correct? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And this total is \\$1,053.79? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
Now, we could do the math, but I'll just represent |\n| 11 | that the total of that amount only amounts to \\$10,000 -- |\n| 12 | \\$10,517.05, and these are the only three invoices that you |\n| 13 | produced to show your costs in this litigation; is that |\n| 14 | correct? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
So part of that 25,000, roughly, give or take, 15,000, |\n| 17 | wasn't actually allocated to expenses, was it?
It was more |\n| 18 | profit? |\n| 19 | No, that's not true.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Is there any document in the record that shows that it was |\n| 21 | allocated to an expense? |\n| 22 | A.
No, and, your Honor, if I may explain that, clarify that? |\n| 23 | Otherwise, I'll wait. |\n| 24 | Q.
No. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
You may. |\n| | |\n\nof 225\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller - Cross\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\npurchases?\n\nA. What we had, given the nature of the research team in Europe and Asia, making sure there was no electronic signature trails for certain electronic purchases that we were doing to execute the contract, we paid for a lot of things in cash.\n\nI ended up paying those out of these accounts in cash but, of course, there's no records to show this. So we would take the cash spent, and have -- and take responsibilities for paying the taxes on that, which would be the 32 percent of that. You have to add on the tax margin, and that covered the cost of cash payments that we had to make in order to make sure that certain electronics purchases were not traceable. Q. But you didn't maintain any receipts for those electronic\n\nA. That would defeat the purpose of doing it that way. Q. Okay.\n\nTHE COURT: I'm sorry, when you buy the electronics, doesn't the vendor from whom you're buying generate a record?\n\nTHE WITNESS: Yes, they generate a receipt. But when you do an electronic purchase, it goes into a database, and there was concern that the Chinese intelligence services have access to so many American databases, that there would be some tracing linking up the transaction with the serial number on the electronic devices that could then be traced to the research teams doing the electronic research work. So we wanted to eliminate any possibility of that happening. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller - Redirect of 225\n\nTHE COURT: And that concern isn't raised when the vendor has a record of to whom they sold the electronics? 1 2 3\n\nTHE WITNESS: Not with -- they issued a receipt, but I didn't keep the receipt in order to prevent any paper trail. So this was part of a flat rate that Mr. Guo was paying, and we recovered those expenses out of the flat rate.\n\nMR. CHUFF: So, your Honor, we don't have any more questions at this time. We just reserve some time for recross.\n\nTHE COURT: Why don't we start with five minutes of the examination, and then we'll break for the day. 9 10\n\nMr. Chuff, we're waiting, I don't think I received a plaintiff's exhibit binder for Mr. Waller. Obviously, I don't need it now, but it would be useful to have it up at the bench.\n\nOkay. Mr. Greim, you may inquire.\n\nREDIRECT EXAMINATION\n\nBY MR. GREIM: 16\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nQ. Dr. Waller, as we did with Ms. Wallop, I'm going to start with a lit bit more about your background. Can you tell us, what's your educational background?\n\nA. I got a Bachelor's degree in international relations in Soviet studies from George Washington University; a Masters in international relations and communications from Boston University, studying under a Soviet block defector; and then a Ph.D in international security affairs from Boston University. Q. Did any of that education involve your actually going 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | overseas with work over there? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
What was that? |\n| 4 | I was -- for the academic side of it, the graduate work, I
A. |\n| 5 | went to the Soviet Union frequently to write my dissertation on |\n| 6 | the collapse -- what was becoming the collapse of the Soviet |\n| 7 | Union, with a focus on the Soviet Security and Intelligence |\n| 8 | Services.
And there, I started working with the democratic |\n| 9 | underground opposition movement inside Russia. |\n| 10 | Q.
Were you there when the Soviet Union fell? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes.
I was in the Kremlin the day Boris Yeltsin seceded |\n| 12 | Russia from the USSR. |\n| 13 | Q.
What's your current employment? |\n| 14 | A.
I'm senior analyst for strategy at Center for Security |\n| 15 | Policy. |\n| 16 | Q.
What is CSP, if we can call it that? |\n| 17 | A.
It's a think tank based in Washington, D.C. |\n| 18 | Q.
What does it focus on? |\n| 19 | It focuses on defense, national security, foreign policy,
A. |\n| 20 | counter-terrorism. |\n| 21 | Q.
How long have you been employed there? |\n| 22 | A.
Off and on for roughly 20 years. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did you do anything outside of that, any teaching? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes.
I was a full professor for 13 years.
I was the |\n| 25 | Annenberg Chair, Professor of International Communications, at |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | the Institute of World Politics, which was a graduate school in |\n| 2 | Washington.
And I ran a program on economic studies of |\n| 3 | international propaganda and the psychological operation. |\n| 4 | Q.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead. |\n| 5 | A.
Pardon me.
And then I was a contract instructor for the |\n| 6 | Naval Postgraduate School and for the U.S. Army, for |\n| 7 | instructing pre-deployment teams in psychological operations |\n| 8 | and information operations. |\n| 9 | I then was a -- I developed a curriculum for the |\n| 10 | Fourth Psychological Operations Group for the U.S. Army Special |\n| 11 | Forces at Fort Bragg on divisive operations.
And I am |\n| 12 | presently a contract instructor with the John F. Kennedy |\n| 13 | Special Warfare Center and School. |\n| 14 | Q.
So you said divisive operations, is that in any way related |\n| 15 | to what you were discussing with Guo in December of 2017? |\n| 16 | Yes, this is exactly what I was doing.
A. |\n| 17 | Q.
Have you written any books or articles? |\n| 18 | A.
I have. |\n| 19 | Q.
What generally -- don't list them all for us, but just |\n| 20 | generally, what have you written about? |\n| 21 | A.
About the communist political systems, international |\n| 22 | communist political systems, communist parties and |\n| 23 | international organized crime, Russian and Chinese intelligence |\n| 24 | services and operations, and in related areas of psychological |\n| 25 | operations and information operations in political warfare. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4JPEAS6
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Now, do you have any business entities of your own? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes.
I have an LLC called Liberty Tree Partners, and I |\n| 3 | still have Georgetown Research. |\n| 4 | Okay.
Q.
What about -- we heard about Oceanic Advisors.
Do |\n| 5 | you still have that entity? |\n| 6 | A.
No. |\n| 7 | Q.
What kind of work -- did they, all three, or I guess -- |\n| 8 | Oceanic is gone.
But did they all do the same type of work? |\n| 9 | A.
No.
I had a number of LLCs as pass-throughs, to make it |\n| 10 | more difficult for outsiders to see -- for example, in the case |\n| 11 | of working with Mr. Guo, a set of pass-throughs, either |\n| 12 | organizations that I either owned or owned by other people, |\n| 13 | that I controlled, to anonymize payments, to protect clients. |\n| 14 | Presently Liberty Tree Partners is just a general |\n| 15 | purpose LLC, and Georgetown Research is a research company. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
You say it's a research company.
What kind of work |\n| 17 | have you done for Georgetown? |\n| 18 | A.
Well, we started to service this contract that we're |\n| 19 | talking about right now.
I've done investigative research on |\n| 20 | mining, on political opposition research, on certain |\n| 21 | geopolitical issues of interest to private companies, and |\n| 22 | certain western hemisphere issues, and issues relating to |\n| 23 | threat analyses. |\n| 24 | Q.
And did you do similar types of research under Liberty Tree |\n| 25 | or Oceanic before you had Georgetown? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Dr. Waller, have you ever gotten a PI license? |\n| 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Have any of your clients ever asked for your licensure as a
Q. |\n| 5 | private investigator? |\n| 6 | A.
No. |\n| 7 | Q.
Have you ever considered getting a private investigator |\n| 8 | license? |\n| 9 | A.
No. |\n| 10 | Q.
Let's talk real quickly about the Guo project here.
Did |\n| 11 | you -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, it sounds like we're going on |\n| 13 | to a new line of examination; so why don't we break for the |\n| 14 | day, if that's okay, and we'll reconvene tomorrow morning at |\n| 15 | 9:30. |\n| 16 | I would ask all parties to try to get here a little |\n| 17 | bit before 9:30 or make sure you're in the courtroom, ready to |\n| 18 | get started -- that includes you, Mr. Waller -- Dr. Waller -- |\n| 19 | so that we can start promptly at 9:30 tomorrow morning. |\n| 20 | Very well.
Have a good evening, everybody. |\n| 21 | (Adjourned to April 20, 2021, at 9:30 a.m.) |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\nof 225\n\n| 1 | INDEX OF EXAMINATION |\n|----|--------------------------------|\n| 2 | Examination of:
Page |\n| 3 | FRENCH WALLOP |\n| 4 | Cross By Ms. Cline33 |\n| 5 | Redirect By Mr. Greim
. 120 |\n| 6 | Recross By Ms. Cline 168 |\n| 7 | Redirect By Mr. Greim
. 179 |\n| 8 | J. MICHAEL WALLER |\n| 9 | Cross By Mr. Chuff 180 |\n| 10 | Redirect By Mr. Greim
. 218 |\n| 11 | PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS |\n| 12 | Exhibit No.
Received |\n| 13 | PX2
.63 |\n| 14 | PX1
.69 |\n| 15 | PX7
.79 |\n| 16 | 24
. 104 |\n| 17 | 22 and 23
. 107 |\n| 18 | 29
. 109 |\n| 19 | DEFENDANT EXHIBITS |\n| 20 | Exhibit No.
Received |\n| 21 | DX38
.58 |\n| 22 | DX39
.60 |\n| 23 | DX8
.80 |\n| 24 | DX43
.84 |\n| 25 | DX62
. 130 |\n\nof 225\n\n| 1 | DX16 and DX17 | | | | | | | | | | | . 159 |\n|----|---------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|-------|\n| | 19 | | | | | | | | | | | . 162 |\n| | DX34 | | | | | | | | | | | . 214 |\n| | DX58 | | | | | | | | | | | . 215 |\n| 5 | DX59 | | | | | | | | | | | . 216 |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"附件4\n\nL4JKEAS1 225\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区\n\nEASTERN PROFIT CORPORATION\nLIMITED（东方利润有限公司），\n原告，\n诉 18 CV 2185 (LJL)\nSTRATEGIC VISION US LLC（美国战略愿景有限责任公司），\n被告。\n\n纽约州纽约市\n2021年4月19日\n上午9时30分\n审判长：\n尊敬的 LEWIS J. LIMAN（刘易斯·J·利曼）法官，\n地区法官\n出庭人员\nTROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n代理人：\nCHRISTOPHER B. CHUFF（克里斯托弗·B·查夫）\nJOANNA J. CLINE（乔安娜·J·克莱因）\nGRAVES GARRETT LLC（格雷夫斯·加勒特有限责任公司）\n被告代理律师\n代理人：\nEDWARD DEAN GREIM（爱德华·迪恩·格雷姆）\nJENNIFER A. DONNELLI（詹妮弗·A·多内利）\n同时出席者：\nMelissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯），Eastern Profit Corporation Limited 公司代表\nJ. Michael Waller（J·迈克尔·沃勒），Strategic Vision US LLC 公司代表\n\n1 （案件开庭）\n\n2 法庭书记员助理：\n请先由原告代理律师为记录说明出庭身份。\n\n4 克莱因女士：\n早上好，法官阁下。我是乔安娜·克莱因，\n\n5 Troutman Pepper，代理原告。\n\n6 法庭：\n早上好，克莱因女士。\n\n7 查夫先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。我是克里斯·查夫，\n\n8 Troutman Pepper，代表 Eastern Profit 出庭。\n\n9 法庭：\n早上好，查夫先生。\n\n10 弗朗西斯女士：\n早上好，法官阁下。我是梅丽莎\n\n11 ·弗朗西斯，代表 Eastern Profit 的公司代表。\n\n12 法庭：\n很好。早上好，弗朗西斯女士。请\n\n13 坐。\n\n14 被告方？\n\n15 格雷姆先生：\n法官阁下，代表被告方出庭的有来自 Graves Garrett 的\n\n16 埃迪·格雷姆、来自\n\n17 Graves Garrett 的詹妮弗·多内利，以及\n\n18 Strategic Vision 的公司代表 J·迈克尔·沃勒。\n\n19 法庭：\n欢迎。早上好。请\n\n20 坐。\n\n21 在我们开始之前，我这边有几件事要说，\n\n22 随后我会询问双方当事人是否有任何事项需要向\n\n23 法庭提出。\n\n24 警告：本案正在通过电话向希望旁听的人员传送，\n\n25 其中包括公众人士。显然，法庭是公开法庭。任何人对今日的庭审进行直播或录制，均属违法并违反法院命令。\n\nL4JKEAS1\n\n第二，我已就审判向双方当事人规定严格的时间限制，包括开庭陈述、证言以及届时的结案陈词。我的法庭助理将负责计时。我已要求他，就开庭陈述而言，在每一方的开庭陈述剩余五分钟时向其发出提醒。如任何一方不希望这样，应在开始开庭陈述前告知我。\n\n关于审判时长，我的意图是要求你们遵守我规定的时间限制。不过，如果在四天结束时，双方当事人已有效利用时间且未浪费时间，并且有正当理由需要继续进行审判并安排额外一天提供证言，我会就此听取双方当事人的意见。这在一定程度上应被理解为对双方当事人的警告，即要有效利用时间。这是法官审理案件。我认为我的理解能力相当快。你们无需对论点反复渲染。当然，进行你们需要进行的交叉询问，但并不总是需要画蛇添足。\n\n这些是我想提及的事项。在我们开始之前，原告方是否还有其他事项？\n\n2 克莱因女士：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n3 法庭：\n格雷姆先生，被告方？\n\n4 格雷姆先生：\n被告方没有。\n\n5 法庭：\n好的。\n\n6 那么，我们将以开庭陈述开始。\n\n7 克莱因女士，您将代表原告作开庭陈述吗？\n\n8 克莱因女士：\n是的。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n9 因此，考虑到法庭关于画蛇添足的意见，\n\n10 我们理解法庭熟悉事实情况，\n\n11 我们将直接进入正题。\n\n12 这是一起合同案件。双方当事人的关系\n\n13 存续时间很短，相关事实数量有限，\n\n14 提交法庭审理的争议归结为几个非常、非常\n\n15 狭窄的问题：\n\n16 第一，是否存在可执行的合同？\n\n17 第二，双方当事人是否履行了合同？\n\n18 第三，Strategic 能否以明确且令人信服的证据证明\n\n19 欺诈的每一项要件？\n\n20 让我们从第一个问题开始，即合同是否\n\n21 可执行。作为门槛问题，我们认为，\n\n22 该合同因违反公共政策而无效，因为 Strategic\n\n23 订约提供其未获许可提供的私人调查服务。\n\n24 合同的明确文字要求 Strategic 进行研究，原文称，“为\n\n25 发现、制止和防止针对无辜人士的犯罪或其他伤害之目的。”\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——克莱因女士 225\n\n双方当事人并不争议，Virginia law（弗吉尼亚州法律）禁止任何人在未获许可的情况下招揽或从事私人调查业务；双方也并不争议，Strategic 及其负责人均从未获得许可。但是，法院在简易判决阶段认为，关于本案所涉研究协议是否涉及针对犯罪或民事不法行为的传统私人调查活动，从而属于许可要求的范围，抑或是否涉及不属于该范围的其他更为一般性的活动，仍存在事实争议。\n\n证据将通过 Strategic 自身证人的承认表明，尽管其缺乏培训且能力不足，他们仍订约从事并实际从事或试图从事传统的私人调查活动。正如沃勒先生所称，“老式侦探类工作。”\n\n其中一个例子是，他们进行了监视。如果监视不属于传统私人调查活动，我们不知道还有什么属于。Wallop 女士在其证言中承认，尽管她没有接受过相关培训或具备相关资质，她仍前往 Turks and Caicos（特克斯和凯科斯群岛）的一个度假村，用 Eastern 的钱，并带着她的儿子，正如她所说，她前往那里追踪、监视，\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——克莱因女士 225\n\n并收集关于双方同意依合同调查的两名嫌疑人的情报。她承认亲自这样做了。恕我直言，许可要求背后的公共政策正是旨在防止不具备资格的人做这样的事——向他人收费，以便从一处岛屿地点扮演间谍。\n\n证据还将表明，Wallop 女士和沃勒先生承诺所做的不仅仅是监视。他们称将获取调查对象的私人银行及财务记录，调查调查对象涉嫌的婚外情，并且总体上试图发现，正如沃勒先生在其证言中所说，任何会表明这些人违反中国法律、美国法律，并进而损害党领导层声誉的事项。\n\n根据其自身证言，被告订约提供私人调查服务，因此该合同无效，Strategic 应返还 Eastern 的 \\$1 million 定金。\n\n但让我们暂且搁置这一点，转向第二个问题。如果我们假定合同有效且可执行，证据将就双方当事人是否履行合同表明以下事实。Eastern 聘用 Strategic 调查特定人员，这些人员系 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）的高级官员，或者与中共高级官员关系密切。20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——克莱因女士 225\n\nStrategic 应就特定个人提供载于 U 盘交付的综合书面调查报告，而 Eastern 则应根据合同中明确规定的定价，为每份研究报告付款。\n\n合同要求 Eastern 在合同开始时支付 \\$1 million 定金，随后 Strategic 每完成并以 U 盘交付书面报告，Eastern 即应依合同条款支付额外款项。合同详细规定了交付成果的性质。报告将有三种类型——财务法证报告、当前追踪报告和社交媒体报告。\n\nEastern 履行了其应尽义务——其向 Strategic Vision 汇付一百万美元，随后便应由 Strategic 履行合同，但事情立即就出了问题。Strategic 自己承认，其从未提供任何一份其明确同意依合同提供的综合报告。一份也没有。\n\nWallop 和 Waller 不具备完成其明确承诺事项所需的许可、专业知识或资源。数周过去后，当显然 Wallop 和 Waller 已远超其能力所及，并且 Strategic 不会履行其承诺时，Eastern 终止了合同并要求返还其款项。20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——克莱因女士 225\n\n但 Strategic 拒绝返还 Eastern 的款项，这就是我们来到这里的原因。根据撤销合同的损害赔偿计算方式，Eastern 有权获得全额返还其定金。顺带一提，即使 Strategic 有权保留其为尝试履行而发生的合理费用，证据也将表明，一旦剔除没有依据的索赔费用，并剔除在 Hermes、Tumi 和 Bloomies 等奢侈品零售店的奢侈购物费用，Strategic 的支出仅为一百万美元中的极小一部分。\n\n现在，回到实体问题：既然承认其未提供合同要求的任何报告，Strategic 的说法是什么？Strategic 提出两项基本抗辩：第一，Wallop 和 Waller 受到欺诈性诱导而订立合同；第二，即使合同有效，他们也有权保留 \\$1 million 定金，因为该款项来自代表 Eastern Profit 的贷款人，而非 Eastern 本身。\n\n让我们先讨论第二项理论。对于 Strategic 主张 Eastern 无法追回其 \\$1 million，因为该款项来自名为 ACA 的贷款人，Strategic 在法律上是错误的。双方当事人在合同中明确约定，Eastern“可指示其他实体向 Strategic 付款”，且“Strategic 将视此类付款为满意的报酬。”19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——克莱因女士\n\nStrategic 并未坚持要求该款项必须直接来自 Eastern，事实上，Strategic 明确订立了相反的约定。而且，很能说明问题的是，当 Eastern 的 \\$1 million 定金从 ACA 汇入时，Strategic 当然没有拒收或返还。他们没有暂停并说这里发生了什么；他们在银行有一百万美元后继续推进。\n\n证据将表明，Eastern 与 ACA 签订了贷款协议，而 ACA 期待最终获得偿还。但正如我们在书面文件中所述，即使 ACA 的贷款从未得到偿还，即使该款项是 ACA 向 Eastern 作出的赠与，这仍然是依良心而言属于 Eastern、且应返还给 Eastern 的款项。它当然不属于 Strategic。\n\n现在我们讨论第三个问题，即 Strategic 是否能够以明确且令人信服的证据证明欺诈，即欺诈的每一项要件。由于若干原因，它不能。\n\n让我们预览一下 Strategic 的理论。一家所谓成熟的私人调查公司，一家自称深谙国际政治，并能够在全球追踪、监视和调查人员的公司，声称其受到误导而订立合同，因为其对 Eastern 的代理人之一、在互联网上极具知名度的 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的政治观点存在误解。Wallop 和 Waller 主张，他们可以保留 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——克莱因女士 225\n\nEastern 的一百万美元，因为他们称——他们现在称郭先生支持中国共产党，而他们订立合同仅因他们认为郭先生是反对中国共产党的代理人。\n\n这一论点存在诸多问题，其中每一个都具有决定性。首先，Strategic（Strategic）无法指出郭先生或Eastern（东方）作出的、且Strategic据以信赖的任何一项重要虚假陈述。事实上，最初是Strategic主动接触并招揽郭先生，协助其处理沟通、形象以及可以说是其战略愿景。他并未招揽他们，亦未诱使他们采取任何行动。\n\n第二，合同绝未提及CCP（中国共产党）、共产主义或异见人士。如果这确实是其交易中如此重要的一部分，Wallop（沃洛普）和Waller（沃勒）本应将其写入由他们主导起草的合同；或者，他们本可在订立合同前进行一次非常简单的Google搜索，并获悉同样的事实——即他们如今声称若在订立合同前知悉便会导致交易无法达成的同样事实。\n\n第三，Strategic无法证明有关郭先生政治立场的被指陈述是虚假的。政治是复杂的，我方主张，一个人是否为异见人士并非能够被证明真伪的事实。但即使可以证明，您将直接听取郭先生关于其观点及其对异见人士群体所作贡献的陈述。他将告诉您，Strategic的立场何其荒谬。证据还将表明，郭先生是世界上最直言不讳的反共产主义活动人士之一。Strategic根本无法以确凿且令人信服的证据证明欺诈的每一项要件。如果本案的审前诉讼程序可作参考，您将听到对方提出一张极其复杂而牵强的指控网络；而在Eastern一方，将存在语言和文化障碍，可能使理解证词较为困难或识别证人颇具挑战；双方都将提出持有强烈且热切观点的证人。但是，最终，Strategic的欺诈理论将彻底崩溃。所谓有关郭先生与CCP关系的证据，无论其多么可疑，且暂且不论其应获赋予的微小证明力，在Strategic这家调查公司订立合同之前就已遍布互联网。Strategic要么已经知悉，要么本应知悉该等情况，因而Strategic无法证明其存在合理信赖。\n\n还值得指出的是，当Strategic的第一批律师在本案中提交其答辩及反诉时，该等证据仍遍布互联网，而该答辩及反诉并未包括欺诈主张。当Strategic的第二批律师在未提出欺诈主张的情况下继续诉讼时，该等证据仍遍布互联网；但不知何故，在Strategic于本案中提交第一份答辩一年后，当Strategic聘请了由一名尚未披露的外部资助方支付费用的第三批律师时，Strategic才突然抓住其支持欺诈反诉的证据，并首次质疑郭先生的政治信仰。该欺诈主张不过是一个旁枝末节。\n\n现在，回到我们开始的地方：我们请求您审查证据以及您将听到的无关影射所构成的错综复杂网络，并聚焦于法院面前的狭窄争点：\n\n第一，是否存在一份可执行的合同？第二，当事人是否履行了其义务？第三，Strategic能否以确凿且令人信服的证据证明欺诈的每一项要件？\n\n我们请求您认定不存在可执行的合同，或者即使存在，Strategic也违反了合同。无论哪一种情形，Strategic均已承认其从未交付合同明确要求的任何详细报告。而Strategic无法以确凿且令人信服的证据证明欺诈的任何一项要件，更遑论证明其中的每一项。\n\nStrategic不当收取了$1 million，而Eastern未获得任何回报。我们请求您作出有利于Eastern的$1 million加利息的判决，并驳回Strategic的诉求。\n\n法庭：\n非常感谢。\n\n辩方？\n\nGREIM先生：\n法官阁下，本案获得正确解决存在一条简短而直接的路径。Eastern Profit（东方利益）的损害赔偿请求——无论基于何种理论——都是虚假的，因为其所称与ACA（ACA）之间的借款本身就是虚假的。事实将表明，其根本没有理由为一份据称旨在解冻仅$80,000的合同支付$1 million借款作为定金。并且，要想成功，该合同在随后数月内还需要数百万美元。然而，您将听取Eastern一方的Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）和Han Chunguang（韩春光）就这些事实所作的证言。Eastern并非真实的企业。Eastern没有真实的义务，也没有真实的资产。其没有向ACA偿还借款的义务。相反，它过去是、现在是，并且将永远是一家被冻结的香港银行账户。它是郭先生以及任何其他为其美国业务提供资金者的通道实体。法官阁下，本案中所有其他事实和论点的曲折路径，归根结底都通向并终止于这一点。\n\n不过，退一步审视本案的整体情况，事实将表明三件事：第一，正如我刚才所说，Eastern Profit没有损害赔偿请求；第二，合同是合法的，且实质性违约的是Eastern Profit，而非Strategic Vision（战略愿景）；第三，Eastern Profit通过郭先生对Strategic Vision实施了欺诈，无论作为反诉还是抗辩皆然。但是，再次强调，本案整体始于、终于、并且可以仅凭第一点结束。\n\n现在，我们将更详细地转向第一点。这实际上并不是Eastern Profit的案件。本案中唯一的金钱请求是返还已支付的$1 million定金。实际出资来自ACA并无争议。如本庭在其简易判决裁定中所解释的问题在于，EP声称从ACA取得的借款是否为虚假借款。Eastern能否履行其举证责任，证明存在ACA向Eastern提供的真实借款，还是事实表明ACA的付款是应郭先生要求作出的投资？\n\n这一香港实体选择来到纽约、来到纽约法院解决这一问题，因此将适用纽约州法律。如我们在拟议事实认定和法律结论中所示，纽约法院将考察多项事实，我稍后将具体说明：是否存在担保物、借款金额与借款人企业规模之间的关系、款项的预定用途、付款条件，以及公司自身在业务和会计记录中是否将该交易作为借款对待。法官阁下，此处的事实将表明什么？\n\n首先，经济状况：核心在于Yvette Wang的证言。她代表Eastern作证称，其资产在2017年6月时已经被冻结，至今仍被冻结。\n\n其全部资产均被冻结。银行中的金额为550,000 Hong Kong dollars，即80,000 U.S. dollars。法官阁下，合同要求立即支付$1 million定金，并在三年内每月支付$750,000。这将在仅数周内又需要$750,000，在4月中旬最初合同三个月回溯期结束前需要$2.2 million，并在合同期限内需要$27 million。\n\nEastern Profit根本没有接近足够的资金来为合同提供资金，并且正如您将从其证人处听到的，它当时正在采取措施筹集这些资金。还有一个问题，即借款的偿还取决于该合同能否在仅五个月内、即还款日2018年6月前成功履行。现在，在证据开示接近结束时，Eastern终于被迫完成其公司代表的证言录取，而该证言录取最早于2019年1月即已尝试进行。其证人仍是Yvette Wang。然而，她作出了与其原先证言完全不同的陈述。Wang首次作证称，该研究毕竟并非为郭先生而作；相反，Eastern自身有目的且将使用该研究来解冻其自身资金。在此之前，Strategic或本案中从未提及过这一点，而本案当时已经进行了远超过两年——嗯，大约一年半。Eastern本身是在签署前不久才被纳入合同的。\n\n第二，Eastern——让我们调出该文件——通过律师致本庭的信函，于2019年11月22日作出一项具有约束力且至关重要的承认。在Docket 203-2——这是您稍后将看到的Exhibit 126B（证物126B）——其引入香港高等法院（Hong Kong High Court）的一项命令，以证明Eastern的资产已被该法院冻结。法官阁下，Eastern是该命令中列明的27名被申请人之一。您可以看到，第一位正是稍后将到庭的Guo Wengui（郭文贵），下一位是其子Guo Qiang（郭强），名单继续往下。甚至本案中还有几位其他证人也在名单上。Han Chunguang稍后也在名单上。China Golden Spring（中国金泉）也在名单上，以及您稍后将听到的一些其他名称。\n\n法官阁下，Eastern Profit的理论是，Strategic将挖掘出研究材料，该研究将导致中国大陆政权更迭，继而波及香港并导致其$80,000获得解冻。Yvette Wang将不得不如此陈述；那是她在证据开示临近结束时提出的故事的第二个版本。她明天将在此承认这一点。\n\n但是请看该研究协议。它设想持续三年并涉及多达4,000个对象。仅最初数月就仅涉及15个对象。研究协议中没有任何内容表明CCP将在2018年6月前被推翻，所有资金将被解冻，以便他们偿还这笔million-dollar借款。再者，法官阁下，另一个问题是，即使取得这种异乎寻常的成功，仍将需要每月支付$750,000，仅为使Strategic继续工作。但Eastern甚至尚未开始探索如何筹得这笔钱。它从未尝试过。\n\n然而，即使Strategic在获得该million dollars后可以免费工作，并在借款期限剩余期间继续工作，仅定金的利息支付就会在第四个月耗尽Eastern Profit在银行中的资金，远早于借款到期日。\n\n因此，法官阁下，仅仅同意该研究协议就确保Eastern Profit破产，但ACA借款——如果它存在——不过是雪上加霜。即使完美履行并立即发生中国历史性的政权更迭，仍将意味着ACA本金的全部损失，以及利息付款违约。它不是借款。\n\nHan Chunguang将承认，他没有就条件进行询价谈判；但现实而言，没有任何贷方会提供一笔无担保借款——本案正是如此——仅为一项旨在实现历史性政权更迭的投机性项目支付定金，或在借款人根本无法支付利息、无法为项目其余部分提供资金，更不用说偿还定金本金的情况下提供借款。也许这正是Yvette Wang作证称ACA——她明天还会再次告诉您——将从Eastern取得研究成果，并且如果研究成功，ACA将豁免该借款（按她的说法）的原因。当然会如此。这笔借款本应在其被……的那一刻就予以核销。\n\n由 ACA（ACA公司）作出。\n\n第二，我们将听到 Eastern（东方利润公司）是一家空壳公司。没有任何证人能在证言录取中说明其经营何种业务。任何证人都不应能够来到这里编造新的说法。Han Chunguang（韩春光）于 2015 年以约 $200 买下 Eastern，并以大致相同的金额将其出售给 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的女儿，恰好是在其 $80,000 资产于 June 2017 被冻结之前。Guo 在本合同谈判及履行期间高度倚重的 Lianchao Han 博士（韩连潮），在本案提起诉讼之前从未听说过 Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）。从未听说过。\n\n包括亲郭证人 Lianchao Han 在内的数名证人将证明，所谓 Eastern 负责人 Han Chunguang 在其他所有人看来像是 Guo 的仆人，为 Guo 做饭，并被 Guo 称为“小韩”。这就是据称负责 Eastern 的人。\n\n最后，关于资金来源：正如 Sasha Gong（龚莎莎）将告诉各位的那样，William Je（威廉·杰）是由 Guo 作为其资金主管介绍的。他是经营 ACA 的人，而 ACA 曾为 Guo 的其他事项汇款。其中包括向 Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）支付的 $100,000，后者撰写了一本宣传 Guo 的书。法官阁下，ACA 是 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）在谈判及履行期间的同期短信中所称为其提供资金的投资者——所谓“投资者”。Yvette Wang 一再表示，投资者正在为该项目提供资金，而我们知道，唯一的资金都来自 ACA。\n\n最后，该交易本身也不规范。事实将表明，该交易的进展程度远不足以允许就这份所谓的贷款协议进行数日的面对面谈判，并于 December 29th 签字。各位还将听到 Han Chunguang 就其如何参与此事所作的精心铺陈的背景说法，但并不清楚 Han Chunguang 实际上是否与 Eastern 有任何关系。\n\n最后，还有该文件本身。法官阁下，Eastern Profit 甚至没有保留其自身的一份贷款副本，而该贷款据称远远超过其唯一资产。它没有保留自己的副本。该贷款未在本案所涉、于这一切发生仅三个月后提起的诉讼中主张，且直到本案进行近一年后才首次被提及；当时 Eastern Profit 的公司代表、同样是 Yvette Wang，称她听说过一笔贷款。没有人能够解释谁保留了该贷款文件的唯一副本，以及在 Eastern 的公司证言录取之后很久，该文件如何被找到并提交至本案。\n\nACA 和 Golden Spring（金泉公司）设法阻止我们对 ACA 进行证言录取。他们让其董事在收到传票通知与对人送达之间的 70 小时时间窗口内辞职。因此，我们无法与交易相对方交谈。法官阁下，如果该贷款是一场骗局，那么 Eastern Profit 就不能基于赔偿或信赖利益理论获得赔偿。它不能就违约或不当得利获得赔偿。原本可以尝试向本院寻求赔偿的当事人逃避了本院，并规避了证据开示。这最终正是本院应当就 Eastern Profit 的全部主张作出不利于其的判决的原因。\n\n但让我们转向其他问题。第二，Strategic Vision（战略愿景公司）应当在合同相关主张上胜诉。首先，违约的是 Eastern，而不是 Strategic。根本问题——各位刚才已经从对方律师处听到——是定价究竟是每月 $750,000，还是取决于每周恰好收到哪些报告的按项计费。Eastern 是为其完成的报告付费，还是为 Strategic Vision 在每一个合同工作单元上诚实而辛勤的工作付费？各位将在研究协议中看到“单元”一词。证据将表明，答案是 Eastern 为工作单元付费，而不是为任何特定的已完成报告付费。\n\n各位将看到，双方在这一付款问题上存在分歧。Guo 希望采用按项计费制度。Strategic 希望采用年度固定费率。折中方案是保证 Strategic 获得年度固定费率，但其必须在整整一年内持续对 30 个研究单元开展工作。这就是各位将会听到的所谓“鱼缸概念”。这里的关键术语是单元。一个单元是指，就三项主题之一，对一个对象开展一整年的工作，因此一年内会有 30 个可能的单元。但关键点在于：双方的理解是，对象和主题都可以改变。在任何一个时间点不变的是，Strategic 应当在全年持续同时处理其中 30 个单元。Strategic 承诺开展这项工作；若其开展该工作，其每月可获得 $750,000，一年可获得 $9 million。\n\n如果这是事实，那么报告又如何？报告是向 Eastern Profit 传递信息的方法。报告总数——这正是其为真的另一个原因——无法预测。它取决于 Guo 希望获得的信息类型，也取决于他使用多少替换对象。如果他每三个月替换一个对象——他可以这样做——则全年可能会产生非常非常多的报告。如果他从一开始就保留相同的对象——他也可以这样做——则报告会少得多。因此，付款不能与所制作的实体报告挂钩，而必须与工作挂钩。\n\n我预计，当然，诸如混合搭配等情况也可能导致报告数量发生变化。\n\n最后，客户，即 Eastern 和 Guo 的团队，有义务提供必要的基本信息，并决定研究重点领域。如果 Strategic 回来说四个姓名是假的，那么由 Eastern 说，好吧，这里有四个新姓名，或者查看已在你们现有姓名之下作为子类别的四个姓名。他们必须对此作出替换。\n\n还有另一个关键点：Strategic 向 Eastern 作出了让步。它说，好，我们将按照你们想要的任何方式作出变更，我们会加入新人或新对象；另一件事是，我们不会向你们收取租赁费用，因为正如各位将从本合同中听到的那样，所有成本都发生在对象刚进入时开始处理它们的过程中。大部分时间和成本都发生在那里。随着他们逐渐熟悉这些对象，编制报告会容易得多，但 Eastern 同意尝试获得年度固定费率，即只要其始终同时对 30 个单元开展工作，便仅按每月 $750,000 收费。这是对合同最合理且实际上唯一可能的解读。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这意味着问题不在于每周通过拇指驱动器交付了哪些报告，而在于 Strategic Vision 是否对全部 30 个单元开展工作，并交付其能够交付的报告。如果是，Eastern Profit 就必须继续付款，它必须继续付款。在这里，法官阁下，Eastern Profit 违约，因为它实施了两项行为，严重限制了 Strategic 的履行能力，并构成实质性违约。第一，Waller 博士（沃勒博士）将证明，在 February 15th，Eastern 未支付其首笔 $750,000 的月付款，并告诉 Strategic 暂缓与 Team 1（第一团队）合作。这是由十名海外研究人员组成的团队。这意味着 Strategic 无法支付 Team 1 的 200,000 月费，Strategic 也无法继续履行。Waller 博士还将证明，在 January 6th 至 February 8th 期间，即合同开始约一周半至三周后，他向 Guo 的团队提交了一系列令人震惊的发现，并要求就是否继续处理原先的 15 个姓名，还是予以替换作出决定。Guo 的团队拒绝提供指引或新姓名，使 Strategic 无法继续其工作。\n\n这一在先违约，法官阁下——这也是我们在合同方面的主要理论——在扣除 ACA 支付的 $1 million 保证金并计入 Eastern 利益后，使 Strategic 获得约 $200,000 的损害赔偿。\n\n现在，当 Eastern 于 February 15th 停止付款时，Strategic 是否确实在 January 16th 至 February 15th 期间履行了合同？以下是 Waller 博士将告诉各位的内容，我仅作简要概述：在 January 24th，即合同起始日仅八天后，他开始向 Lianchao Han 和 Yvette Wang 作口头汇报。他的团队所发现的情况令人意外，并需要 Guo 立即作出指示。三个至四个姓名拼写错误，或者是错误的人，或者是虚假的。数人曾参与护照欺诈，包括涉及一个 NATO（北大西洋公约组织）盟国的欺诈。在 15 个姓名中其中一人的档案内，另一名中国亲属通过一家 Nebraska 律师事务所，以空壳公司的名义开设了数百个 Panama 账户。他们发现，其他个人也在监控这些对象，这意味着 Strategic 的 Team 1 要么正受到监视，要么面临意外暴露其他研究人员的风险，而这些研究人员也可能已由 Guo 或他人派出。他们还发现，Guo 提供给 Strategic、Guo 声称花费 $250 million 获得、且严格专有并保密的姓名和报告，已出现在互联网上，并且能够迅速追溯至 Guo，从而危及该团队的安全。作为回应，Wang 只是要求提供报告，并拒绝就 Waller 的新团队线索提供新姓名或指引。各位将了解到 Waller 后续聘用 ASOG（ASOG公司）作为第二支团队所做的工作，也将了解到 Strategic 为取得拇指驱动器并试图向 Eastern 提交该材料而往返欧洲所做的工作。各位将了解到，他们为团队成员设有 16 个电子邮件地址和加密密码，并且已找到 CITIC（中信集团）的服务器，C-I-T-I-C，即 CCP（中国共产党）使用的主要金融机构。\n\n现在，法官阁下，双方明确承认，可能无法立即就一些对象提供报告。Guo 知道这一点，但他不切实际地期待能够立即披露的事项。Waller 博士将证明，该期待不可能实现，因为这会立即暴露整个行动。Guo 破坏了他自己的行动，原因仍不清楚，但我们确实知道，Strategic 已花费超过 $800,000 的启动和运营成本——而且，不，这并不包括 Tumi、Bloomies 或一次用于监视某人的行程，这些合计不足 $4,000——超过 $800,000；在再次将 ACA 的付款计入 Eastern 利益后，Strategic 因 Eastern 的违约而获得的期待利益损害赔偿为 $200,000。\n\n让我简要转向确认判决问题，这正是 Eastern 最初提出的问题。该项主张依据 Virginia 法律，而 Virginia 禁止在无许可证的情况下从事 PI（私人调查）业务，但这附有定义。你必须调查特定事项。调查的目的才是关键，这也是我们在简易判决阶段所主张的。我们不审视某人实际采取的行为并问这听起来是否像私人调查工作；相反，必须适用法定定义。\n\n在该框架内，事实并不支持 Eastern 的理论。研究协议的措辞含混不清，因为其中一项条款使用了“犯罪”一词，而另一项条款提及商业研究。但协议的其余部分表明，该研究并非用于在某一特定程序中帮助特定受害人。它设想对多达 4,000 人进行长期监控。它涉及每周或每月报告，但其中没有任何关于证据使用或保存的内容。它没有提及程序、受害人或犯罪。事实上，协议的三个主题似乎更着重于可能令个人及 CCP 成员难堪的事项，而不是任何特定犯罪或受害人。\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——格雷姆先生\n\n此外，您将听取的关于当事方谈判情况的证言也印证了这一点。郭文贵、伊薇特·王（Yvette Wang）或韩春光（Han Chunguang）从未有任何表示称，任何受害人或诉讼程序将在此处进行，或这些材料将被用于任何特定程序。相反，这是为了帮助郭文贵及其举报人运动，以提升其在美国的形象，并据称将中国共产党（CCP）赶下台。这是一个政治目标，而非准执法目标。\n\n最后，郭文贵作为Eastern（东方）的代理人，对Strategic（战略愿景）实施了欺诈。本项主张的核心在于检验郭文贵是否确实是一名异议人士。其建立在三个支点上：郭文贵从香港转移资金及其与中国大陆的关系、郭文贵关于其本人的陈述，以及郭文贵对其他异议人士的攻击。我们稍后将转向这些问题。不过，此处的其他要素聚焦于Strategic Vision（战略愿景）。沃勒博士（Dr. Waller）和沃洛普女士（Ms. Wallop）均将作证称，她们合理地依赖了长期以来广受尊敬的同事韩连潮（Lianchao Han）和比尔·格茨（Bill Gertz）；二人均为您将在视频中看到、而非在这四天期间亲自见到的证人。她们将作证称，她们不会同意向任何会利用研究成果协助中国共产党的人员提供研究服务。在这一点上，她们并非孤例，因为另一位著名异议人士和记者龚小夏（Sasha Gong）在该期间也相信郭文贵的说法。她甚至曾担任一个实体的董事，而该实体如今反过来攻击她及其他异议人士。韩连潮作为以普通话为母语者，将作证称，他第一次看到郭文贵那些据称可在互联网上自由获取的、对郭文贵本人不利的陈述，是在本案对其进行的证言录取中，尽管韩连潮受雇正是为了协助办理郭文贵的庇护申请，而该申请是在郭文贵作出这些陈述仅两周后提交的。韩春光并不知道这些陈述。\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——格雷姆先生 225\n\n现在，请允许我转向第一个支点，即从香港转移资金以及与中国大陆的关系。郭文贵的律师兼发言人，即Golden Spring（金泉）的律师，但并非今天在场的这位律师，在回应Strategic Vision在本案中的主张时称，自郭文贵开始公开发声后，其资金没有一分钱从香港或中国大陆转移出来。但是，ACA（ACA）曾从香港向Strategic Vision、比尔·格茨，甚至向郭文贵本人的家族办公室电汇款项。如我先前所述，龚小夏将作证称，郭文贵曾向她介绍ACA的唯一股东威廉·杰（William Je）是其资金管理人。郭文贵在另一起联邦案件中曾在伪证处罚的约束下声称，在同一期间，即2017至2018年，ACA通过其位于香港的家族办公室China Golden Spring（中国金泉），向其支付了数百万美元，以获得郭文贵据称拥有的中国大陆关系所带来的好处。当郭文贵据称是中国头号异议人士，且无法从这两个地方中的任何一个取出一分钱时，他怎么可能就一家香港实体未支付款项提起诉讼——他在该案中确实如此主张——而该实体向其付款是为了其中国大陆关系？这说不通。\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——格雷姆先生 225\n\nACA的负责人威廉·杰，被郭文贵称为异议人士、长期朋友，甚至因政府骚扰造成的压力而住院治疗。但是，当许多可公开获取的中国资料显示杰与中国境内亲共组织关系密切时，郭文贵将无法解释为何他容忍与杰保持如此密切的联系。我们将听取有关这些情况的内容。\n\n此外，郭文贵坚持认为，Team 1（第一团队）——即Strategic雇用的第一个研究团队——中的任何普通话译员均不应是中国公民或居住在中国，据称是因担心他们可能是中国共产党的特工。龚小夏将证实，异议人士保持与中国大陆的公开通信是多么危险；然而，Google（谷歌）的商业记录将显示，郭文贵社交媒体账户的数名管理员使用中国大陆的电话号码和电子邮件地址。\n\n最后，郭文贵的家族办公室、ACA，乃至曾有一段时间的Eastern Profit（东方利益），均设于香港中国银行大厦（Bank of China Tower）49F套房。郭文贵后来承认，中国银行的建筑物被中国用于在中国大陆以外从事间谍活动。对于安置与郭文贵有关、且均为本案争议对象的所谓异议人士实体而言，该特定建筑是一个奇怪的选择。\n\n我们举证的第二个支点是郭文贵于2017年3月和8月作出的陈述。韩春光以及可能的其他证人将确认郭文贵在一段2017年3月录音中的声音；在该录音中，他严厉抨击美国异议人士批评中国领导人。他说：“行动现在正在进行。我对习近平总书记绝对有信心。”\n\n书记员助理：五分钟。\n\n格雷姆先生：在郭文贵本人录制的、其公寓内2017年5月与政治局及其他中华人民共和国（PRC）官员会面的录音中，郭文贵将其代表国家安全部开展的工作归功于自己，并宣称：“我强烈支持习近平主席。”\n\n最后，在2017年8月，他签署了一封信，随后参加了一档中文电视节目，在节目中他同意限制其所谓的举报活动。他指出，其此前的访谈从未越过所谓红线，并请求获得新任务以支持习近平主席。\n\n第三个支点：为履行其于2017年3月作出的攻击美国华人异议人士的承诺，郭文贵试图收买或胁迫美国保守派人士中的当地异议人士。本院将听取郭文贵录制的、威胁与其作对的异议人士——例如龚小夏和傅希秋（Bob Fu）——的录音。郭文贵鼓励居住在美国的中国公民跟踪和骚扰异议人士，要求他们通过其设立的纽约非营利组织，即Rule of Law Fund（法治基金）和Rule of Law Society（法治协会），批准其活动。\n\n因此，法官阁下，总而言之，事实将表明，在该合同未能达成后，郭文贵和Eastern从未雇用其他人收集研究资料并实施其计划。没有发生其他事情。他们从未向其他人寻求解冻这些资产。那些香港资产仍处于冻结状态，据称是因为中国共产党的报复，但郭文贵却仍可自由资助数十起诉讼，并继续攻击美国异议人士。因此，Strategic认为，记录将表明郭文贵并非其所自称之人，且从未打算利用合同攻击中国共产党。\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——格雷姆先生 225\n\n证据支持Strategic提出的欺诈反诉，但也构成对Eastern基于不当得利提出的衡平法主张的“不洁之手”抗辩。当Eastern通过郭文贵认可了该欺诈行为，却仍来到法院寻求救济，这是不符合衡平原则的。\n\n法官阁下，总而言之，在接下来的四天中，本院将听取Eastern证人相互矛盾的说法。Eastern与他们相处的时间极少，实际上是在Strategic之后才传唤他们。您很可能会明白原因。也就是说，您将听到关于研究目的的完全不同说法——它是如Eastern的证人当时均称的那样，用于郭文贵的举报运动，还是如他们现在所称的那样，用于Eastern自身关于解冻资产的观点？是谁在资助该协议？是如黄（Wong）当时所称的香港投资者，还是如EP（EP）在本案很晚阶段最终所称的ACA贷款？如有疑问，本院应采信当事方当时的陈述，以及他们在本案早期证言录取中的陈述。\n\nL4JKEAS1 开庭陈述——格雷姆先生 225\n\n无论如何，我们回到起点。Eastern Profit是一个空壳实体，其参与本案仅系于一线。它必须以某种方式证明，与ACA据称存在的贷款——在本案进行近一年后，对其主要证人而言仍是个谜——并非虚假交易。由于ACA向Strategic支付的\\$1 million并非源于贷款，Eastern不存在赔偿或信赖主张，当事方应当各自回家，或者Strategic应获得其自身损害赔偿。事实将表明，这笔百万美元定金，如同该份\\$27 million合同项下其余付款一样，绝不可能来自一个在香港银行冻结账户中仅有\\$80,000，且甚至需要世界历史性的政权更迭才能动用那点微薄资金的实体。为该合同支付百万美元定金的人，不可能期待Eastern返还该款的本金或利息。\n\n法官阁下，是时候结束这场闹剧了，结果应当是作出有利于Strategic的判决书。谢谢。\n\n法庭：非常感谢。\n\n原告，传唤其第一位证人。\n\n克莱恩女士（MS. CLINE）：原告传唤弗伦奇·C·沃洛普（French Wallop）。\n\n法庭：休庭期间，请当事方与法庭记录员配合。如果法庭记录员没有记下任何姓名，你们可以告知法庭记录员。此外，有许多中国姓名。为方便法庭记录员，提供某种姓名表或许会有帮助，以便法庭记录员掌握所有姓名。菲什曼先生（Mr. Fishman），请您主持证人宣誓。\n\n弗伦奇·沃洛普，\n\n作为原告方证人被传唤，\n\n经依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n\n书记员助理：\n\n请。\n\n证人：\n\nFrench，F-r-e-n-c-h，C. Wallop，\n\nW-a-l-l-o-p。\n\n法庭：\n\n早上好，沃洛普女士。请坐。\n\n证人：\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n我请求您在接受询问期间，尽量提高音量并放慢语速，以便我和法庭记录员听清。\n\n证人：\n\n我们将继续戴着口罩，对吗？\n\n法庭：\n\n是。\n\n格雷姆先生：\n\n这正是我想提出的问题。考虑到我现在能看到的距离，我想看看她是否可以摘下口罩？\n\n法庭：\n\n根据本院的常设命令，我不能准许证人摘下口罩。我能够很好地看见沃洛普女士；如果我在判断她的回答方面有任何问题，我会说明。\n\n而且，沃洛普女士，如果您在任何时候觉得戴口罩不舒服并需要休息，请告诉我，我们会休庭。\n\n证人：\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。唯一的问题是我的眼镜可能会起雾。\n\n法庭：\n\n明白。我想这发生在我们所有人身上。\n\n克莱恩女士，您可以继续。\n\n克莱恩女士：\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n交叉询问\n\n由克莱恩女士进行：\n\n问：早上好，沃洛普女士。\n\n答：早上好。\n\n问：您是Strategic Vision的创始人，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您是在2005年左右创立它的？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：它是一家有限责任公司（LLC）？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是Strategic Vision, LLC的唯一成员？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您一直是唯一成员？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Strategic Vision从未有过任何雇员？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Strategic Vision是否曾有过任何雇员？\n\n答：一个也没有。\n\n问：除您以外，它没有其他高级职员，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：没有其他董事？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：没有其他所有人？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：没有其他负责人？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Strategic Vision是一家战略咨询公司，协助公司实现其互联网增长预期；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：它在国际政治事务领域提供咨询服务？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：它还从事政治情报的研究和分析？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：协助客户进行商业尽职调查？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：有时协助客户就房地产持有事项提供建议？\n\n答：是。\n\nQ.\n以及调查性研究，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\n有时还会进行监视，对吗？\n\nA.\n不。\n我不会称之为监视。我会称之为尽职调查。\n\nQ.\n您现在的证词是，Strategic Vision（战略远见）不从事监视活动吗？\n\nA.\n它——我们确实会进行尽职调查和研究。\n\nQ.\n我只需要您回答我的问题。您现在的证词是，Strategic Vision 不从事监视活动吗？\n\nA.\n我们不会亲自直接进行，不会。\n\nQ.\nStrategic Vision 是否要求他人按其要求进行监视？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n并且，Ms. Wallop（沃洛普女士），您没有国际政治事务学位，对吗？\n\nA.\n没有，我没有。\n\nQ.\n您也没有政治学学位，对吗？\n\nA.\n没有，我没有。\n\nQ.\n您没有任何与商业尽职调查有关的教育资格，对吗？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n抱歉，让我这样问，以便记录清楚。您是否拥有任何与商业尽职调查有关的教育资格？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n您没有工商管理硕士学位（M.B.A.）？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n您没有法律博士学位（J.D.）？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n您没有房地产执照？\n\nA.\n我曾有。\n\nQ.\n何时失效的？\n\nA.\n大概在 1997 年、1998 年左右。\n\nQ.\n好的。那么，是在您参与 Eastern Profit（东方利润）和 Mr. Wengui（文贵先生）事务之前，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n您没有情报学学位，对吗？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n您没有私家侦探执照，对吗？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n您没有接受过任何正式的监视培训，对吗？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n并且，您唯一的高等教育学位是语言和后勤学位；对吗？\n\nA.\n语言学。\n\nQ.\n抱歉，抱歉。语言学？\n\nA.\n这是同声传译。\n\nQ.\n好的。您确实获得了学士学位；对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n在收到与本案所涉研究协议有关的 $1 million 定金之前，Strategic Vision 的银行账户中不足 $20；这是真的吗？\n\nA.\n直接而言，是有意如此。\n\nQ.\n并且，您在弗吉尼亚州的家中运营 Strategic Vision，对吗？\n\nA.\n目前是。\n\nQ.\n您在 2017 年和 2018 年也是如此吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n并且，自您创立 Strategic 以来，Strategic 至少为其客户进行了五项私人调查，对吗？\n\nA.\n还是尽职调查，不是私人调查。\n\nQ.\n您明白，在与本案审前命令有关的程序中，Strategic Vision 提交了一份《联合承认事实陈述》吗？\n\nA.\n明白。\n\nQ.\n在您的律师同意这些事实之前，您是否审阅过这份联合——这些事实？\n\nA.\n审阅过。\n\nQ.\n好的。\n\nMs. Cline（克莱因女士）：\nChris（克里斯），请调出联合事实陈述，好吗？\n\nQ.\n那么，Wallop 女士——\n\nMs. Cline：\nChris，请先翻到第一页。\n\nQ.\nWallop 女士，您能看见吗——首先，您的屏幕正常吗？\n\nA.\n正常。\n\nQ.\n因此，这份文件的第一页写着“联合拟议审前命令”。您看见了吗？\n\nA.\n我看见了。\n\nQ.\n顶部写着“文件 299”。您看见了吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n好的。\n\nMs. Cline：\n我现在要请 Mr. Chuff（查夫先生）翻到《联合承认事实陈述》，该陈述是与该联合审前命令一并提交的。\n\nQ.\n您现在是否看见一页写着“联合承认事实陈述”的页面？\n\nA.\n我看见了。\n\nMs. Cline：\nChuff 先生，请滚动到第 15 段。\n\nQ.\n您看见第 15 段了吗？\n\nA.\n我能看见，您把它高亮了，是的。\n\nQ.\n好的，很好。上面写道：“自成立以来，Strategic 至少为其客户进行了五项私人调查。”您看见了吗？\n\nA.\n我看见了，但我认为尽职调查与所谓“私人调查”之间存在区别。\n\nQ.\n抱歉。请您告诉我——我要先读一遍，然后我只需要知道我是否读对了。第 15 段写道：“自成立以来，Strategic 至少为其客户进行了五项私人调查。”\n\nQ.\n我读对了吗？\n\nA.\n您读对了。\n\nQ.\n在证据开示中，您无法告诉我们这些 Strategic 为其进行调查或尽职调查的客户是谁，因为他们全都是秘密的，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\nMichael Waller（迈克尔·沃勒）曾协助 Strategic 完成多项调查和尽职调查项目，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。研究和尽职调查，是的。\n\nQ.\n其中包括与 Eastern Profit 的研究协议？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\n并且，Strategic 为其客户提供的调查性研究包括对选定目标开展电子研究，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\n以及对这些目标进行实体监视，对吗？\n\nA.\n不是由我进行。\n\nQ.\n但由 Strategic 进行，对吗？\n\nA.\n由 Strategic 及我们作为分包商雇用的个人进行，是的。\n\nQ.\n作为其调查的一部分，Strategic 试图查明有关犯罪和民事侵权的信息，对吗？\n\nA.\n仅限国际范围，不在国内。\n\nQ.\n好的。但在国际上，您同意 Strategic 试图查明有关犯罪和民事侵权的信息吗？\n\nA.\n我们曾这样做过，是的。\n\nQ.\n以及有关被盗资产——抱歉，被盗财产的定位、处置和追回的信息，对吗？\n\nA.\n同样是在海外，但不在国内。\n\nQ.\n好的。它还试图查明对人身或财产造成损害的原因，对吗？\n\nA.\n在海外，并且——但不在国内。\n\nQ.\n好的。我刚才提到的服务类别，就是 Strategic 试图向 Eastern Profit 提供的服务类型，对吗？\n\nA.\n再次说明，是在海外而非国内。\n\nQ.\n并且，为协助开展调查，Strategic 有时会雇用独立承包商提供某些服务，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\n但您在一定程度上亲自参与 Strategic 的调查，对吗？\n\nA.\n我参与挑选独立承包商，是的。\n\nQ.\n有时，您会亲自从您在情报界的联系人处尝试获取有关目标的信息，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n以及从您的政治联系人处获取，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n也从您的商业联系人处获取，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n而且，您是亲自这么做的，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n您记得我在 2019 年 11 月对您进行了证言录取，对吗？\n\nA.\n是，我记得。\n\nQ.\n在那次证言录取中，您是否记得您作证说，您不时亲自进行监视？\n\nA.\n我确实进行过，但在美国境外。\n\nQ.\n在本案中，Strategic 目前由 Graves Garrett（格雷夫斯·加勒特律师事务所）代理，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\n在 Graves Garrett 提交出庭代理通知之前，Strategic 由 Barton LLP（巴顿律师事务所）代理；对吗？\n\nA.\n大约两周。\n\nQ.\n并且，您知道 Barton 曾向法院申请获准不再代理 Strategic，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n他们列举的理由之一是未支付律师费，对吗？\n\nMr. Greim（格雷姆先生）：\n法官阁下，我对这一路问询的相关性提出异议。\n\n法院：\n我会允许，并看看会如何发展。\n\n证人：\n请重复问题。\n\nMs. Cline 询问：\n\nQ.\n是。他们申请获准退出代理时，Barton 列举的理由之一是未支付律师费，对吗？\n\nA.\n不对。\n\nQ.\nBarton 是否曾向本法院提交申请，以未支付律师费为由寻求获准退出代理？\n\nA.\n我们支付了他们一笔预付律师费。这名律师休假两周，完全无法联系，然后向我们寄来一张 $80,000 的账单。我们已经支付了 Barton——\n\n法院：\nWallop 女士，让我提醒您，我不希望——\n\n证人：\n抱歉。\n\n法院：\n——出现任何特权信息，或您与律师之间的任何沟通。您何不只尽量回答律师所问的问题——\n\n证人：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n——律师会谨慎避免涉及任何律师工作成果或律师—当事人沟通。\n\nMs. Cline：\n完全明白，法官阁下。\n\nMs. Cline 询问：\n\nQ.\nWallop 女士，我的问题是：您知道有一份公开提交的文件，根据该文件，Barton 曾申请离开，即退出担任律师，其中部分原因是未支付律师费？您知道这件事，对吗？\n\nA.\n我知道。\n\nQ.\n并且，在由 Barton 律师事务所代理之前，Strategic 由 Phillips Lytle（菲利普斯·莱特尔律师事务所）代理，对吗？\n\nA.\n对。\n\nQ.\n并且，Strategic 未支付 Phillips Lytle 尚未付清的律师费，对吗？\n\nA.\n是其未付费用，不是之前的费用。\n\nQ.\n那么，Phillips Lytle 曾起诉 Strategic Vision，并获得了超过 $115,000 的判决，对吗？\n\nA.\n我相信是的。\n\nQ.\n您曾是名为 Corporate Travel Services（企业旅行服务公司）的公司的负责人，对吗？\n\nA.\n我是。\n\nQ.\n该公司曾被其房东以未支付租金为由起诉？\n\nA.\n在我们遭遇入室盗窃之后，我们起诉了他们。所以那是一项反诉。\n\nQ.\n但他们曾以未支付租金为由起诉您，对吗？\n\nA.\n那是一项反诉。\n\nQ.\n他们对您提出了一项请求——\n\nA.\n他们提出了一项请求，我们也提出了一项请求。\n\nQ.\n好的。并且，一家名为 Speight McCue（斯佩特·麦丘律师事务所）的律师事务所曾就该判决相关的未支付律师费起诉您，对吗？\n\nMr. Greim：\n法官阁下，我对这些有关 Wallop 女士多年前未支付律师费的问题的相关性提出异议。\n\n法院：\n相关性是什么？\n\nMs. Cline：\n法官阁下，如果可以，我现在就要把它关联起来。\n\n法院：\n好的。继续。\n\nMs. Cline 询问：\n\nQ.\n因此，过去，您或您控制的实体曾与三家不同的律师事务所和一名房东卷入付款争议，但在本案中，自 Graves Garrett 于 2019 年年中提交出庭代理通知以来，其律师费一直按时付清，对吗？\n\nMr. Greim：\n异议，法官阁下。我不确定我们律师费的支付情况以及我们是否及时收款，与本案有什么关系。\n\n法院：\n是，异议成立。如果您想要——如果这涉及诉讼资金，并且您能够满足我在关于审前排除证据动议的裁定中列出的标准，那么我会允许。\n\nMs. Cline：\n会的。\n\nMs. Cline 询问：\n\nQ.\n那么，Graves Garrett 位于密苏里州，对吗？\n\nA.\n是。\n\nQ.\n并且他们在纽约没有办公室？\n\nA.\n没有。\n\nQ.\n并且，Strategic Vision 在本案中关于欺诈的反诉，直到聘请 Graves Garrett 之后才提出，对吗？\n\nA.\n当我终于有了出色的律师之后，是的。\n\nQ.\n在聘请 Graves Garrett 之前，Strategic Vision 从未提出 Mr. Guo（郭先生）是一名双重间谍的主张，对吗？\n\nMr. Greim：\n法官阁下，我对该问题提出异议。\n\n法院：\n驳回异议。\n\n证人：\n第一家律师事务所 Phillips Lytle 知道此事，我们向他们支付了大量费用，是的。\n\nQ.\n所以我的问题是：就在聘请 Graves Garrett 之前，Strategic 从未在本案中提出 Guo 先生是一名双重间谍的主张，对吗？\n\nA.\n我不同意，不同意。\n\n（下页续）\n\n问：\n那么，您的理解是，在本案第二次修正起诉状之前的一份诉状中，包含一项指称，即 Guo（郭文贵）是一名双重间谍？\n\n答：\n那不是一份诉状。\n\n那是一次谈话——\n\n法庭：\n不，Wallop（沃洛普女士）——\n\n证人：\n对不起。\n\n法庭：\n——您不得披露——\n\n证人：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n——您与律师之间的沟通，除非被告将放弃该特权。问题是——让我来问这个问题。\n\n在第二次修正起诉状之前，Strategic（战略愿景）是否曾公开指控 Guo 先生是一名双重间谍？\n\n证人：\n我认为没有。\n\n由 Cline（克莱因女士）询问：\n\n问：\nStrategic Vision（战略愿景）是如何找到 Graves Garrett（格雷夫斯·加勒特律师事务所）的？\n\nGreim（格雷姆先生）：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n维持。\n\n问：\n您的律师在本案中已承认，或者您在本案中已承认，除 Strategic Vision 以外的某个人正在向 Graves Garrett 支付您的律师费，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n该人或实体是谁？\n\nGreim 先生：\n好的，法官阁下。我现在提出反对，并认为我们必须奠定您的命令中规定的基础。\n\n法庭：\n我将在法官席旁听取律师的陈述。\n\n（暂停）\n\nWallop 女士，请您暂时离开法庭。\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\nCline 女士，您是否愿意就您预期真实答案将揭示的内容作出陈述？\n\nCline 女士：\n愿意。因此，我们不知道该资金来源的身份。我们有一条线索——我理解法庭希望我奠定基础。我正试图这样做。\n\n法庭：\n您所要做的，就是向我奠定基础，证明您有理由支持一项善意信念——我现在正在宣读我的意见——即被告由某一人或实体资助，而该人或实体一般而言或被告具体知悉，是或曾是中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party）的成员，或与其有关联或隶属。\n\n因此，这是您告诉我您是否确有此种善意信念以及其依据为何的机会。\n\nCline 女士：\n好的。有几项依据。其中一项大致就是我已经试图说明的，即 Strategic 无力支付其律师费，而且直到 Graves Garrett 在本案中出庭之后才主张欺诈请求；随后 Graves Garrett 继续进行了大量证言录取、发出了大量证据开示函，并提出了欺诈反诉等。\n\n此外，还有数起待决诉讼，其中律师——有一家名为 Arkin Solbakken（阿金·索尔巴肯律师事务所）的律师事务所。这些律师在数起针对 Guo 先生的诉讼中代理原告，他们还在 Guo 先生对 Strategic 提起的一宗案件中代理 Strategic。\n\n在另外两宗案件中，该两案的诉讼当事人，即由 Arkin Solbakken 代理的诉讼当事人，已承认其律师费由一名名叫 Bruno Wu（吴征）的人支付。\n\n法庭：\n对不起，叫什么名字？\n\nCline 女士：\nBruno Wu。在本案中，为解决正是关于该问题的证据开示争议，律师签署了一项协议，声明 Bruno Wu 和任何与中国共产党有关联或相关联的人均未支付 Strategic 在本案中的律师费。\n\n因此，我们认为，这些其他律师事务所——由一直代理 Strategic 的同一律师事务所代理的诉讼当事人——正由 Bruno Wu 支付费用，并非巧合。因此，我们想问这些问题，并希望了解 Strategic 据以订立一项协议的基础，该协议表明 Bruno Wu 和任何来自中国共产党的人员均未支付本案中的费用。\n\n而且，显然，依我们看来，这直接关系到欺诈请求的核心。他们的主张是，无论如何，他们绝不会与支持共产主义的人订立合同；如果现在其律师费正由支持共产主义的人支付。\n\n法庭：\n有何依据认为 Bruno Wu 支持共产主义？请为我把两者联系起来。\n\nCline 女士：\n有。因此，有媒体报道，我们还有一份登记报告，其中显示他与一些同共产党有关联的组织存在关联。\n\n法庭：\n让我听听 Greim 先生的陈述。\n\nGreim 先生：\n法官阁下，我们一直在玩猜测第三方付款人是谁的“战舰”游戏。Bruno Wu 的问题在本案早期曾被提出。我们实际上以为他们正转向另一个人。正如您大概可从我们的审前排除证据动议中看到的，我们认为他们转向了一项涉及夏威夷其他一些人的新理论。\n\n现在，听起来我们又回到 Bruno Wu，法官阁下，而且我们刚刚就 Bob Fu（傅希秋）作出裁定，认为这会变成案中案，要求证明 Bob Fu 是一名异见人士，而这将成为 Guo 攻击该人的相关性。我们又回到了同一个地方。\n\n问题在于此。我想，可以向证人提问——如果 Bruno Wu 是他们的理论，如果他们愿意承诺以此作为其善意基础，则可以问证人 Bruno Wu 是否在向我们付款。\n\n我们反对的是一种“战舰”游戏，即我们只是逐一列举 Guo 一方称必定是共产主义特工、因为他们反对 Guo 的每一个人；这就成了问题。法官阁下，向法庭作出的关于 Arkin Solbakken 在另一案件中代理 Strategic Vision 的陈述并不正确。那里提到的涉及该 Arkin Solbakken 律师事务所的另一案件，是 Guo 针对——实际上是我个人、Waller（沃勒博士）、Wallop 女士以及我相信还有 Strategic Vision——在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的一宗诽谤案。他基于欺诈反诉提起该案，并称其构成诽谤。该案被纽约州最高法院驳回，随后也被 Appellate Division（上诉分院）驳回，因为他未完善其上诉。\n\n但我不认为，而且我也不相信 Arkin Solbakken 代理 Strategic Vision。我认为它实际上代理的是该案的一名被告；但是，法官阁下，他们必须有证据证明 Bruno Wu 支付了该案的抗辩费用。那至少会使他们接近一些，但他们做不到。\n\n因此，我认为，处理此事的简单方式是：我们已约定 Bruno Wu 未支付我们在本案中的律师费。我们已约定，中国共产党的任何成员、任何关联方或任何相关方均未支付我们在本案中的律师费。如果她希望直接问证人，是否是 Bruno Wu 或他的某位朋友、关联人或其他什么人在付款，那么我们实际上不反对。\n\n我们的问题在于，利用这种巧合为切入点，然后逐一列举 Guo 认为是其敌人的每一个人，并查看该人是否在资助本案；这并不适当。\n\n法庭：\nCline 女士，我理解您只是要问证人是谁在资助，然后您将问证人，据该证人所知，该人是否与中国共产党存在关系或是否支持中国共产党；或者，如果您掌握有关资助人的信息，您将提出具体的后续问题，并询问证人所知的一切。但我们不会逐一审查潜在诉讼资助人的名单；对吗？\n\nCline 女士：\n不，法官阁下。我们没有计划逐一审查该名单。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我将——Greim 先生，我将准许该证言。鉴于您已引入本案的争议事项，该证言具有相关性。我已排除 Fu 先生，因为他本会作为一名单独的证人出庭。我已明确表示，对于证人的询问，我允许一定的自由度。\n\nGreim 先生：\n不过，法官阁下，如果可以的话，我有一点意见？名单的问题与直接问谁在资助这一尖锐问题是同一个问题。他们应当询问支持其善意基础的那个人。本案的全部要点以及关于其为何相关的不断变化的理论，就是为了查明那个人是谁。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我已作出裁定。让证人回来。\n\nWallop 女士，您可以就座。提醒您，您仍在宣誓之下。\n\n证人：\n当然。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\nCline 女士，您可以继续。\n\n由 Cline 女士询问：\n\n问：\nWallop 女士，我想我们刚才停在这样一个问题：Strategic Vision 在本案中是否达成了一项协议，由第三方向 Graves Garrett 支付本案中的律师费？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n您与谁达成了该协议？\n\n答：\n与我的律师。\n\n问：\n好的。您明白，为使第三方支付 Strategic Vision 的律师费，您需要对此表示同意，对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n您同意由哪个实体支付 Strategic Vision 的律师费；是何人或何实体？\n\n答：\n我相信是一个名为 Ciranus（希拉纳斯）的团体。\n\n法庭：\n您能拼写一下吗？\n\n证人：\nCiranus，C-i-r-a-n-u-s。\n\n问：\n您也知道，在本案中，您的律师订立了一项协议，证明您在本案中的律师费并非由任何现在或曾经是中国共产党或中华人民共和国成员、与其有关联或隶属于其的个人或实体支付，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n就 Ciranus 而言，您采取了什么措施来使自己确信情况确实如此？\n\n答：\n我相信，我的律师、Mike（迈克）、Waller 博士和我自己都确信，该团体非常亲美，并决心保护美国公民。\n\n问：\n您或代表 Strategic Vision 的任何人，是否就谁拥有或控制 Ciranus 进行了任何调查？\n\n答：\n我没有。\n\n问：\n您现在坐在这里，并不知道谁拥有或控制它？\n\n答：\n我不知道谁控制它。\n\n问：\n因此，据您所知，控制 Ciranus 的人事实上可能支持中国共产党，对吗？\n\n答：\n我依赖我的律师和 Waller 博士。\n\n问：\n那么，您本人从未与 Ciranus 进行过任何谈话？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n因此，您无从得知 Ciranus 实际上是否与中国共产党有关联？\n\n答：\n我不会与任何同中国共产党有关联的人做生意。\n\n问：\n但您承认，您本人或代表 Strategic Vision 未进行任何工作、调查或尽职调查，以确认 Ciranus 未与中国共产党有关联，对吗？\n\n答：\n我确认我信任我的律师和我的商业伙伴。\n\n问：\n您是否了解，如果 Strategic Vision 在本案中败诉，Ciranus 是否将支付判决书所确定的款项？\n\n答：\n我完全不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否知道 Ciranus 在本案中将为 Strategic Vision 支付的律师费是否有上限或限额？\n\n答：\n我完全不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否掌握任何信息，说明本案中披露的证据开示材料是否正与 Ciranus 分享？\n\n答：\n我完全不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否知道是否已向 Ciranus 出示本案中的保护令？\n\n答：\n我完全不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否知道 Ciranus 是否与 Guo 先生存在对立或其他关系？\n\n答：\n不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否曾看过 Graves Garrett 在本案中向 Strategic Vision 收取的发票？\n\n答：\n看过。\n\n问：\n这些发票在转交之前是否需要由您批准\n\n给 Ciranus（西拉纳斯）吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：Ciranus 是直接向 Graves Garrett（格雷夫斯·加勒特）付款，还是款项先经过 Strategic Vision（战略愿景）？\n\nGREIM 律师：\n法官大人——\n\n法庭：\n异议成立。\n\n问：2017 年 11 月的某个时候，您和 Waller 先生（沃勒）被介绍给了一名叫 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的人；对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：William Gertz（威廉·格茨）和 Lianchao Han（韩连潮）将您介绍给郭先生？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：Gertz 先生是一名调查记者？\n\n答：是，除此之外还是其他身份。\n\n问：Han 先生是一名民主倡导人士？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：到那时，您已经认识韩连潮几年了，对吗？\n\n答：他们两位我都认识了至少 30 年。\n\n问：Han 先生曾在美国参议院工作数年，包括为您的前夫工作？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：而且您认为 Han 先生是一个非常优秀的人，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且您相信 Gertz 先生是研究中国腐败问题最杰出的智者之一，对吗？\n\n答：我同意，是的。\n\n问：您从 Han 先生和 Gertz 先生处了解到，郭先生是一名拥有足够资源、能够坚定反对中国共产党的异见人士，对吗？\n\n答：最初是的，那是我的理解。\n\n问：在被介绍给郭先生之后，您在 2017 年 11 月和 12 月期间与郭先生及其他人举行了多次面对面会谈，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：在其中一次或多次会谈中，您和 Waller 先生说明了您可以向他提供的各种服务，对吗？\n\n答：是的，是应他的要求。\n\n问：您的证言是，郭先生在您与他首次会面之前，曾向 Strategic Vision 提出请求？\n\n答：是的，在某种程度上是通过韩连潮提出的。\n\n问：但是，直到 Han 先生和 Gertz 先生向您介绍郭先生的那次会面，您才见到郭先生；对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：请调出证据 DX38。\n\n那么，Wallop 女士（沃洛普），希望您的屏幕上显示的是第一页，标题写着“Vision”。您能看清吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：右上角写着“与 Guo 的第一次会面”的是您的笔迹吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：证据 38 是一份您在您——在 Strategic 与郭先生的首次会面中向郭先生出示的文件吗？\n\n答：这是依韩连潮的要求，他要求我们根据韩连潮与 Waller 博士和我本人就该次会面及会面目的进行的谈话，编写这份愿景声明。\n\n问：好的。我想我的问题是：您是否代表 Strategic Vision，在 Strategic Vision 与郭先生的首次会面中向郭先生出示了这份文件？\n\n答：是我出示的，或者说是我们出示的。\n\n问：您和 Waller 先生参与了该文件的准备，对吗？\n\n答：是的，韩连潮也参与了。\n\n问：该文件描述了至少最初 Strategic Vision 提出为郭先生履行的服务，对吗？\n\n答：是应韩连潮的要求，他是郭先生的使者。\n\n问：那么，请您看一下这里第一页的第二段。\n\n法庭：\n您要提交 DX38 吗？\n\nCLINE 律师（克莱恩）：\n哦，当然，法官大人。也许这是一个程序性事项。我理解您会在——结束时一并接收所有文件。\n\n法庭：\n我会，但请为记录表明您将提交它，以便我们明确这一点。\n\nCLINE 律师：\n好的。可以。那么，原告提交 DX38，即“Vision”证据。\n\n法庭：\n我将接收该证据，但以最后对其提出的删除动议为限。\n\nCLINE 律师：\n好的。\n\n（被告证据 DX38 已被接纳为证据）\n\nCLINE 律师询问：\n\n问：那么，请您看一下第一页的第二段，即以“G 先生；”开头的段落；您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：我确实希望您重点关注第二句话：“然而，他的形象只是又一位流亡亿万富翁，一些人怀疑他可能仅仅代表一场内部领导权斗争中的某个派系。”我读得对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：在该次会面时，您认为那一陈述是真实的，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但是，当时您没有针对该问题进行任何调查跟进，对吗？\n\n答：Bill Gertz 和韩连潮为他担保，我们认为那是非常好的推荐；所以，没有，我们没有。\n\n问：而该愿景所设想的一部分，至少在这第一次会面中，是 Strategic 将帮助郭先生把其公众形象从流亡商人转变为国际政治家；这样说公平吗？\n\n答：这是韩连潮所表示的，郭先生希望其形象发生的改变，是的。\n\n问：那么，如果您能注意只回答我的问题，因为您谈及他人所言的部分可能存在传闻问题。但我不会申请删除您的证言；不过，如果您能大致限于回答我的问题，那就很好了。那么，我的问题是，这份愿景文件——在这第一次会面中，记载了 Strategic Vision 提议为郭先生做的事情，对吗？\n\n答：是应韩连潮的要求。\n\n问：而且在这第一次会面中，Strategic Vision 没有提出提供调查服务，对吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n法庭：\n抱歉，这个问题的问法对我而言不够清楚。\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n在第一次会面中，Strategic 是否提出提供调查服务？\n\n证人：\n没有——\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n证人：\n——法官大人。那是后来才出现的。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nCLINE 律师询问：\n\n问：好的。现在，请转到证据 39。DX39。Wallop 女士，您能看见吗？顶部应当写着“三年时间表”？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：顶部写着“与 Guo 的第二次会面”的是您的笔迹吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：这是您和 Waller 先生共同编制的文件吗？\n\n答：是，也有韩连潮参与。\n\nCLINE 律师：\n法官大人，原告提交被告证据 DX39。\n\n法庭：\n接收，但以删除动议为限。\n\n（被告证据 DX39 已被接纳为证据）\n\nCLINE 律师询问：\n\n问：事实上，这是在 Strategic 与郭先生第二次会面时向他出示的文件吗？\n\n答：是。在第一次会面显然进行的第一轮谈话之后，这是他表示希望加强的其他目标，我想“加强”是最恰当的说法。\n\n问：那么，例如，Strategic 谈到了郭先生如何在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区建立个人影响力的方式，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：您还提议帮助他取得一处位于华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的住所，对吗？\n\n答：他表示希望寻找一栋非常大的住宅，以及一栋办公楼来设立他的基金会。\n\n问：而我的问题是，帮助他寻找住宅和办公用房地产，是 Strategic 在该文件中提出的事项之一；对吗？\n\n答：是应郭先生和韩连潮两人的要求，以便在华盛顿塑造他的形象。\n\n问：Strategic 还提议将他与能够影响美国决策者的人联系起来，对吗？\n\n答：是的，对。\n\n问：Strategic 提议就证据 DX39 所述服务每月收取 $30,000 至 $120,000 的费用，对吗？\n\n答：是，我想那——是的，那是该数额；嗯。\n\n问：但事实证明，Strategic 最终没有提供任何这些传播或公共关系类服务，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：在某个时候，根据郭先生向您和 Waller 先生所述，显然他有兴趣对中国共产党的成员进行调查，确实如此吗？\n\n答：确实如此。\n\n问：在该次会面之后的某个时候，Strategic 提出向郭先生提供的服务从公众形象服务转变为调查服务，对吗？\n\n答：是应他的要求，不是我们的提议，是的。\n\n问：所以我的问题是，在此之后的某个时候，Strategic Vision 提出的服务从公众形象类服务转变为调查服务；这是真的吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Chuff 先生（查夫），我们能否调出 PX2。您看到一份标题为“抓住他们的时候到了”的文件了吗？\n\n答：是的，看到了。\n\n问：好的。这是 Strategic 在我们刚刚讨论的第二次会面之后的一次会面中向郭先生出示的文件，对吗？\n\n答：是。看起来是——是的，确实是。\n\n问：您和 Waller 先生在 2017 年底的某个时候编制了这份文件；这准确吗？\n\n答：对，也有韩连潮的意见。\n\n问：在 2017 年底的某个时候，Strategic 向郭先生出示了这份文件，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\nCLINE 律师：\n法官大人，原告提交 PX2。\n\n法庭：\n同样裁定。\n\n（原告证据 PX2 已被接纳为证据）\n\nCLINE 律师询问：\n\n问：但与我们刚才查看的前两份证据不同，该文件 PX2 提出了某些调查服务。我想我的问题将是，这对吗？但请继续。Chuff 先生，为了让证人能看到，也许请正好翻到第 3 页。\n\n答：我能看一下前一页吗？因为已经过去三年了；所以我没看过它。谢谢。谢谢。\n\n问：好的。那么现在翻到证据 PX2 的第 3 页，该页最初——标题为“有针对性的情报收集与分析”；您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。请您告诉我该提案的日期好吗？\n\n问：我不确定上面是否有日期。\n\n答：嗯，知道顺序会有帮助。\n\n问：那么我只会问您一些问题，并且——\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：——这会让您了解其背景。现在我的问题首先只是，您看到第 3 页的标题了吗？它叫“有针对性的情报收集与分析”。\n\n答：对，看到了。\n\n问：接下来第一条项目符号写着——抱歉。它写道：“建立和运作一个秘密系统，用于微定向情报收集与分析。”您看到了那一项吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：这是 Strategic 可以为郭先生履行的服务之一吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且这不是人们可以在当地图书馆进行的研究活动，对吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：它是复杂的——比那复杂得多，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：正如下一个句子所说，这是一项极为敏感的能力，必须极为谨慎地处理；这准确吗？\n\n答：是的，依郭先生的指示，是的。\n\n问：那么，那些就是最终被记载在研究协议中的调查服务类型，对吗？\n\n答：抱歉，我只是在阅读。是的，它概括了大多数要点。\n\n问：如果您再看下面的项目符号，它写道：“将一切记录在案，作为获得让步、保护人员、用作政治武器，或协助刑事起诉和资产追缴的筹码。”您看到了吗？\n\n答：是的，那是郭先生的一项指示。\n\n问：该项目符号中的概念最终被记载下来。\n\n1 在研究协议中，对吗？\n2 答。\n是。在某种程度上，是。\n3 问。\n而且您理解 Guo 先生希望该调查\n4 揭露与中国共产党成员有关的腐败，对吗？\n5 答。\n是。\n6 问。\n包括中国共产党成员所实施的犯罪？\n7 答。\n按照他的指示，那是他所要求的，是。\n8 问。\n而且他还想了解被\n9 中国共产党成员窃取并非法带出中国的资金的信息，对吗？\n10 答。\n我相信他讨论过此事，但我们不确定是否\n11 能够做到。\n12 问。\n好的。但您同意，Guo 先生所理解的 Strategic 将提供的服务之一\n13 是获取\n14 有关被非法带出\n15 该国的资金、现金付款以及所有\n16 属于该事项组成部分的信息，对吗？\n17 GREIM 律师：\n异议，缺乏基础。\n18 法庭：\n驳回。\n19 答。\n不，并非完全如此，不是。\n20 问。\n因此，您和我刚才谈到了您\n21 于 2019 年 11 月所作的证词笔录。您还于\n22 2019 年 2 月接受了证词录取，对吗？\n23 答。\n是。\n24 问。\n请调出那份证词笔录，\n25 Chuff 先生。\n\n1 您在屏幕上看到的是您于 2019 年 2 月所作\n2 证词笔录的第一页，对吗？\n3 答。\n是。\n4 问。\n好的。Chuff 先生，您能否翻到\n5 包含第 88 和 89 页的页面。Chris，您能稍微向上滚动一下吗？\n6 这样就可以了。\n7 问。\n好的。因此，我将朗读第 88 页的内容，该页位于\n8 大约右上方的象限，我将从\n9 第 20 行开始。您跟上了吗，第 20 行？\n10 答。\n是，我看到了。\n11 问。\n好的。那么，问题是：\n12 “问。中国共产党掌握哪些腐败控制信息？\n13 \n14 “答。嗯，Guo 曾说，中国共产党，即\n15 中国共产党，其领导层内部存在大量\n16 腐败，因此，他希望尽可能查明更多\n17 腐败情况。他希望我们调查并\n18 获取此类腐败信息。换言之，被\n19 非法带出该国的资金、现金\n20 付款，以及所有属于该事项组成部分的事物。”\n21 我读得正确吗？\n22 答。\n是，应其要求。\n23 问。\n并且在 2017 年年底的某个时候——谢谢，Chris。这样就行了。\n24 \n25 在 2017 年年底的某个时候，Strategic 提议\n\n1 向 Guo 先生展示其调查能力，对吗？\n2 答。\n抱歉，日期是什么时候？\n3 问。\n在 2017 年年底。\n4 答。\n我们讨论了他希望完成的事项。我只是\n5 不明白您提出问题的方式。\n6 问。\n在 2017 年年底的某个时候，Strategic 是否提议\n7 提供有关 Guo 先生希望调查的目标之一的\n8 一些初步信息？\n9 答。\n据我回忆，我认为答案是肯定的。\n10 问。\n好的。您是否记得讨论过名为 Anita、\n11 姓氏为 S-u-e-n 的目标？\n12 答。\n我记得，因为她实际上是 Guo 向我们提供的\n13 主名单上的第一个目标。\n14 问。\n在 Strategic 签订研究协议之前，\n15 您——您和 Waller 先生——向 Guo 先生分享了一张 Ms.——\n16 我不确定如何发音，可能有两个 n——\n17 Suen 女士的 Civic Bank 账户信息的屏幕截图，对吗，以\n18 证明您能够获取此类信息？\n19 答。\n是。\n20 问。\n而且我相信您曾作证称，您是在证明自己有能力\n21 引用原话说，窥看某人在这家 Civic Group Bank 的\n22 银行账户信息，对吗？\n23 答。\n我相信 Waller 博士更适合回答\n24 该问题。\n25 问。\n但我想问的是您。您是否记得曾在一次\n\n1 会议上，Strategic 向 Guo 先生展示过？\n2 答。\n是。\n3 问。\n某人的银行账户屏幕截图？\n4 答。\n是。那只是初步的，并未进入\n5 该账户。\n6 问。\n但您作证说您能够看到姓名和号码，\n7 对吗？\n8 答。\n我不记得——嗯，那不是账户信息。\n9 可能是账户号码，也可能是\n10 账户上的姓名，但我不记得看到任何其他——\n11 例如银行对账单。我不记得有任何类似内容。\n12 问。\n无论如何，Strategic Vision 并未获许可作为私人\n13 调查员，对吗？\n14 答。\n没有。\n15 问。\n而且从未获过许可？\n16 答。\n没有。\n17 问。\n据您所知，Waller 先生也从未获过许可，对吗？\n18 答。\n没有。\n19 问。\nStrategic 最终于 2018 年 1 月 6 日签订了研究协议，\n20 对吗？\n21 答。\n是。\n22 问。\n请调出 PX1。Chuff 先生，您能否\n23 将其大致滚动至末尾，以便证人能够看到\n24 整份文件。\n25 （暂停）\n\n1 问。\n好的。您是否认出 PX1 是本案所涉\n2 研究协议的副本？\n3 答。\n看起来是。\n4 问。\n好的。而且那是您在末尾的签名，对吗？\n5 答。\n左边那个，是。\n6 问。\n好的。日期是 2018 年 1 月 6 日？\n7 答。\n正确。\n8 CLINE 律师：\n法官阁下，原告提交 PX1。\n9 法庭：\n在可能提出删除动议的前提下，予以接收。\n10 \n11 （原告证据 PX1 作为证据接收）\n12 CLINE 律师询问：\n13 问。\n而且当您签署该协议时，您在您位于\n14 Virginia 州 Arlington 的家中，对吗？\n15 答。\n正确。\n16 问。\n您签署时，Yvette Wang 在您家中在场？\n17 答。\n她在场。\n18 问。\n而且您协助起草了该协议，对吗？\n19 答。\n是。\n20 问。\n我请您注意该协议第四段。\n21 我将朗读，您可以告诉我我\n22 对此的描述是否准确。该协议第四段\n23 规定：“承包商将开展高质量的\n24 原创研究，并就由客户自行选择的主题编制报告，\n25 目的在于侦测、制止和\n\n1 防止对无辜者造成犯罪或其他伤害。”\n2 您同意合同中如此规定，对吗？\n3 答。\n正确。\n4 问。\nChuff 先生，请翻到第 3 页。\n5 因此，请您注意题为\n6 “标准”的段落，具体而言，请注意第二\n7 句：Strategic 同意应尽最大\n8 勤勉努力，确保所提供服务具有极高\n9 质量，揭示目标真实、完整且全面的情况；这准确吗？\n10 \n11 答。\n是，准确。\n12 问。\n如果您往上看几段，查看题为\n13 “交付成果”的段落，该段最后一句\n14 规定：“所有交付成果仅应通过 USB drive 提供”，\n15 对吗？\n16 答。\n是。\n17 问。\n至于交付成果的类型，合同在同一段落中\n18 描述交付成果为“金融法证历史研究报告、\n19 当前跟踪报告和社交媒体报告”，\n20 对吗？\n21 答。\n是，正确。\n22 问。\n至于金融法证报告，其目的之一是\n23 揭露中国共产党成员实施洗钱的\n24 证据，对吗？\n25 答。\n嗯，我们不知道会查出什么。\n\n1 问。\n但您同意，您所理解的金融法证报告的目的之一\n2 是揭露中国共产党成员实施洗钱的\n3 证据，对吗？\n4 答。\n是，可能。\n5 问。\n当前跟踪报告应包括关于目标通过陆路、空中\n6 和海上活动的详细报告，以证明目标行踪，\n7 对吗？\n8 答。\n是。\n9 问。\n社交媒体报告应包括有关目标法庭记录和\n10 犯罪记录的信息，\n11 对吗？\n12 答。\n是。在公共领域内，是。\n13 问。\n以及有关婚外情的信息，\n14 对吗？\n15 答。\n是。\n16 问。\n社交媒体研究还应涉及获取中国共产党官员及其\n17 近亲属的海外账户，\n18 对吗？\n19 答。\n在哪里？\n20 问。\n我认为这不在合同中。我只是问您，\n21 这是否是您的理解？\n22 答。\n请重复该问题？\n23 问。\n是。您理解，所设想的社交媒体研究的一部分\n24 将涉及获取某些中国共产党官员的\n25 海外账户？\n\n1 答。\n可能，是。\n2 问。\nStrategic 曾设想获取个人私人账户的\n3 私人密码，对吗？\n4 答。\n是，海外的。\n5 问。\n请翻到——让我们翻到证据的第 3 页，\n6 并请您注意题为“价格”的\n7 段落，请花一点时间自行审阅，\n8 自行阅读。\n9 答。\n是，我已阅读。\n10 问。\n好的。因此，您理解每项\n11 交付成果，即我们提到的每一类报告，其价格\n12 应为每份 300,000、每个目标、每年，对吗？\n13 答。\n是。\n14 问。\n请翻到第 5 页。我请您注意\n15 第 5 页第二段。研究协议\n16 规定，客户应在签署时向承包商支付\n17 \\$1 million 定金，对吗？\n18 答。\n是。\n19 问。\n而且该定金应视为首付款，并在合同期末按比例\n20 抵扣，\n21 对吗？\n22 答。\n其文字如此。\n23 问。\n而且研究协议——稍微向下滚动至电汇指示下方的\n24 段落——研究协议\n25 明确规定，双方理解客户可以\n\n1 指示其他实体向承包商付款，并且此类\n2 付款将被承包商视为满意的报酬，\n3 对吗？\n4 答。\n是。\n5 问。\n关于定金——Chris，我想我们现在可以把它关掉。\n6 \n7 在 2018 年 1 月 2 日前后，就在您\n8 签署研究协议之前，Strategic 收到了来自一家名为 ACA Capital Group Limited 的公司\n9 的两笔各 \\$500,000 电汇，\n10 对吗？\n11 答。\n直到——我认为是 1 月 5 日——我们才知道\n12 电汇已经发出。\n13 问。\n好的。但您在签署合同之前就知道这些电汇，\n14 对吗？\n15 答。\n是，但我们不知道 ACA 是谁。\n16 问。\n但您知道发出电汇的一方是 ACA，\n17 对吗？\n18 答。\n我们知道，但我们不知道 ACA 是谁，因为 Yvette 或 Guo 从未\n19 告知我们资金是如何\n20 汇出的。\n21 问。\n因此，我只需要您回答我的问题。当电汇在您签署研究协议\n22 之前到账时，\n23 您知道电汇来自 ACA，不是吗？\n24 答。\n我知道有两笔电汇来自 ACA，正确，但我们\n25 不知道它们是做什么用的。\n\n1 问。\n嗯，Strategic 接受了那两笔电汇并将其存入\n2 其银行账户，对吗，并且没有将其取出？\n3 答。\n电汇已发出并进入银行账户。当\n4 我们被通知款项已存入账户时，我相信\n5 那是——可能是 1 月 5 日，但我们不知道\n6 它们来自谁——是做什么用的。\n7 问。\n您知道到账的电汇与该研究有关，\n8 对吗？\n9 答。\n不，我们不知道。我们怎么会知道？我们尚未签署\n10 协议。\n11 法庭：\n抱歉，Wallop 女士。\n12 证人：\n抱歉。\n13 法庭：\n您是说您收到了 100 万美元，\n14 却不知道为什么会收到 100 万美元？\n15 \n16 证人：\n我们推测款项来自 Guo，但我们不知道 ACA 是谁，\n17 因为没有人告知我们 ACA 的情况。\n18 我们不知道那是否是 Citibank 电汇部门的错误\n19 或其他什么情况。我们不知道。没有人告诉我们\n20 关于 ACA 的情况。\n21 法庭：\n我理解，您推测该款项是为履行即将签署的合同中\n22 定金要求而支付，\n23 对吗？\n24 证人：\n我们会如此推测，但我们都知道\n25 推测有时是危险的。因此，我们相信这可能\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 曾经是，但无论是 Yvette（伊薇特）还是 Guo（郭文贵）都从未告知我们，发件人是直接来自香港的。\n\n3 法院：\n你是说，根据该合同，你认为自己有权知道发件人是谁，以及其与郭文贵的关系是什么？\n\n6 证人：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n7 法院：\n好的。\n\n8 CLINE 女士：\nChris（克里斯），你能调出双方确认事实联合陈述吗？\n\n10 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n11 问：\nWallop 女士，回到我们此前查阅过的联合审前命令。我将请 Chuff 先生再次滚动至双方确认事实联合陈述。具体而言，Chuff 先生，请滚动至第 29 段。Wallop 女士，你能看到第 29 段吗？\n\n17 答：\n是，我能看到。\n\n18 问：\n第 29 段写道：“Eastern（东方）须于 2018 年 1 月 2 日或前后，根据研究协议支付 \\$1 million 定金。在研究协议签署前，Strategic（思特拉提吉克）收到非当事方 ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司）的两笔各 \\$500,000 电汇款。”我读得正确吗？\n\n23 答：\n正确。\n\n24 问：\n转至第 30 段，第 30 段写道：“Strategic 理解，来自 ACA 的 \\$1 million 付款，是双方此前就当时正在谈判的研究协议所讨论的定金。”我读得正确吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\nStrategic 没有因该定金来自 ACA 而退还定金，对吗？\n\n答：\n我们不知道 ACA 是谁。抱歉。\n\n法院：\n只回答问题。问题是——\n\n答：\n不，我们没有退还。\n\n问：\n那么现在我们转而讨论协议签署后发生的事情。2018 年 1 月 8 日或前后，Wang 女士代表 Eastern Profit 向你交付了一个 USB 驱动器，其中载有 15 名根据研究协议应接受调查的个人名单，对吗？\n\n答：\n哪一天？\n\n问：\n2018 年 1 月 8 日或前后。\n\n答：\n她交付了。\n\nChuff 先生，请调出 PX7。\n\n问：\nWallop 女士，你能看到原告证据 7 的第一页吗？\n\n答：\n能。\n\n问：\n如果你愿意，我们可以向下滚动。问题将是：你是否认得这份文件，其中包含根据该协议应接受研究的个人姓名中的至少一部分？\n\n1 根据该协议？\n\n2 答：\n嗯，我相信它是一份证物；因此，它必定是准确的。\n\n4 问：\n我是说，就你今天坐在这里而言，你认得它是这样的文件吗？\n\n5 答：\n是。\n\n6 问：\n并且你理解，应接受研究的个人是 CCP（中国共产党）成员，或者是当时与中共高级成员关系密切的人，对吗？\n\n9 答：\n是，或者是其居住在美国或其他地方的子女。\n\n11 问：\n并且 Strategic Vision（思特拉提吉克愿景）事实上着手调查了 15 名个人，对吗？\n\n13 答：\n是，应 Guo 先生就那 15 人提出的要求。\n\n14 问：\nStrategic 还聘请了若干独立承包商来调查这些对象，对吗？\n\n16 答：\n正确。\n\n17 问：\n你是否理解，Strategic 根据研究协议向 Eastern 共交付了两个 USB 驱动器？\n\n20 答：\n是。\n\n21 问：\n但你本人从未看过交付给 Eastern 的这两个驱动器中任何一个的内容，对吗？\n\n23 答：\n没有。\n\n24 问：\n让我澄清一下。你是否曾看过这两个驱动器中任何一个的内容？\n\n1 答：\n没有，我没有。我认为我没有，没有。\n\n2 问：\n那么，你对 USB 驱动器上的内容没有任何亲身了解，对吗？\n\n4 答：\nWaller 博士最适合回答这个问题，因为是他带着 USB 密钥回来交给 Yvette 的。所以我从未看过它们。\n\n7 问：\n对。因此，我的问题是，你对 USB 密钥上的内容没有任何亲身了解，对吗？\n\n9 答：\n我没有。就我所能回忆的，没有，我从未看过它们。\n\n11 问：\n并且你知道，在本案中，Strategic 已承认其未交付研究协议要求的任何报告，对吗？\n\n14 答：\n我不相信这是真的。\n\n15 问：\nChris，请再次调出联合陈述，并请滚动至第 56 段——抱歉，第 54 段。\n\n17 问：\n那么，Wallop 女士，回到随审前命令提交的双方确认事实联合陈述，我请你注意第 54 段。第 54 段写道：“Strategic 从未向 Eastern 交付研究协议所要求的任何财务法证历史研究。”我读得正确吗？\n\n23 答：\n你读得正确。\n\n24 问：\n“55，Strategic 从未向 Eastern 交付研究协议所要求的任何当前追踪研究。”\n\n1 我读得正确吗？\n\n2 答：\n是。\n\n3 问：\n“56，Strategic 从未向 Eastern 交付研究协议所要求的任何社交媒体研究。”我读得正确吗？\n\n6 答：\n你读出的三项都正确。\n\n7 问：\n然后还有一项。第“57”段：“Strategic 无法编制任何详细报告。”我读得正确吗？\n\n10 答：\n你读得正确。\n\n11 问：\n并且在 2018 年 2 月 23 日，Eastern 根据研究协议向 Strategic 交付了解除函，对吗？\n\n13 答：\n抱歉，是哪一天？\n\n14 问：\n2018 年 2 月 23 日。\n\n15 答：\n是。我相信当时我在国外，但确实如此。\n\n16 CLINE 女士：\n好的。实际上，作为程序性事项，法官阁下，我认为就 PX7 而言我有所疏漏。我不认为我曾请求将其接纳为证据。\n\n19 法院：\n该证据获接纳，但以提出删除动议为条件。\n\n21 （原告证据 PX7 获接纳为证据）\n\n22 CLINE 女士：\n也向您致歉，法官阁下。回到解除一事。Chuff 先生，请调出 DX8。\n\n25 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n1 问：\nWallop 女士，如你需要，我们可以向下滚动，但我的问题仍将是：你是否认得这是 Eastern 于 2018 年 2 月发送给你的解除函？\n\n5 答：\n看起来是。\n\n6 问：\n你代表 Strategic Vision 收到了这封信？\n\n7 答：\n我收到了，但在数日后。\n\n8 CLINE 女士：\n法官阁下，原告请求接纳 DX8。\n\n10 法院：\n同样裁定。\n\n11 （被告证据 DX8 获接纳为证据）\n\n12 CLINE 女士：\nChuff 先生，请转至第 2 页。\n\n14 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n15 问：\n因此，你理解，在这封信中，Eastern 要求返还已发送给 Strategic 的定金，对吗？\n\n17 答：\n是这样，但我也注意到信中说将资金退还至新加坡，而不是香港。\n\n19 问：\n因此，我再次只需要你回答我的问题，不过我们来看一下电汇指示。电汇指示紧接前面的段落——最后一句写道：“Eastern 期望 Strategic Vision 立即退还 \\$1 million 定金。请通过电汇发送资金。”你看到了吗？\n\n25 答：\n看到了。\n\nL4JPEAS2\nWallop（沃洛普）—交叉询问\n\n1 问：\n然后，如果你向下滚动至收款人账户名称，那里写着：ACA Capital Group Limited，对吗？\n\n3 答：\n是，在新加坡，不是在香港。\n\n4 法院：\nWallop 女士——\n\n5 证人：\n抱歉。\n\n6 法院：\n——让我再次指示你，尽量只回答向你提出的问题。在对 Strategic 的询问时，你将有机会作进一步说明。\n\n9 证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n10 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n11 问：\n但 Strategic 从未退还 \\$1 million 定金，对吗？\n\n13 答：\n没有。\n\n14 问：\n现在，转到 Strategic 的欺诈主张。作为该主张的一部分，Strategic 主张，若其知道按你目前所称 Guo 先生是 CCP 的支持者，它本不会签订该协议，对吗？\n\n18 答：\n正确。\n\n19 问：\n但在签订研究协议之前，你知道有报道称 Guo 先生与中国共产党高级领导人关系密切，对吗？\n\n22 答：\n在协议签署之前不知道。\n\n23 问：\n那么我们来看证据 DX43。我想是在交叉询问文件夹中。所以我们向你展示 DX43。\n\n1 是的，Chris，如果你能向上滚动。\n\n2 问：\n这是一篇由你的朋友 Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）撰写的文章；对吗？\n\n4 答：\n是。我从未看过这篇文章。\n\n5 问：\n在签订研究协议前，你读过 Gertz 先生的文章吗？\n\n7 答：\n没有，不是所有文章都读过。\n\n8 问：\n你看到这篇特定文章的日期是 2017 年 5 月 23 日，早于研究协议签订之日，对吗？\n\n11 答：\n正确。\n\n12 问：\nChuff 先生，请转至第 2 页。\n\n13 法院：\nGreim 先生，我假定对于该文件的真实性或其日期不存在争议，对吗？\n\n15 GREIM 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n16 法院：\n好的，谢谢。\n\n17 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n18 问：\n因此，Wallop 女士，我请你注意第 2 页第四段。第一句写道：“Guo 与中国共产党高级领导人关系密切，包括政府部长和政治局成员。”你看到了吗？\n\n22 答：\n我看到了。\n\n23 问：\n你的证词是，在签订研究协议之前你并不知道这一说法？\n\n25 答：\n我从未看过这篇文章。\n\n1 问：\n你是否曾与 Gertz 先生讨论过这一内容？\n\n2 答：\n没有，据我所记得。\n\n3 问：\nChris，请继续向下滚动该页。那里很好。\n\n5 问：\n有一段以“Guo 对中国情报行动的了解”开头。我将为你标出该段。该段写道：“Guo 对中国情报行动的了解，基于他接触国家安全部在海外和美国境内的行动，可能为 CIA（中央情报局）和 FBI（联邦调查局）带来情报上的意外收获。”你看到了吗？\n\n12 答：\n看到了。\n\n13 问：\n在签订研究协议之前，你知道这一点吗？\n\n15 答：\n不知道。\n\n16 问：\n你从未就这一概念与 Gertz 先生谈过？\n\n17 答：\n没有，据我所记得。\n\n18 问：\n因此，当 Gertz 先生提出要把你介绍给 Guo 先生时，你从未问过他是否曾公开撰写过任何关于 Guo 先生的内容？\n\n21 答：\n没有。他为他作了担保。他来了——没有。\n\n22 问：\n如果我们转到该文章的第 3 页，页面顶部有一句话写道：“此外，Guo 的妻子和女儿目前获中国当局允许前往纽约探望他，但必须在 20 天后返回中国，届时她们可被用作针对 Guo 的政治筹码。”\n\n1 她们必须返回中国，届时可被用作针对 Guo 的政治筹码。\n\n3 问：\n在签订研究协议之前，你知道这一点吗？\n\n5 答：\n不知道。\n\n6 问：\n你从未就该事实与 Gertz 先生交谈过？\n\n7 答：\n没有，他也没有向我透露。\n\n8 问：\nChris，请调出 DX32。\n\n9 CLINE 女士：\n抱歉，法官阁下，原告提交 DX43？\n\n10 法院：\n我假定你只是为证明其所载内容而提交，而不是为证明其真实性，对吗？\n\n12 CLINE 女士：\n正确。\n\n13 法院：\n好的。\n\n14 （被告证据 DX43 获接纳为证据）\n\n15 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n16 问：\n那么现在转到——Chuff 先生，请调出 DX32。我只请你看一下。这是 Bill Gertz 撰写的另一篇文章。这一篇日期为 2017 年 10 月 9 日。你看到了吗？\n\n20 答：\n看到了。\n\n21 法院：\nGreim 先生，我理解对于文章的真实性或日期不存在争议？\n\n23 GREIM 先生：\n没有，没有，这是我们自己的证据。或者曾是。\n\n24 由 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n25 问：\nChris，请转至第 3 页。那么我——\n\n请注意以“Guo said”开头的一段。\n\n“Guo（郭文贵）说，他与中国政府和安全系统内的支持者保持密切联系，并能够获得许多内部文件。”\n\n您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：而且，即使到2017年10月，这也不是您与Gertz（格茨先生）讨论过的话题？\n\n答：不是，因为格茨先生直到11月中旬才来见我。\n\n问：您只是依赖——而不是自行对郭先生的背景进行尽职调查——您只是依赖格茨先生和Han（韩连潮博士）的推荐；您决定签订该研究协议？\n\n答：不，这不是一个很公平的问题。\n\n问：那么——所以我的问题是——您在签订合同之前，没有对郭先生的背景进行任何尽职调查，对吗？\n\n答：我们做了。在12月，我认为是在11月底，韩连潮先生和Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）都讨论了已在印刷媒体上讨论过的一些事情，以及他们对他的了解，但这只是初步讨论。您必须记住，他们当时讨论的是在华盛顿塑造社会形象以及考察房地产。这与深入调查毫无关系。\n\n问：Chuff（查夫先生），让我们调出2月份的证言记录。好的。Wallop（瓦洛普女士），我们再次查看您2019年2月的证言记录。这是第一页；您看到了吗？\n\n答：我看到了。\n\n问：请查夫先生翻到第90页。首先看第4行，提问人说：\n\n“好的。那么，在2018年1月6日左右签订合同之前，您没有就郭先生或其业务做任何工作？\n\n“答：没有。”\n\n您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：“您没有利用您的人脉网络来确定这是否是您想与之开展业务的人，对吗？”抱歉，我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的，您读得对。\n\n问：“答：我们有Bill Gertz，他是在中国腐败问题以及报道者、记者方面最杰出的智者之一，还有连潮，同样具有最高尚的品格。当他们要求我们对此进行考察时，这就是我们所做的。那是在考察制定一项计划，以帮助我们当时相信绝对反共的人。”我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的，而且那——\n\n法庭：抱歉，您说什么？我没有听到您说的话。\n\n证人：我说是的，法官阁下。我的麦克风出了点问题。\n\n法庭：您是否——\n\n证人：我没有碰任何东西。\n\n（暂停）\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：我认为我们解决了这个问题。瓦洛普女士，在您的证言中，是否有人向您提出了那些问题，且您是否作出了那些回答？\n\n证人：抱歉。我可以请求重复一遍该问题吗？\n\n法庭：当然。是否有人向您提出了那些问题？\n\n证人：是的。\n\n法庭：并且您作出了那些回答？\n\n证人：是的。\n\n法庭：那些回答真实吗？\n\n证人：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n（下页续）\n\n克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：然后，为完成这一部分，从第90页第22行开始，内容是：\n\n“问：Strategic Vision（战略视野）在决定是否与之开展业务或决定签订研究协议时，依赖了Bill Gertz和Lianchao Han（韩连潮）的推荐？\n\n“答：正确。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n法庭：我理解那是您的回答，而且是真实的？\n\n证人：是的，先生。\n\n克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：不过，顺便说一下，在签订协议之前，您知道一项指称，即郭先生曾诈骗阿拉伯联合酋长国一个家庭超过$2 billion，是否如此？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：尽管知悉该项指称，您仍签订了研究协议，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道细节。\n\n问：您知道该项指称，但您仍然签订了研究协议，对吗？\n\n答：正确，在不知道细节的情况下，是的。\n\n法庭：克莱恩女士，您现在是否到了适宜休庭的节点，或者您是否很快会到达适宜休庭的节点？\n\n克莱恩女士：是的。法官，如果可以的话，再给我两分钟？\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\n克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：您实际上并不知道Eastern（东方公司）将如何使用调查结果；对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：而且，您甚至认为郭先生可能会——引述原话——“两边运作”，既针对中国共产党，也有利于中国共产党，对吗？\n\n答：实质上是郭先生通过Eastern Profit（东方利润）雇用了我们，我无法以是或否回答这个问题。\n\n问：但您知道，不是吗，郭先生——您认为他或许会两边运作；这是真的吗？\n\n答：我作过该陈述，是的。\n\n问：在您作出该陈述时，该陈述是准确的？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Strategic并未要求Eastern在研究协议中作出书面陈述，称郭先生是一名反对中国共产党的中国异见人士，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n克莱恩女士：好的。法官阁下，如果方便的话，现在是一个合适的时间。\n\n法庭：我们休庭十分钟吧。现在是11:55。我们将在12:05重新开庭，并进行至大约1:00。\n\n克莱恩女士：谢谢。\n\n（休庭）\n\n法庭：克莱恩女士，您可以询问。瓦洛普女士，提醒您，您仍在宣誓之下。\n\n证人：是的，先生。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：瓦洛普女士，我想先处理一个技术性问题。\n\n当您提到该诉讼资助人的名称时，我想您拼写为C-i-r-a-n-u-s。是否可能实际上是C-y-r-a-n-u-s？\n\n答：有可能，是的。\n\n问：您是否知道它是否位于田纳西州？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：就其欺诈请求而言，Strategic主张其因信赖而遭受超过$763,000的信赖损失；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n克莱恩女士：查夫先生，我们可以调出Strategic的事实认定吗？\n\n问：瓦洛普女士，您知道，在审前准备过程中，Strategic向法庭提交了拟议的事实认定和法律结论？\n\n答：知道。\n\n克莱恩女士：查夫先生，请翻到第23页的脚注140。您已经到了。您能否把字体放大一点？\n\n查夫先生：可以。\n\n克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：那么，请您注意Strategic拟议事实认定中的脚注140，脚注140是否列明了Strategic在本案中对欺诈损害赔偿的分配？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：那么，第一类别是为您自己的业务开支分配$200,000；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：然后有两项向Waller（沃勒先生）个人分配的款项，总额为250,000，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：归于沃勒先生的差旅费用为25,000，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：然后有一笔向Team 1（第一团队）支付的$200,000款项。这是否是Strategic Vision与之签约的一家分包商？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后，Team 2（第二团队）是否是另一家分包商？\n\n答：是的。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区记录服务公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n问：该笔付款略高于$5,400，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后是Team 1的$17,686检索费用，您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：那是向一家名为Fletcher（弗莱彻）的公司支付的款项，对吗？\n\n答：在英国，是的。\n\n问：好的。然后，2018年5月还有一笔向Georgetown Research（乔治城研究公司）支付的$15,000款项，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Georgetown Research由沃勒先生所有，对吗？\n\n答：沃勒博士，是的。\n\n克莱恩女士：Chris（克里斯），我不知道这是否可行，但您能否同时调出我们的图表。\n\n问：在他进行该操作的同时，瓦洛普女士，您在为审判作准备时，是否曾意识到脚注140中所载的金额比$763,000少$50,000？\n\n答：我认为是额外的。我们确实发现还有一些额外款项已经支付。\n\n问：好的。因此，我们在右侧尝试做的是，以图表形式列出您所说的——Strategic在脚注140中所说的内容，而且我认为我们发现了金额错误，我们将逐一说明，您可以告诉我我们是对是错。\n\n问：那么，再次将脚注140与PDX 1进行比较，您看第一类别是您的$200,000业务开支，所以这一项没有问题，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。然后沃勒先生的个人分配为250，如脚注140所反映，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后他的差旅费用为25,000，对吗？\n\n答：至少如此，是的。\n\n问：好的。然后是这个类别，第四类别，即支付给Team 1的金额，您是在这里发现错误的吗？因为看起来脚注140将一笔$200,000的付款归于Team 1。我们认为可能是250。这听起来对吗？\n\n答：听起来是对的，但老实说，我必须依赖我的律师，因为我们曾努力确保数字正确。\n\n问：好的。我们会谈到一些细节。我只是想了解整体情况。第五类别是支付给Team 2的金额，对吗，$5,412？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：第六类别是支付给Fletcher的$17,686？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后第七类别是向Georgetown Research支付的另一笔$15,000款项？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：如果您将所有这些相加，总计为$763,098，这与Strategic在事实认定中主张的金额一致，对吗？\n\n答：是的，我确信这是正确的。\n\n问：现在我想转到我们制作的另一张图表，该图表采用这一信息，只是以略有不同的方式展示。\n\n克莱恩女士：那么，克里斯，您能调出第5张幻灯片吗。\n\n问：我会逐一和您讨论这些项目。顶部是投入Strategic Vision的$1 million。您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：让我们从右侧开始，那里是您的$200,000业务开支。这合理吗？\n\n答：合理。\n\n问：以及支付给Fletcher的17,686，您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：然后是支付给Team 1的$50,000。我稍后会向您出示一份与此相关的证物。\n\n问：然后，您的理解是否是，对于Strategic主张损害赔偿的其余已作出的付款，均是向沃勒先生或由沃勒先生拥有或控制的实体作出的；这准确吗？\n\n答：看起来是这样。\n\n问：然后，您的理解是，就分配给沃勒先生的款项而言，他将其中一部分留给自己——其中一部分留给自己，但也将其中一部分分配给了分包商，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：那么让我们开始——我没有在这里列出的是据称支付给Team 2的$5,412。您的理解是否是，该金额实际上由Georgetown Research直接支付？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：因此，该笔款项并非直接来自Strategic Vision，而是来自沃勒先生的一项分配，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Team 2由一家名为Allied Special Operations Group（联合特种行动小组）的实体组成；对吗？\n\n答：是的。称为ASOG，是的。\n\n问：ASOG——这是一个是或否的问题。ASOG从未向Strategic提供任何研究结果；这是真的吗？\n\n答：不是真的。\n\n问：让我换一种问法。ASOG是否曾向Strategic提供任何研究结果？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您的证言是，Allied Special Operations Group向Strategic Vision提供了一份报告？\n\n1 答。\n他们向我们作了口头报告。\n\n2 问。\n可以说，ASOG 从未提供书面报告，对吗？\n\n3 答。\n对。\n\n4 问。\n您无法指出 Eastern Profit（东方利润）因支付给 ASOG 的 $5,412 而获得的任何利益，对吗？\n\n5 答。\n利益？这是您的问题吗？\n\n6 问。\n对。我是在问，您无法指出 Eastern Profit 因那笔 $5,412 而获得了什么，对吗？\n\n7 答。\n我们将从 ASOG 获得的信息转告给了 Lianchao（连超），因此他又将其转告给了 Guo（郭文贵），所以是口头的。\n\n8 问。\n而且没有向 Eastern Profit 转交任何报告——没有书面报告，对吗？\n\n9 答。\n不允许有书面报告。\n\n10 问。\n但答案是，没有书面报告？\n\n11 答。\n对。\n\n12 CLINE 女士：\nChuff 先生，请调出——再次说明，我看看是否可以同时调出——PX 23 和 PX 22。\n\n13 问。\n那么，Wallop 女士，希望现在同时显示在您屏幕上的是两份证物。PX 22 在左边。那是 Strategic Vision（战略愿景）的银行账户对账单汇编，对吗？\n\n14 答。\n对。\n\n15 问。\nPX 23 是您制作的一份损害赔偿图表，对吗？\n\n16 答。\n一份费用分配表。我不知道它是如何界定的。\n\n17 问。\n好的。但是，证物 23 是您就本案的——\n\n18 答。\n是。\n\n19 问。\n——Strategic 的损害赔偿计算所编制的一份文件？\n\n20 答。\n是。\n\n21 问。\n我想先从证物 PX 23 开始。您那里有一套颜色编码，其中标红的项目是汇出电汇款项；对吗？\n\n22 答。\n对。\n\n23 问。\n那是指通过电汇从 Strategic Vision 的银行账户汇出的付款，对吗？\n\n24 答。\n对。\n\n25 CLINE 女士：\n实际上，Chris，请不要调出 PX 22，而是再次调出 PDX 一的第五页幻灯片，并将它们并排显示。好的。那么，Chuff 先生，请翻到证物 23 的第 2 页。仅为便于法庭了解，PX 23 上有三种颜色——绿色、黄色和红色——至少在纸质副本中，我不确定黄色高亮是否显示出来，但您可以在屏幕上看到。因此，我只是想让各位知悉这一点。\n\n26 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n27 问。\n那么，Wallop 女士，回到 PX 23，这里高亮显示的颜色与您在该文件第一页标注的颜色编码相对应，对吗？\n\n28 答。\n对。\n\n29 问。\n因此，右侧一栏表示汇出电汇款项，并标为红色，对吗？\n\n30 答。\n对。\n\n31 问。\n回到我们认为在脚注 140 中发现的错误，您看到在“Wires Out（汇出电汇款项）”类别下的第一项是一笔 $50,000 的电汇，写着“Hill 发票”吗？您看到了吗？\n\n32 答。\n看到了。\n\n33 问。\nHill（希尔）与 Team 1（第一团队）有关联；对吗？\n\n34 答。\n对。\n\n35 问。\n可以说，该 $50,000 是分配给 Team 1 的款项吗？\n\n36 答。\n是。\n\n37 问。\n接下来的一笔汇出电汇是支付给 Cyber Solutions（赛博解决方案）的 $200,000。您看到了吗？\n\n38 答。\n看到了。\n\n39 问。\n那是另一家由 Waller 先生拥有的实体，对吗？\n\n40 答。\n是。\n\n41 问。\n那么，退一步说，汇给 Hill 的那笔 $50,000，是直接从 Strategic 汇给 Hill 的，对吗？\n\n42 答。\n是。\n\n43 问。\n该 $200,000 先支付给 Cyber Sol（赛博解决方案），然后由 Cyber Sol 支付给 Team 1；对吗？\n\n44 答。\n我认为，虽然这已经是很久以前的事了，但我相信，支付给 Cyber Sol 的 200,000 是——嗯，是支付给 Mike（迈克）的一家公司、供 Mike 参与之用，然后接下来的两笔款项支付给了 Team 1，我可能把它们弄反了。我现在实在记不起来了。\n\n45 CLINE 女士：\nChris，请调出事实认定，脚注 140。Chris，您能否把它放在——Chuff 先生，您能否把脚注 140 放在提到汇出电汇款项的证物旁边。\n\n46 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n47 问。\nWallop 女士，为了通过比较两者来核对日期，如果您看脚注 140，其中有一笔付款，但支付给 Hill 的 $50,000 并不在 140 中，对吗？\n\n48 答。\n抱歉，我跟不上了。它在哪里——它不在这里左边的第 23 页上吗？\n\n49 问。\n我们的理解是，电汇给 Hill 的 $50,000 并未在脚注 140 中列明。我是在问您是否同意这一点。\n\n50 答。\n不，看起来确实没有列明。我不确定为什么。\n\n51 问。\n好的。然后，在您右侧的汇出电汇图表中，有一项是支付给 Cyber Solutions 的 $200,000。您看到了吗？\n\n52 答。\n看到了。\n\n53 问。\n我们正在查看的 PX 23 这一页是关于 January 2018 汇出电汇款项的，对吗？\n\n54 答。\n是。\n\n55 问。\nPX 23 上支付给 Cyber Sol 的 $200,000 项目，对应于脚注 140 中关于 Team 1、Cyber Solutions、200,000、January 2018 的标注，对吗？\n\n56 答。\n是，对。\n\n57 问。\n好的。然后回到证物 23，有一笔支付给 GRG 的 $25,000。您看到了吗？\n\n58 答。\n看到了。\n\n59 问。\n如果您将其与脚注 140 对照，那是 January 2018 支付给 Waller 先生用作其差旅费用的金额？\n\n60 答。\n是。\n\n61 问。\n然后，汇给 GRG 的 $200,000 电汇款项，是用于 Michael Waller（迈克尔·沃勒）的个人分配款，对吗？\n\n62 答。\n是，对。\n\n63 CLINE 女士：\nChris，请重新调出图表——是的，完美。\n\n64 问。\n那么，您看到左侧图表上，有一笔从 Strategic Vision 直接支付给 Team 1 的 $50,000 电汇款项。您看到了吗？\n\n65 答。\n看到了。\n\n66 问。\n然后在左下方，有一笔通过 Cyber Sol 转给 Team 1 的 $200,000 付款，对吗？\n\n67 答。\n是，是。\n\n68 CLINE 女士：\nChuff 先生，请翻到证物 PX 23 的第 7 页。\n\n69 问。\n再次说明，我们将只关注汇出电汇款项一栏。我只是想确保您和我理解一致，Wallop 女士。\n\n70 CLINE 女士：\nChris，您能向下滚动，让我们看到顶部的日期吗？\n\n71 问。\n那么，PX 23 的第 7 页右侧显示的是 May 2018 从 Strategic Vision 汇出的电汇款项，对吗？\n\n72 答。\n是。\n\n73 问。\n那笔 17,686 是支付给 Fletcher（弗莱彻）的，对吗？\n\n74 答。\n是，用于 February 所完成的工作。\n\n75 问。\n还有另一笔支付给 Georgetown Research（乔治敦研究）的 $15,000，对吗？\n\n76 答。\n是，对。\n\n77 问。\n那是用于 Waller 先生的个人分配款，对吗？\n\n78 答。\n不是个人分配款。那是用于法律费用。\n\n79 问。\n抱歉，是用于什么？\n\n80 答。\n是与该合同有关的一项法律费用。\n\n81 问。\n好的。这是我们第一次听说这一点。该法律费用的性质是什么？\n\n82 答。\n是为了就我们在海外从事的工作向我们提供法律意见。\n\n83 问。\nStrategic 是否就该法律费用提交过任何发票或收据？\n\n84 答。\n没有，我不知道，我不记得了，但您得问 Waller 博士。\n\n85 CLINE 女士：\nChris，请滚动到 PX 23 的下一页。\n\n86 问。\n然后，PX 23 的第 8 页，在汇出电汇款项一栏中，显示有一笔支付给 OE 的 $50,000 电汇。您看到了吗？\n\n87 答。\n看到了。那是我的笔迹。应该是 OA，不是 OE。\n\n88 问。\n这是 Oceanic Advisors（海洋顾问）的缩写，对吗？\n\n89 答。\n是，对。\n\n90 问。\n那是另一家由 Waller 先生拥有的实体？\n\n91 答。\n是。\n\n92 问。\n既然我们现在大致了解了情况，我想逐项讨论每个类别。那么，首先谈谈电汇给 Team 1 的款项。因此，在 Strategic 直接支付的 50,000 和经由 Cyber Sol 支付的 200,000 之间，Team 1 获得了 $250,000；对吗？\n\n93 答。\n是，我相信——是，至少如此。金额可能更多，但我并不知情。可能还通过——抱歉。可能还通过 Georgetown Research 支付了更多。我们必须将许多事项分隔开来，他知道其中一些事情，而我知道另一些事情。\n\n94 问。\n但就本案脚注 140 中的损害赔偿分配或请求而言，Strategic 主张——在脚注 140 中，Strategic 主张 $200,000，而在您自己的损害赔偿图表中，您在此基础上又主张 $50,000，对吗？也就是说，就 Team 1 而言，Strategic 主张的总额为 $250,000？\n\n95 答。\n是。我相信是这样，是。\n\n96 问。\nTeam 1 据称曾就其在本案中的工作提交一份发票，对吗？\n\n97 答。\n是。\n\n98 问。\n该发票金额为 $200,000；对吗？\n\n99 答。\n是。\n\n100 CLINE 女士：\nChris，请调出 PX 24。\n\n101 问。\n您认出这就是代表 Team 1 提交的发票吗？\n\n102 答。\n是。\n\n103 问。\n其中有大量删节。您能告诉我们这些删节的原因吗？\n\n104 答。\n因为那些内容是 Team 1 在海外的身份信息。\n\n105 问。\n身份？身份——\n\n106 答。\nTeam 1 的发票。\n\n107 问。\n我只是——\n\n108 答。\n我不确定。您得问 Waller 博士。他是最熟悉此事的人。\n\n109 问。\n好的。但据您所知，这是唯一一份曾被归属于 Team 1 的发票，对吗？\n\n110 答。\n我不确定。Waller 博士最清楚。\n\n111 法庭：\n您是否提出 PX 24 作为证据？\n\n112 CLINE 女士：\n是的，请求如此，法官阁下。\n\n113 （原告证物 24 获准作为证据）\n\n114 CLINE 女士：\n请让我们转到证物 22，Chuff 先生。\n\n115 CLINE 女士询问：\n\n116 问。\nWallop 女士，我们现在转看 Strategic 的银行对账单。\n\n117 CLINE 女士：\nChuff 先生，请您滚动到第 2 页。\n\n118 问。\n如果我们看页面顶部，在 January 9th，有一项——该项表示汇给 Team 1 的电汇款项？\n\n119 答。\n是。那是购买电脑和电话、笔记本电脑以及我们准备开展的工作的首笔付款。\n\n120 问。\n那里的发票编号与据称由 Team 1 提交的证物 24 上的编号相符，对吗？\n\n121 答。\n我推定如此。我不知道。\n\n122 问。\n您是否曾取得据称由该笔款项支付的电脑及其他设备？\n\n123 答。\n并非据称。他们确实在海外支付了这些款项。\n\n124 问。\n您得到过收据、发票吗？\n\n125 答。\n我个人没有。\n\n126 问。\nStrategic Vision 是否曾见过任何证明这 $50,000 用途的付款凭证？\n\n127 答。\n您得问 Waller 博士。\n\n128 问。\n再次向下滚动，所以我们现在——按照您的颜色编码系统，我们现在关注与汇出电汇款项相对应的红色项目？\n\n129 答。\n对。\n\n130 问。\n那么，在 January 12th 有一笔 $200,000 的汇出电汇款项？\n\n131 答。\n是。\n\n132 问。\n关于该笔电汇的信息已被删节。您看到了吗？\n\n133 答。\n看到了。\n\n134 问。\n为什么？\n\n135 答。\n那是支付给 Team 1 的。\n\n136 问。\n所以我的问题是：为什么与 Team 1 有关的信息被删节？\n\n137 答。\n因为相关事项被分隔开来，而且我们对中华人民共和国审查我们正在从事的工作非常谨慎。\n\n138 问。\n但现在，您并未将其与除我们之外的任何人分隔开来，对吗？本文件中是否有关于该款项支付给谁的证据？\n\nL4JKEAS3\nWallop（沃洛普）——交叉询问\n\n问：那 $200,000 去了哪里？\n\n答：同样，您得与 Waller（沃勒）博士讨论此事。\n\n问：第一组从未就其 $250,000 的收费提供任何书面报告，对吗？\n\n答：我们交付了 USB 闪存盘，以及——其中载有数据。这是 Guo（郭文贵）希望完成的方式。就报告而言，他不希望有任何书面材料。\n\n问：因此，您没有看到的、通过 USB 闪存盘传入的信息，您理解那是来自第一组的？\n\n答：是的，来自第一组。\n\n问：但那两个 USB 闪存盘并未包含研究协议所要求的任何报告，对吗？\n\n答：我不能——我会说它们包含。我未获准知悉其内容，因为 Waller 博士不得不连夜乘飞机去取回它们，再带回来，并在火车站交给 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）。\n\n法庭：Wallop 女士，我认为您此前证言称，您不知道 USB 闪存盘上有什么内容？\n\n证人：是的，我不知道。\n\n由 Cline（克莱恩）女士询问：\n\n问：现在我们谈谈支付给 Fletcher（弗莱彻）的款项。\n\n克莱恩女士：Chuff（查夫）先生，您能调出 PX 29 吗？法官阁下，趁我还没忘记，我们将会——我仍在使用它们，但我们将申请接纳 22 和 23 号证物。\n\n（原告方第 22 号和第 23 号证物获接纳为证据）\n\n由克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：Wallop 女士，这是 Strategic（斯特拉泰吉克公司）收到的、与向 Fletcher 付款有关的发票吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但就 Fletcher 将要提供的服务，并没有与其签订书面合同，对吗？\n\n答：没有，因为此事高度敏感，而且我们确实制作了报告。\n\n问：是。那么，您从 Fletcher 收到的报告于 2018 年 3 月 21 日提供给了 Strategic；对吗？\n\n答：是，但该项工作是在 2 月签约的。\n\n问：但我的问题只是，Strategic 于 2018 年 3 月 21 日收到了该报告，对吗？\n\n答：我想是的。\n\n问：而 Eastern（伊斯特恩公司）在一个月前已终止合同；这是真的吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而您没有打电话给 Fletcher 并说停止工作，合同已终止，是吗？\n\n答：没有，因为我们仍在与 Lianchao（连超）谈判，而且我们已经与 Fletcher 签约，就档案中的两个人开展工作。\n\n问：Wallop 女士，我确实只需要您回答我的问题。那么，您同意 Eastern 于 2 月 23 日终止了研究协议？\n\n答：是，他们终止了。\n\n问：而 Fletcher 直到 3 月 21 日才交付报告，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在此期间，您没有采取任何措施阻止 Fletcher 继续产生费用，而您现在在本案中将该等费用主张为损害赔偿；这是真的吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：抱歉，我以为我已经问过这个问题：收到 Eastern 的终止通知后，您是否打电话给 Fletcher，或以其他方式与其沟通，请求他们停止产生费用？\n\n答：该项目已经启动；已经在进行中了。\n\n法庭：Wallop 女士，请您回答这个问题。\n\n证人：我道歉。\n\n法庭：我认为问题是：您是否打电话给他们，告诉他们停止所有工作？\n\n证人：没有，我没有，法官阁下。\n\n克莱恩女士：Chris（克里斯），您能调出第 5 张幻灯片吗？抱歉，法官阁下。我们申请接纳 PX 29。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n（原告方第 29 号证物获接纳为证据）\n\n由克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：那么，简要看一下这张图表，明确一些基准点：我们谈过第一组，谈过 Fletcher，也谈过支付给 Waller 先生及其实体的部分金额。我们也会就其中一些金额询问 Waller 先生。现在请看黄色方框，即 Strategic 就您的商业费用主张的 $200,000 商业费用。\n\n克莱恩女士：Chris，请回到第 22 号证物。\n\n问：Wallop 女士，按照您第 22 号证物中的颜色代码，黄色标示的金额是否构成归属于您的商业费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n克莱恩女士：抱歉，Chris，您能否也短暂调出 23 号证物。Chris，您能转到一月吗？\n\n问：为了让我们都理解您所做的事情，对于每个月，您汇总银行账户对账单中的所有商业费用，然后得出该月总额；对吗？\n\n答：黄色部分，是。\n\n问：那么，在一月，黄色栏底部，我认为它延续到下一页——抱歉，第 2 页底部，很难看清，但有一笔 $5,856 的金额？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：然后如果您转到二月，我认为二月延续到了下一页，而二月商业费用总额为——向上滚动一点——$14,325？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：以此类推，您在第 23 号证物中对每个月都这样做了，对吗？\n\n答：是，我做了。\n\n克莱恩女士：Chris，您能调出 PDX——载有 Wallop 女士月度汇总的那张幻灯片吗？\n\n问：因此，最初您编制损害赔偿计算时，您列入了每个月的金额，总额约为 $175,000，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但后来我们对您进行证言录取时，并讨论了这些损害赔偿，您的律师承认 Strategic 仅会主张一月、二月和三月的损害赔偿，正确吗？\n\n答：哪位律师？\n\n问：代表 Strategic 的 Greim（格雷姆）先生。\n\n答：好的。是。\n\n问：因此，现在不再主张 $175,000 的商业费用，如果您翻到下一页，Strategic——仅就您的商业费用而言，Strategic 仅主张不超过 $39,251 的金额，对吗？\n\n答：无论我的律师同意了什么，是的。\n\n问：好的。现在让我们回到第 22 号证物。我只是想逐项看看其中一些费用的例子。\n\n克莱恩女士：Chris，请翻回一页。\n\n问：1 月 4 日有一笔 $36.99 的收费。您看到了吗？\n\n答：是，《华尔街日报》的费用。\n\n问：这是《华尔街日报》的费用。您将其主张为商业费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：接下来一项是 $123 的现金提款。您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否有任何发票或收据，证明您将那 $123 用于何处？\n\n答：没有。\n\n克莱恩女士：请翻到下一页，Chuff 先生。\n\n问：仅举例而言，1 月 10 日有一笔 $2,000 的付款。我想您在证言录取中告诉过我，这是与您个人所得税有关，对吗？\n\n答：是。Strategic Vision（战略愿景公司）的。\n\n问：嗯，这是为了您的所得税，不是吗？\n\n答：是，这是同一回事。\n\n问：然后如果您再往下看，1 月 10 日有一笔在 Hermès（爱马仕）消费的 $1,315 费用，对吗？\n\n答：是。但后来我把它标成了绿色而不是黄色。\n\n问：哦，好的。那么，这笔不计入，您同意吗？\n\n答：同意。这是送给 Yvette 的礼物。\n\n问：好的。这礼物相当贵重。\n\n答：她喜欢爱马仕。\n\n问：嗯，是她付的钱。1 月 12 日，还有一笔 $102.50 的自动取款机提款？\n\n答：我不知道那是做什么用的。出租车费，我不知道。\n\n克莱恩女士：再翻一页，仅作举例，Chuff 先生。\n\n问：现在我想看第 19 日——抱歉，1 月 19 日这个日历日期。有一笔在 Tumi（途明）的 $206.71 购物款？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您将其作为商业费用入账，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是一个笔记本电脑套，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：再往下一点，有 1446 和 3796 两笔项目。那些是亚马逊购物，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您知道那些是买什么的吗？\n\n答：不知道。三年后，我不知道。\n\n问：还有一张 $263.58 的餐厅收据。您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Cafe Milano（米兰咖啡馆），那个用来观人和被人观看的地方，对吗？这不正是他们对自己的宣传方式吗？\n\n答：我不知道。这是一家餐厅。\n\n问：您是否提交过一张列有与您共进餐者姓名以及该项费用商业理由的发票？\n\n答：我本来会提交，是的。\n\n问：您本会在本案中提交吗？\n\n答：没人要求我提交。\n\n克莱恩女士：请向下滚动。\n\n问：1 月 25 日有一笔 $249 的项目。那是《金融时报》的订阅费。您将其主张为商业费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n克莱恩女士：现在，Chris，请同时调出 22 和 23 号证物。Chuff 先生，在 PX 22 中，请您转到 PX 22 的第 5 页。\n\n问：那么，在左侧的 PX 22 中，有一笔 199.95 的项目。您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是另一笔餐厅账单，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而您没有提交任何包含该人员姓名和商业理由的发票？\n\n答：没人要求我提交。\n\n克莱恩女士：向下滚动——请翻到 PX 22 的下一页，Chris。那里就好。\n\n问：那么，在 PX 22 顶部，有 38.89 的项目——有若干似乎曾标成黄色、但后来变成绿色的项目，但我理解这些数字出现在 PX 23 的商业费用栏中，对吗？\n\n答：应当是。\n\n问：因此，您将——那里的所有项目——\n\n答：是。\n\n问：——均作为 Strategic 损害赔偿计算中的商业费用计入，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，您正在寻求报销 Whole Foods（全食超市）和 Trader Joe's（乔氏超市）的费用，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：还有对 Swiss Foundation（瑞士基金会）的捐款？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是商业费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：还有 Sheridan Press（谢里登出版社），那是一家报社，对吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南区记录员公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\nL4JKEAS3\nWallop——交叉询问\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么 OSS Society（战略情报局协会）呢，那也是商业费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：如果您继续向下滚动，$575 的 LinkedIn（领英）订阅费，Strategic Vision 不是已经有一个订阅了吗？\n\n答：有，但那可能是更新的——我的意思是年度订阅。\n\n问：好的。然后——\n\n答：高级账户。\n\n问：在本页底部，$418.70，那又是一次去 Tumi 的消费，对吗？\n\n答：那不是如您所说的又一次去那里。这是一个公文包。\n\n问：而那是给您的公文包，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Tumi——\n\n答：用于商业。\n\n问：这是一家高端奢侈品店，对吗？\n\n答：不是。这是一家机场商店。\n\n问：而 Strategic 正在计入——\n\n法庭：如今，这两者未必互不相容。\n\n证人：我知道，法官阁下。您说得对。\n\n由克莱恩女士询问：\n\n问：但 Strategic 正在为您的 Tumi 公文包寻求报销，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n克莱恩女士：请翻到下一页，Chuff 先生。\n\n问：有一笔——\n\n克莱恩女士：我快结束了，法官阁下。再几分钟。\n\n问：在本页顶部，有一笔从 Bloomingdale's（布鲁明戴尔百货）购买的 $1,534 款项，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是给您自己买的一件外套，对吗？\n\n答：我想我实际上找到了收据。是两套西装、一条裙子和一件夹克、一件外套，是的。\n\nGreim 先生：法官阁下，我知道这在我的开庭陈述中，但我已约定，我们并不在此主张商业费用。我让这件事进行了一会儿，以增加一点趣味，但我认为，如果我们要明智地利用时间，我们并不寻求这一黄色类别。我已经说过——\n\n法庭：我知道这是您的时间，律师。如果不予主张，请考虑您希望如何使用您的时间。\n\n克莱恩女士：是的，这是我第一次听说，法官阁下。因此，我们理解该约定是 Strategic 主张 2018 年 3 月之后的费用。如果他们同意不寻求任何 Wallop 女士的商业费用，那么我将结束这一询问。\n\n法庭：Greim 先生，黄色部分中的所有项目均不主张，对吗？\n\nL4JKEAS3 Wallop——第 225 页交叉询问\n\nGreim 先生：是的，法官阁下。而且我本应在我的开庭陈述中说明，我本会说黄色部分；我举了几个例子，所以我的意思是——而且我本应停止，以节省她一些时间，但这就是我们的约定。\n\nCLINE 女士（克莱恩）：因此，在 Eastern（伊斯特恩）——抱歉，在 Strategic（斯特拉特吉克）的损害赔偿计算中，脚注140有一项关于 Wallop 女士（沃洛普）个人业务开支 $200,000 的主张。我是否理解为 Strategic 并未主张该等开支？\n\nGREIM 先生（格雷姆）：不，那不正确。黄色部分的金额约为 $40,000。那不是该 $200,000 所指的内容。那是她的时间和精力。与黄色栏没有任何关系。\n\nCLINE 女士：好的。\n\nGREIM 先生：我们会在主询问时处理这个问题，或者——\n\n法院：各位律师，你们将在午休期间有时间决定希望如何处理这一询问路线。除非这是你的最后一项，否则请进行下一项。\n\nCLINE 女士：是的，法官阁下，我快问完了。如果我们都同意 Strategic 并未主张黄色标示的任何开支，那么我认为我们可以停止这一询问路线。20 21 22 23\n\n请稍候片刻。\n\n我可以与我的同事商量一秒钟吗？\n\nL4JKEAS3\n沃洛普——交叉询问\n1 法院：\n当然可以。\n2 （暂停）\n3 CLINE 女士：\n好的，法官阁下，我们目前没有进一步\n4 问题。\n5 法院：\n好的。\n6 现在约为 12:53。我们休午餐\n7 至 1:55。返回后，您仍将在宣誓状态下，\n8 Wallop 女士。\n9 证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n10 （午餐休庭）\n\n1 下 午 庭 审\n2 1:58 P.M.\n3 法院：\n在我们开始之前，Greim 先生，就\n4 今晨提出的任何证物而言，\n5 辩方是否将对其中任何一项提出异议？看来没有任何一项\n6 存在可提出异议之处。\n7 GREIM 先生：\n我认为——法官阁下，我认为我们将能够在\n8 今晚之前满足您的期限要求。我认为答案是\n9 否，但我们实际上还没有就该\n10 问题进行沟通比较意见。\n11 法院：\n好的。我要求，如对\n12 文件的真实性或基础\n13 存在任何异议，请在文件被\n14 提出时告知我。这样，证物的提出方可以确立\n15 基础。这对双方都适用。\n16 GREIM 先生：\n实际上，为方便起见，我要说的是，\n17 我们不对先前看到的任何证物的真实性或基础提出异议，\n18 我认为，尽管我会查看我们是否有更具实质性的事项，但我\n19 现在可以\n20 如此说明。\n21 法院：\n很好。好的。各位律师，你们可以\n22 询问。\n23 Wallop 女士，提醒您，您仍在\n24 宣誓状态下。\n25 证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区记录员专业公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\n第 225 页\nL4JPEAS4\n沃洛普——复询问\n1 复询问\n2 由 GREIM 先生进行：\n3 问：Wallop 女士，我将对您进行某种准主询问，\n4 并将大体上围绕您今晨从 Cline 女士那里听到的相同\n5 主题进行询问，\n6 另加少数其他主题。\n7 首先，我想再多问一点\n8 您的背景。再说一次，您从哪里获得学位？\n9 答：我在瑞士上学多年，曾就读于\n10 日内瓦的 Ecole d'Interpretes（口译学院），随后转入\n11 Georgetown University（乔治城大学）的语言与语言学\n12 系。\n13 问：好的。您获得的是什么学位？\n14 答：同声传译。\n15 问：该语言学项目是否属于该校更广泛学院的一部分？\n16 \n17 答：现在是。它属于外交学院。\n18 问：毕业后，您是否进入政界？\n19 答：多年后，我开始参与各类竞选活动。我\n20 认为是在 1972。\n21 问：好的。您也在 80 年代参与竞选活动吗？\n22 \n23 答：是的。我的一家公司，Corporate Travel Services（企业旅行服务公司），\n24 负责 Reagan-Bush（里根—布什）两次竞选活动的全部差旅和\n25 后勤工作，以及许多协会、律师事务所\n\n1 和公司的相关工作。\n2 问：在 80 年代，您的职业是什么？您做什么工作？\n3 答：嗯，我拥有 Corporate Travel Services 和 Corporate\n4 Consulting International（国际企业咨询公司），旅行服务不言自明。\n5 该咨询公司所做的工作与我\n6 现在所做的非常相似，只是人员大幅减少。\n7 问：好的。为明确起见，Corporate Consulting\n8 International 就是 Eastern 在您此前的\n9 询问中提到的实体吗？\n10 答：是。\n11 问：抱歉。该实体是否比 Strategic\n12 Vision（战略愿景公司）小得多？\n13 答：不，它大得多。\n14 问：好的。有多少人在那里工作？\n15 答：在二十多年期间，我们有 200 至 300 人，\n16 其中一些是独立承包商。\n17 问：那么，您是否也嫁给了一位政治人物？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：好的。是谁？\n20 答：我嫁给了 Malcolm Wallace（马尔科姆·华莱士），他是来自\n21 Wyoming（怀俄明州）的资深参议员。\n22 问：并且——\n23 答：是在 1984。\n24 问：您是否通过此前的政治工作以及与 Wallace 参议员的婚姻\n25 结识了许多人？\n\nL4JPEAS4\n沃洛普——复询问\n\n答：是的。我在 Washington（华盛顿）的事业发展，源于我家族在 Washington 和 Maryland（马里兰州）长期建立的关系，包括政治方面、银行业方面，以及投资和房地产方面。\n\n问：现在让我们谈谈 Strategic Vision。您在上一次询问中谈到了一些典型工作，并提到海外调查。您坐在这里现在是否能回忆起任何最近的海外调查——或者抱歉，与您试图为 Guo 先生（郭先生）在本案中所做工作类似的海外调查？答：其中一项是——而且有几项。其中一项是为 Mikhail Khodorkovsky（米哈伊尔·霍多尔科夫斯基）所做。他是我在 United States（美国）的客户之一，尽管他在 London（伦敦）居住，我们代表他在 London 以及 Russia（俄罗斯）进行了一些调查和背景调查。5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\n问：Wallop 女士，现在我要问您关于您在 Eastern Profit（东部利润）项目上的工作。Strategic 是否在 Eastern Profit 项目中调查过任何犯罪或民事侵权行为？16 17 18\n\n答：没有。19\n\n问：它是否进行过任何旨在追回被盗财产的调查？答：没有。问：或者查找被盗财产？答：没有。20 21 22 23\n\n问：它是否为资产追回进行过任何调查？\n\n答：没有。25\n\n1 问：您确实作证称，您认为自己可能会发现的事情之一，是发现被 CCP（中国共产党）非法带出 China（中国）的资金。您记得该证词吗？\n2 \n3 \n4 答：实际上，我不记得。\n5 问：好的。那么让我问您。您认为自己可能会在这项 Eastern 调查中发现的事情之一，是否是由 CCP 成员非法带出 China 的资金？\n6 \n7 \n8 答：没有。\n9 问：好的。\n10 答：我不记得。\n11 问：好的。让我问您。Guo 先生是否曾向您声称，他是 CCP 非法将资金带出 China 的受害人？\n12 \n13 答：没有。\n14 问：Guo 先生是否曾向您指出，其他哪些人会是 CCP 官员非法将资金带出 China 的受害人？\n15 \n16 答：没有。\n17 问：他是否曾——现在让我扩大范围，不仅限于 Guo 先生，而是 Guo 先生、Yvette Wang（王玉玺）或 Lianchao Han（韩连潮），他们是否曾向您声称参与或准备启动一项资产追回案件？\n18 \n19 \n20 \n21 答：并非与我们一起。\n22 问：他们是否曾告诉您，他们想将您将会找到的研究结果用于某项资产追回法律程序？\n23 \n24 \n25 答：没有。\n\n1 问：他们是否曾向您指出任何犯罪受害人？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：Guo 先生是否曾声称他想要使用——让我重新扩大至这三人。\n4 \n5 问：Guo 先生、Yvette Wang 或 Lianchao Han 是否曾向您声称，他们想利用您的研究来追回其被盗的某项具体资产？\n6 \n7 \n8 答：没有。\n9 问：Wallop 女士，自您成立 Strategic Vision 之前，直至您在 Strategic Vision 任职期间，您是否曾考虑取得私家侦探执照？\n10 \n11 \n12 答：从未。\n13 问：您是否曾在明知您的客户正因与该研究项目相关事项而接受公开执法调查时，开展过包括本项目在内的任何项目？\n14 \n15 \n16 答：没有。\n17 问：现在让我转到 Gertz 先生（格茨先生）和 Lianchao Han。我们会进一步讨论此处的情况。现在，我认为您此前作证称，在他接触您之前，您已认识 Gertz 先生数十年？\n18 \n19 \n20 \n21 答：是。\n22 问：顺便问一下，您与 Gertz 先生第一次会面在哪里？\n23 答：就本项目而言？\n24 问：是。\n25 答：在我家。\n\nL4JPEAS4\n沃洛普——复询问\n\n1 问：那么他亲自——他亲自来到您家？\n2 答：嗯，他给我打电话并说：“French（弗伦奇），我想来见您谈些事情，我认为您可能会感兴趣。”我说：“Bill（比尔），很高兴收到你的消息。是的，这周找一天来吃午餐吧。”由于他的办公室离我家很近，他就步行过来，我们那周一起吃了午餐。\n3 \n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 \n8 问：Wallop 女士，事实上，您是否在 2017 年早些时候为您的一位客户与 Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）合作过？\n9 \n10 答：是。\n11 问：那是什么？\n12 答：那也是为了——为 Bill Gertz 提供独家报道，因为我们都非常反共，那是一次对 Mikhail Khodorkovsky 的独家采访。\n13 \n14 \n15 问：您是否知道 Gertz 先生曾撰写关于国家安全的书籍？\n16 \n17 答：是的，他写过。\n18 问：他是否写过一本关于 Guo 的书？\n19 答：是的，他写过。\n20 问：但那是在本合同之后，对吗？\n21 答：是。\n22 问：您是否信任——抱歉。我知道我一直跑题。您是否信任 Gertz 先生？\n23 \n24 答：是。\n25 问：让我问您关于 Lianchao Han。您此前稍微告诉了我们一些您对他的了解。您知道 Lianchao Han 的背景是什么？\n\n1 答：嗯，我断断续续地认识 Lianchao 多年。他曾在 Capitol Hill（国会山）为数位参议员工作，其中包括我已故的丈夫，而我丈夫当时在情报委员会，Lianchao 与 Angelo Codevilla（安杰洛·科德维拉）共事，之后也与 Lianchao 共事。\n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 \n8 他们——我们当时都非常关注 Taiwan（台湾），我就是在涉及 Taiwan 的事务中认识他的，也通过他所参与的 Washington 其他异议人士组织认识他；他反共、反 CCP。\n9 \n10 \n11 \n12 问：您是否了解 Lianchao 是否实际从 China 移民至此？\n13 \n14 答：是，我知道他已移民。\n15 问：您本人是否认为他是一名异议人士？\n16 答：是。\n17 问：现在让我问您一个已经多次出现的名字。我们尚未听取他的证词，即 Dr. J. Michael Waller（J. 迈克尔·沃勒博士）。他是否出席了与 Gertz 的第一次会议，即 Gertz 和 Lianchao 都出席的那次会议？\n18 \n19 \n20 \n21 答：不是第一次——哦，抱歉。让我倒回去。Bill Gertz 和我一起吃了午餐，随后的一次会议是在我家共进午餐，Mike Waller（迈克·沃勒）、Lianchao 和 Bill Gertz 都在场。\n22 \n23 \n24 \n25 问：他是在您的邀请下到场的吗？\n\n1 答：是。\n2 问：您为什么邀请他？\n3 答：因为 Bill Gertz 建议说，他一直与 Lianchao 联系，而他们显然是 Guo 的亲密朋友；当时我并不知道那位先生的名字是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）。因此 Bill 建议我邀请或纳入 Lianchao，当时我也纳入了 Mike Waller。\n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 \n8 问：所以我的问题是，您当时为什么纳入 Waller 先生——Waller 博士？\n9 \n10 答：哦，因为他是情报分析专家。在过去 25 年中，他就异议人士、俄罗斯以及中国或亚洲局势，以及用于将国家从民主转变为更具共产主义性质的中美洲策略，撰写了大量著作，我想这是最合适的说法。\n11 \n12 \n13 \n14 \n15 问：抱歉，您是说他试图使国家变得更具共产主义性质？\n16 \n17 答：不，他试图使国家摆脱共产主义。\n18 问：您认识 Waller 先生多久了？\n19 答：哦，30、35 年。\n20 问：您此前是否在专业场合与他合作过？\n21 答：是的。他在 Institute of World Politics（世界政治研究所）任职时，John Lenczowski（约翰·伦佐夫斯基）是该所负责人。我是 Boston University（波士顿大学）董事会成员，我与担任主席的 John Silber（约翰·西尔伯）合作，协助 Washington 的 IWP 取得其资质。\n\n1 我认识迈克（Mike），不过，我是在他任职于 IWP 期间与他见面，并与他共度了更多时间。\n\n2 问：在本项目之前，他是否曾参与过 Strategic Vision（战略愿景）项目？\n\n3 答：是，他参与过。\n\n4 问：是什么项目？\n\n5 答：他曾与我共同参与一个中东项目，之后还参与过一个俄罗斯项目。\n\n6 问：好的。我们来谈谈与郭先生（Mr. Guo）的第一次会面。你是否记得那是在何时？\n\n7 答：记得。\n\n8 问：是在何时？\n\n9 答：我相信是在11月——我得查看日历，但我认为是21日。\n\n10 问：好的。那么，我们——\n\n11 答：也可能更早。\n\n12 问：请出示证物62。\n\n13 沃洛普女士（Ms. Wallop），我想问一下，你自己在后面有一份活页夹吗？\n\n14 答：没有。\n\n15 格雷姆律师（MR. GREIM）：法官阁下，是否可以也给证人一份纸质活页夹？\n\n16 法庭：我对此没有异议。你有一份给证人的副本吗？\n\n17 格雷姆律师：就在这里面的某处。我们会找到的。\n\n1 我不想暂停。\n\n2 证人：没关系。我没问题。\n\n3 格雷姆律师：占用我们的时间吧。\n\n4 法庭：我可以从我的视频中查看证物。\n\n5 你可以借用我的活页夹。\n\n6 格雷姆律师：谢谢。我们这会儿不会拿走它。\n\n7 我就继续进行。如果我们休息，就设法找找它。\n\n8 我们会在这附近某处找到它。\n\n9 格雷姆律师询问：\n\n10 问：好的。我们来看一下该证物——请你翻阅一下，可以吗？\n\n11 答：11月。\n\n12 问：好的。你认得这份文件吗？\n\n13 答：认得。\n\n14 法庭：我们现在看的是几号证物？\n\n15 格雷姆律师：我们看的是被告方证物62，DX62。\n\n16 问：你认得这份文件吗？\n\n17 答：认得。\n\n18 问：它是什么？\n\n19 答：它是一份日历，是我的其中一份日历。\n\n20 问：这是你在此处所标示事件发生期间保存的一份日历吗？\n\n21 答：是。\n\n22 问：这是你通常的做法吗？\n\n23 答：是。\n\n纽约南区速记员公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 格雷姆律师：我们请求法庭准许将其作为证据接纳。\n\n2 法庭：接纳，但不影响提出异议。\n\n3 （被告方证物DX62获接纳为证据）\n\n4 格雷姆律师询问：\n\n5 问：好的。沃洛普女士，从查看该证物来看，你能否说出第一次会面是在何时？\n\n6 答：是，2017年11月21日。\n\n7 问：当时有哪些人出席？\n\n8 答：有我、迈克、迈尔斯和韩连潮（Lianchao Han）。\n\n9 问：好的。你说迈尔斯，他是谁？\n\n10 答：那是郭，抱歉。\n\n11 问：好的。郭文贵（Guo Wengui）？\n\n12 答：是。\n\n13 问：他是否使用另一个名字？\n\n14 答：他使用大约八个不同的名字。我们就叫他迈尔斯·郭（Miles Guo），或者迈尔斯·郭（Miles Kwok）。\n\n15 问：迈尔斯·郭。顺便问一下，韩春光（Han Chunguang）当时在场吗？\n\n16 答：是，他介绍我们认识。\n\n17 问：你是否观察到韩春光当时在做什么？\n\n18 答：抱歉。我以为你说的是连潮，请原谅。\n\n19 问：抱歉。不是连潮。这是韩春光。他当时在场吗？\n\n20 答：是，他当时在场。\n\n21 问：他是否被介绍给你认识？\n\n22 答：没有。\n\nL4JPEAS4\n沃洛普—复询问\n\n1 问：你怎么知道是他？\n\n2 答：嗯，当我们最终就合同上的伪造、仿造签名进行证言录取时，我认出了他。\n\n3 问：沃洛普女士，他在会面时做什么？\n\n4 答：他在提供午餐。\n\n5 法庭：就先前的回答，即“伪造、仿造签名”，是否提出了动议？\n\n6 克莱恩律师（MS. CLINE）：是，法官阁下。异议，缺乏基础。\n\n7 法庭：由于缺乏基础且超出范围，我将删除“伪造、仿造签名”这一表述。\n\n8 格雷姆律师询问：\n\n9 问：王雁（Yvette Wang）当时在这次会面中吗？\n\n10 答：她在。\n\n11 问：她实际参与了吗？\n\n12 答：没有。\n\n13 问：你看到她在那里做什么？\n\n14 答：她在端茶，或者应郭的要求进出房间。\n\n15 问：你如何理解韩连潮在这次会面中的角色？\n\n16 答：连潮是郭的一名亲密顾问，也是通过比尔·格茨（Bill Gertz）向我们介绍郭的人。\n\n17 问：他是否曾代表郭进行翻译？\n\n18 答：是，他翻译过。\n\n19 问：你对郭的最初印象是什么？\n\n1 答：我认为他是一个非常圆滑、老练、爱炫耀的人，喜欢吹嘘自己有多少钱以及有多大影响力。\n\n2 问：他会说英语吗？\n\n3 答：会，他的英语相当不错。\n\n4 问：当你用英语与他交谈时，他是否显得能够理解？\n\n5 答：是，他能理解。\n\n6 问：但据你所知，他在某种程度上是否仍需要连潮提供协助？\n\n7 答：我认为“在某种程度上”是一个恰当的说法，是的，在谈话变得稍微复杂时。\n\n8 问：请出示被告方证物38。\n\n9 现在，沃洛普女士，你认得这是原告在休庭前向你出示的同一份证物吗——\n\n10 答：认得。\n\n11 问：——休庭前？\n\n12 答：认得。\n\n13 问：并且你作证称韩连潮协助了其准备工作？\n\n14 答：是，他协助了。\n\n15 问：你当时在场吗？\n\n16 答：是。\n\n17 问：律师向你出示了其中的几项陈述。我想请你看一下这里被略过的最开始部分。你是否看到其中写着：“这是一个让G先生安全留在这个国家并完成其在祖国使命的愿景”？\n\n18 答：看到了。\n\n19 问：你当时是否理解，这就是你们应当尝试为郭先生做的事情？\n\n20 克莱恩律师：异议，诱导性提问。\n\n21 法庭：这是独任审判。驳回异议。\n\n22 答：抱歉，这是他希望我们考虑的事项之一。\n\n23 问：是的。实际上，无论如何我本应问一个更好的问题；所以让我问你。你是否理解，当时郭先生除那两个主要目标之外，是否还有其他目标？\n\n24 答：哦，没有。\n\n25 问：那么，郭先生在这次会面中是否向你表示，他担心被送回中国？\n\n1 答：是。\n\n2 问：他说他在祖国的使命是什么？或者让我这样问，他是否说明了他在祖国的使命是什么？\n\n3 答：是，瓦解中国的中国共产党并推翻政府。\n\n4 问：郭向你讲了什么关于他自己的情况？\n\n5 答：嗯，他告诉了我们一些他的成长经历、他在农村地区的童年，以及他有许多兄弟姐妹。他没有受过多少教育；他凭借自己的努力到了——我想，应该是北京，并通过不同活动与体制层级内的许多人交上朋友。\n\n第225页\nL4JPEAS4\n沃洛普—复询问\n\n1 问：郭先生是否在这次会面中提到庇护申请？\n\n2 答：我知道提到过。我不完全确定是否是在这次会面中提到的，但可能不是。我确定他提到过他已申请庇护。\n\n3 问：你是否了解韩连潮或其他任何人是否正在与郭共同处理该申请？\n\n4 答：所以，这次特定会面如果我没记错，应当是在11月21日。是这样吗——是的，这会是第一次会面；所以是2017年。我认为连潮是他告诉我们的、为郭先生提交庇护文件的律师。\n\n5 问：我们快进一下。我们不逐一讨论你参加过的所有不同会面，但我实际上要问你是否可以再次出示证物62。我想问你，你是否看到其他会面，或者你能否告诉我们，你何时与郭先生进行了后续会面？\n\n6 答：是。这是2017年12月的日历。我的日历。看来20——抱歉，12月4日，有王雁、连潮、我和迈克，当然还有郭。\n\n7 之后，在——抱歉，10日，迈克、我和连潮又进行了一次会面。然后我们又有另一次——\n\n8 法庭：那次郭先生是否也在场？\n\n9 证人：是，是在11日。我们10日到达参加会面，随后我们11日与郭会面。抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n10 格雷姆律师：如果我可以澄清一下，法官阁下。\n\n11 格雷姆律师询问：\n\n12 问：那么，10日的会面没有郭参加？\n\n13 答：是。\n\n14 问：只与连潮？\n\n15 答：是。\n\n16 问：之后第二天你们全都与郭会面？\n\n17 答：正确。\n\n18 问：好的。然后你是否看到在纽约与郭的任何其他会面？\n\n19 答：是。在——抱歉，21日。\n\n20 问：好的。连潮当时也在场吗？\n\n21 答：是，他在场。\n\n22 问：然后是你自己和——让我问你。当时谁在场？\n\n23 答：嗯，连潮、我和迈克尔·沃勒博士（Michael, Dr. Waller）。\n\n24 问：王雁当时在那次会面中吗？\n\n25 答：是，她在。是。\n\n26 问：抱歉，你如何能够通过查看日历得知这一点？\n\n27 答：因为我在角落里写了一个“Y”；所以它一定表示王雁。\n\nL4JPEAS4 沃洛普—复询问 第225页\n\n1 问：很好。好的。我们不试图逐一讲述每一次会面。\n\n2 但我想问你，郭或连潮是否曾向你提出一项研究项目？\n\n3 答：这算是分阶段进行的。所以是的，应当是在12月4日，之后在12月11日，在那些会面期间。\n\n4 问：郭是否告诉过你，他本人是否对那项研究项目有任何目标？\n\n5 答：他说过。我们最初谈到的是在华盛顿寻找房地产，较大的住宅或住宅，以及较大的办公楼。\n\n6 他说，住宅预算将从65到80 million不等，而其基金会的办公楼综合体将位于华盛顿市中心，并且对此有一项预算——\n\n7 问：沃洛普夫人（Mrs. Wallop），我要在这里打断你。我将聚焦于他对你说了什么，或者他是否告诉你他对该研究项目有任何目标的问题。我理解你正在提供一些背景，但请尽量聚焦于回答。\n\n8 答：好的。抱歉。是。\n\n9 问：好的。那么他所说的目标是什么？\n\n10 答：他想在华盛顿建立存在。他希望拥有一种具有权力和影响力的社会和政治存在，并且正在寻找一支能够为他做到这一点的团队。\n\n1 问：不过，我的问题是关于研究项目。\n\n2 答：对。\n\n3 问：好的？那么，他对你说，他对研究项目的目标是什么？\n\n4 答：因此，他在11日和21日开始表示，他想创建一个研究项目，揭露在美国以及中国大陆的若干中国共产党体制层级人士及其子女。\n\n5 问：他是否告诉你为什么想这样做？\n\n6 答：因为他当时认为，这会有助于推翻他认为腐败的政权。\n\n7 问：那么，在12月中下旬的某个时候，你是否与郭达成原则性协议，表示你会尝试开展那种项目？\n\n8 答：是，在12月21日之后，我们向他作了关于该基金会的PowerPoint演示。我们等了大约一周，直到从韩连潮那里得到明确答复，了解是否就协议开展工作。\n\n9 问：现在，我们已经听说，该协议最终于January 6th签署，正确吗？\n\n10 答：正确。\n\n11 问：在决定是否最终订立该协议之前，你是否依赖郭就其自身所作的陈述？\n\n12 答：我依赖了。\n\n第225页\nL4JPEAS4\n沃洛普—复询问\n\n问：\n您是否依赖Guo（郭文贵）关于他希望如何使用您将提供的研究资料的陈述？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n如果您认为他不是一名真正的异见人士，您还会与Guo签订合同吗？\n\n答：\n绝不会。\n\n问：\n如果您认为他无意利用该研究资料来削弱CCP（中国共产党），您还会签订合同吗？\n\n答：\n不会。\n\n问：\n那么，Guo关于他本人的陈述在您看来可靠吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n为什么？\n\n答：\n他有Lianchao Han（韩连潮）和Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）作为某种意义上的推荐人，而且他最初似乎非常致力于成为一名异见人士并反对CCP。\n\n问：\n关于Lianchao——我问您一下。您说他有Lianchao作为推荐人。您是否了解Lianchao是否也会与您一起参与该项目？\n\n答：\n是。他在整个期间一直是Guo的联络人和顾问，直至12月底的最后阶段。\n\n问：\n那么，在您上一次作证时，我们注意到——我们调出了研究协议，发现研究协议中没有提及Guo、CCP，甚至没有提及中国。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n为什么不要求将Guo关于他本人的陈述以及他使用研究资料的计划，作为陈述写入研究协议？\n\n答：\n因为他坚决要求对此保密，不让窥探者以及CCP了解该项目的情况。\n\n问：\n顺便问一下，您是否曾告诉Guo、Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）或Lianchao，您依据许多州的法律持有私人调查员执照？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n是否曾与他们讨论过执照问题？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n您是否曾有客户在您开始工作前询问您是否为私人调查员？\n\n答：\n从未。\n\n问：\n您是否曾有客户要求您必须是私人调查员才让您开展工作？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\nVirginia（弗吉尼亚州）是否曾告知您不符合其执照法的规定？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n您是否曾从其他任何州听到过这种说法？\n\n答：\n从未，没有。\n\n问：\n后来是否有人取代Lianchao Han，成为与Guo的主要联络人？\n\n答：\n嗯，在合同谈判快结束时，Yvette——Yvette Wang成为了——我想，是与Guo的联络人。\n\n问：\n好的。那是什么时候？\n\n答：\n大约是在12月28日——28日、29日。\n\n问：\n您当时是否亲自与Yvette见面？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n在哪里？\n\n答：\n在Washington（华盛顿）。\n\n问：\n那么，她实际抵达DC（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）是哪一天？\n\n答：\n根据我的日历，她于29日抵达。\n\n问：\n抱歉，我要请您更仔细地查看您的日历，Wallop女士（沃洛普女士）。您确定吗——\n\n答：\n嗯，是28日。按我的理解，她于28日晚抵达，然后我们于29日见面。\n\n问：\n很好。是否有人陪同她——抱歉，让我退一步问。您在DC与Yvette做了什么？\n\n答：\n嗯，Lianchao、Yvette和我一起开车兜转，Yvette和Lianchao坐在我车的后座，我开车带她去看了Washington的若干庄园或较大型房产，位于Georgetown（乔治敦）、Kalorama（卡洛拉马）、Spring Valley（斯普林瓦利）等等，让她了解一些可能通过私下挂牌或隐秘挂牌购买的房屋，如房地产业所称。\n\nWallop（沃洛普）—复询\n\n答：\n此外，我们还看了几栋大型办公楼，包括Guo想要的那栋，即位于U.S. Treasury（美国财政部）对面的旧Riggs Bank Building（里格斯银行大楼）。\n\n问：\n那么，Wallop女士，您并没有带他们看过那些房产，是吗？\n\n答：\n我没有下车带他们逐一参观房屋，没有，但我开车带他们从外面看过。我们本可以获得进入权限。如果他们喜欢，我们本可以获得进入权限；这不是原因。\n\n问：\n好的。那么，后来是否谈到了研究协议？\n\n答：\n谈到了。\n\n问：\n是什么时候？\n\n答：\n也是在12月29日。\n\n问：\n好的。您是否了解Yvette为何前来讨论研究协议？\n\n答：\n因为我们就协议中的某些事项达成一致后，他们不断改变条款。\n\n问：\n我问您这个问题。您是否了解该协议是否应当在当天签署？\n\n答：\n是，原定于29日签署。\n\n问：\n协议是否于29日签署？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n为什么？\n\n答：\n因为Yvette Wang就付款问题与Guo及另一名人士在电话中发生了某种争吵。\n\n问：\n我们先退一步。到目前为止，我们实际上没有怎么谈到Yvette Wang。我也没有问您Guo是否正式向您介绍过她。他是否曾在某个时候这样做？\n\n答：\n他在纽约的公寓里这样做过。\n\n问：\n好的。那么这是在12月较早的时候吗？\n\n答：\n是，应该是在12月4日。\n\n问：\n好的。12月21日吗？\n\n答：\n不，是4日。\n\n问：\n哦，4日。好的。第四天，而不是第四周？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n他是否以某种方式介绍过她——我这样问您吧。他把她介绍成什么？\n\n答：\n嗯，最初介绍她是他的助理。\n\n问：\n他是否还说过她为他做什么？\n\n答：\n他说她做的就是，你知道，私人助理所做的事——但他让她离开了房间。\n\n问：\n好的。当他正式介绍她时，他是否还向您说过她职责方面的其他事情？\n\n答：\n当时没有。\n\n问：\n好的。现在，我要问您Yvette Wang告诉您她的职责是什么。那么，Yvette Wang告诉您，她就这份合同而言的职责是什么？\n\n答：\n嗯，首先，她说：“Guo是我的老板。我是项目经理，今后将负责处理这个项目。”\n\n问：\n她是否告诉您，她对该项目拥有全权决定权？\n\n答：\n她说过。\n\n问：\n她是否告诉您，事情最终必须由Guo批准？\n\n答：\n最终由Guo批准，是的。\n\n问：\n这是她对您说的吗？\n\n答：\n是，但还有其他人。\n\n问：\n那么，您说“但还有其他人”。后来她是否提到，她还必须向其他人汇报？\n\n答：\n她提到过。\n\n问：\n好的。她说她向谁汇报？\n\n答：\n她拒绝告诉我。还有三四名其他“投资者”，如她所称。\n\n问：\n她何时告诉您她向其他投资者汇报？\n\n答：\n可能是在当时，即12月28日和29日。\n\n问：\n她是否表示，那些投资者，即另外三四名投资者，是否在决定是否批准合同方面发挥任何作用？\n\n答：\n我的理解是，Guo对批准拥有最终决定权，但其他人在内部具有某种影响力，而且我认为有一些短信提到这一点。\n\n问：\n顺便问一下，即使Yvette接任主要联络人后，您在这段期间是否仍与Lianchao商议？\n\n答：\n是，我相信是的。我的意思是，那时他不再负责谈判，但显然，我们都应该属于同一个团队。\n\n问：\n所以我的问题是，您是否仍与他商议？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n关于合同？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n顺便问一下，在合同签署前，Lianchao是否曾向您提及Eastern Profit（东方利润）？\n\n答：\n没有，我们从未听说过它。\n\n问：\n他是否曾向您提及Eastern Profit？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n后来您是否就彻底不再与Lianchao交谈？\n\n答：\n没有。抱歉，您问的是哪个时间顺序？\n\n问：\n我问您。您在1月是否仍与Lianchao谈论合同？\n\n答：\n我确信我们谈过，是的。\n\n问：\n2月呢？\n\n答：\n是。我确信我们谈过，尽管到那时他已不是负责合同谈判的人。\n\n问：\n现在我们进入履行期间。\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您在2月是否仍与Lianchao谈论合同？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n3月呢？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n他是否曾在任何时候向您提及Eastern Profit？\n\n答：\n他从不知道Eastern Profit。他从未提及它。\n\n问：\n那么——\n\n答：\n据我所知，他从未提及过它——没有。\n\n问：\n好的。他是否曾向您提及，有某个香港实体试图利用该合同追回被冻结的资产？\n\nCLINE女士（克莱因女士）：\n异议。\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n法庭：\n请稍等。有异议。您提出异议的依据是什么？\n\nCLINE女士：\n诱导性提问，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n我准许该问题。异议驳回。\n\n答：\n我认为答案是“没有”。\n\n问：\n您首次听说Eastern Profit是什么时候？\n\n答：\n我们是在——可能是12月29日或下一周听说Eastern Profit的，也就是1月6日——1月5日，5日或6日。一定是1月6日。\n\nWallop（沃洛普）—复询\n\n问：\n是否曾有人向您表示——“任何人”是指任何人，我们并不局限于Lianchao——是否曾有人向您表示Eastern Profit本身将使用该研究资料？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n顺便问一下，谁告诉您Eastern Profit这个名称？\n\n答：\nYvette。\n\n问：\n她是否还告诉您关于Eastern的任何其他事情？\n\n答：\n没有，我问过她。她不肯告诉我。\n\n问：\nYvette是否告诉您谁将使用该研究资料？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\nLianchao是否告诉您谁将使用该研究资料？\n\n答：\n让我重新表述一下。Guo将使用该信息，但我们不知道他是否会将其转交给其他人。\n\n问：\n在您签署合同前，您是否对Eastern是什么作出过任何假设？\n\n答：\n我们认为它可能是他的众多空壳公司之一。\n\nCLINE女士：\n异议。\n\n问：\nGuo的？\n\nCLINE女士：\n异议，缺乏基础。请求删除。\n\n法庭：\n这个问题是在询问她的理解，她的理解。异议驳回。\n\n答：\n我们的理解是，它是他的众多空壳公司之一。\n\n问：\n那么，我理解您是在Yvette于12月29日来访结束、合同未获签署之前说这话的？\n\n答：\n正确。\n\n问：\n合同最终是在何时签署的？\n\n答：\n于1月6日签署。\n\n问：\n您何时听说合同重新启动？您最初何时听说？\n\n答：\n嗯，我想是在那个周末期间，随后Mike（迈克）和Lianchao似乎于1月2日到我家讨论合同，试图弄清楚在我们达成口头协议后，为什么他们又对正在作出的这些变更一改再改。\n\n问：\n那么，您是否记得日期——我这样问您吧。后来Yvette是否曾告诉您：“是的，我终究可以签署该协议”？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n您记得那是什么时候吗？\n\n答：\n我相信一定是在——而且，还是那句话，有短信可以证明；所以我认为大约是在12月4日或5日——抱歉，1月。请原谅。\n\n问：\n请调出Defense Exhibit 16（辩方证物16）。好的。您是否认得——为什么不滚动浏览一下，让她看到全部三页？\n\n答：\n好的。\n\n问：\n我还想告诉证人，现在或许是拿起您面前其中一个文件夹的好时机。\n\n答：\n哦，在哪儿，38？\n\n问：\n是的，我们看的是证物16。这些是短信，很多时候您得来回翻看，电脑可能不适合做这个。\n\nGREIM先生（格雷姆先生）：\n法官大人，我可以走近证人吗？\n\n法庭：\n我不太确定。为什么不让她自己找一下。\n\nGREIM先生：\n我认为她可能拿错了文件夹。\n\n证人：\n我拿错文件夹了。抱歉，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n慢慢来。\n\n答：\nDX16还是32？\n\n问：\n16。\n\n答：\n16。\n\n法庭：\nGreim先生，我不希望您走近证人，因为法院大楼内有各种限制。\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官大人。我想我找到了。好的，我找到了。\n\nL4JPEAS4\nWallop（沃洛普）—再次询问\n\n1 格雷姆先生（MR. GREIM）询问：\n2 问：好的。现在，您认得证物16吗？\n3 答：认得。\n4 问：这是什么？\n5 答：这是 Yvette（伊薇特）和我之间的一则短信，日期看起来是2018年的5日，即 January 5th, 2018。\n7 问：好的。其中一种颜色代表 Yvette，另一种代表您吗？\n8 答：是。在本案中，较深的颜色通常是蓝色，代表 Yvette。\n10 问：阅看这份文件是否唤起了您对 Yvette 联系您、称她可以签署合同的时间的记忆？\n13 答：是。\n14 问：是什么时候？\n15 答：我们见面时，或者——\n16 问：她是什么时候联系您的？\n17 答：是在 January 5th。\n18 问：您是否看到她说：“Hi, both L and M advised me that we supposed to meet again”？\n20 答：是。\n21 问：使用该缩写时，您知道“L”指的是谁吗？\n23 答：是，指 Lianchao（连超）。\n24 问：“M”是谁？\n25 答：是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）或 Guo。\n\n1 问：那么，您事实上是在次日与她见面了吗？\n2 答：是。\n3 问：在此之前，您是否与 Wang 女士就协议的具体条款进行过最后一次讨论？\n6 答：是。\n7 问：该讨论是否反映在——\n8 答：是。\n9 问：——第——嗯，这是 Eastern（东部）制作的文件；因此是 Eastern 第209页至 Eastern 第213页？\n11 答：是，正确。\n12 问：您是否记得 Wang 女士向您说明了她对每月付款额应为何的理解？\n14 答：正确，适用于最初三个月的期限。\n15 问：好的。您是否看到她说：“I was advised that you agree with 15 fish and monthly 750,000 for January, February, March. From April to December you agree with the adjustable monthly payment based on what we actually buy”？您读到这段了吗？\n20 答：正确。\n21 问：这是否与您对同她讨论内容的记忆一致？\n23 答：是。\n24 问：那么，您实际上是否同意她在这里的说法？\n25 答：是。\n\n1 问：她说：“The waterline of monthly 750,000 won't be written in the contract, please confirm.”您是否同意？\n4 答：是。\n5 问：您是否通过短信回复了她？\n6 答：是。\n7 问：好的。您的回复是否就在下面？\n8 答：是。\n9 问：而您的回复是：“The agreement for three months is correct”？\n11 答：正确。\n12 问：“January we have allowed 15 fish,”这是您所说的吗？\n13 答：是。\n14 问：最初三个月的每一个月都是15个“鱼（fish）”吗？\n16 答：鉴于这额外五个“鱼”——我们当时称其为五个单位——带来的情形和复杂性，我们本应降至每月10个，但那——请继续。\n20 问：请继续。\n21 答：这也是他们无法协调好协议的部分原因，因为我们一直同意每月10个单位，而不是15个；但在最后关头，他们说，嗯，我们需要再增加五个。我们需要再放入五个，而我同意了。\n\n1 问：现在，让我问您。首先，我们实际上从未为此奠定基础。法院可能已在我们所有的书面陈述中看到这一点，但什么是“鱼”？\n4 答：它是——一名需要被调查的个人。\n5 问：那么，对于这15个“鱼”，每个“鱼”要完成多少项三名研究对象的调查，您记得吗？\n7 答：不记得。\n8 问：好的。您是否同意 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特），“底线”甚至没有写入合同？\n10 答：嗯，我提到了这一点，而且我们同意始终会有10个“鱼”的最低数量，这就是底线。\n12 问：您是否相信该内容实际上已写入协议？\n14 答：那当然是我们的理解。\n15 问：您是否进行了后续讨论——嗯，事实上——让我们展示证物17。我们将来回查看，因为不知何故，这段讨论被拆开了。\n19 答：是。\n20 问：首先让我问您，您认得证物17吗？\n21 答：认得。\n22 问：这是什么？\n23 答：她说我——\n24 问：我只是先问您这是什么。\n25 答：哦，抱歉。这是 Yvette Wang 和我之间的一则短信。\n\n共225页\nL4JPEAS4\nWallop（沃洛普）—再次询问\n\n1 问：好的。再一次，你们每人是否在这里各有一种特定颜色？\n3 答：是。在本案中，她是较深的颜色，而我是白色。\n5 问：好的。那么我们回到前面。我要请您在这两份文件之间来回查看。\n7 法院（THE COURT）：您是在提交证物16和17吗？\n8 格雷姆先生：会提交的。我想我只是为了范围——然后再转到我所认为的基础问题，所以我想等到那时再提交。\n11 法院：好的。\n12 问：那么，您是否看到大概——在5日稍晚一些，看起来是在5日晚上——她是否要求您把合同发给她，或者您是否记得她要求您把合同发给她？\n15 答：我记得那次谈话。让我在这里找一下。我告诉她我们不能发送。那是在第几页？\n17 问：请您查看证物16的最后一页。\n19 答：哦，好的。抱歉，抱歉。是。“Could you please send the contract here? I get the right person to do.”这是 Yvette 发来的。谢谢。\n22 问：那么，您实际上是否通过电子邮件把合同发给了她？\n23 答：没有。\n24 问：为什么没有？\n25 答：因为 Guo 和我们双方都收到过明确指示，绝不能通过电子邮件发送任何与该合同有关的内容。\n\n1 问：然后在下面，您看到她说：“There is, of course, no impasse here. I work with several people -- M is one of them -- saying for this project, he is not the only boss.”您看到这一点了吗？\n6 答：是，我看到了。\n7 问：那么，您是否问过她，她还为哪些人工作？\n9 答：在这次通信中没有，但我星期六见到她时问过。\n10 问：然后，如果您查看证物17的开头，也就是最上方——\n12 答：是。\n13 问：——您会看到这实际上接着说：“So I'm luckily the sole communicator on behalf of all of them”？\n15 答：是。\n16 问：“Looking forward to working with you”？\n17 答：是。\n18 问：那么，这是否令您担忧？\n19 答：如果不是因为我们相信 Guo 是负责的人——而这正是他告诉我们的——这本应令我们担忧。\n21 问：您是否告诉她，您认为应当知悉该合同的唯一人员是谁？\n23 答：是。\n24 问：那些人是谁？\n25 答：Lianchao、我本人、Dr. Waller（沃勒博士）、Guo，以及她本人，我想，显然如此。\n\nL4JPEAS4\nWallop（沃洛普）—再次询问\n\n1 问：Yvette Wang 是否向您确认，您的理解是正确的？\n4 答：是。\n5 问：您记得她是什么时候作出确认的吗？\n6 答：一定是——一定是在5日、5日和6日。\n8 问：好的。如果您查看证物17的第217页——\n9 答：是。抱歉，是。\n10 问：好的。在证物17中找第217页。\n11 答：是。\n12 问：您是否看到一个长的、深色的——\n13 答：是。\n14 问：——方框？\n15 答：是。\n16 问：那么，深色方框是 Yvette 发出的吗？\n17 答：是。\n18 问：您是否看到——她是否在其中说明，她认为合同的专属沟通人员是谁？\n20 答：是。她说：“To sign tomorrow, are exclusively between New York”——指 Guo——“you”——指我本人——“Mike and me.”\n23 问：“Me”是 Yvette？\n24 答：“Me”是 Yvette。抱歉。\n25 问：那么，您——我认为您作证说，您次日与她见面并签署了合同，对吗？\n\n1 答：是。\n3 问：Eastern、Yvette 或 Guo 是否曾告诉 Strategic Vision（战略愿景），该调查项目所得信息将提供给 ACA Capital（ACA 资本）？\n6 答：从未。\n7 问：如果 Guo、Lianchao 或 Yvette 曾告知您，该项目的调查成果旨在用于特定犯罪，以追回特定财产或特定收益，这会如何改变您的计划和工作？\n11 答：我们根本不会接受该客户。\n12 问：为什么？\n13 答：因为那不是我们所做的业务。\n14 问：让我继续。那么，合同是在6日签署的。合同是否协商了新的开始日期？\n16 答：是。\n17 问：是什么日期？\n18 答：我想，应该是 January 16th。\n19 问：在将调查材料，即调查的初始信息，发给欧洲的调查人员方面，是否存在任何问题？\n22 答：是。\n23 问：如果您能快速说明一下，那些问题是什么？\n25 答：她 January 6th 带到我家中的第一批闪存盘共有三个。我把三个都插入我的一台笔记本电脑。它们全都损坏了。它们全都是坏的闪存盘。所以我说：“稍等一下，Yvette。我马上回来。”\n\n于是我沿街去了一个邻居那里，他经营着规模很大的电脑业务，等等，有很多屏幕之类的设备。我问他是否介意测试这三个闪存盘。他说：“当然，可以。我有防火墙。应该没问题。”\n\n于是我们将三个闪存盘全部插入他的几台电脑，我们看到大量的——我不知道该用什么别的词来形容——类似乱码垃圾的东西布满屏幕。其中没有文件。没有任何可以解码或下载的内容；当时，我们立即开始拔掉正在读取该闪存盘的电脑的电源插头。我们当然也猛地拔出了闪存盘。问：让我在这里打断您，Wallop 女士。您最终是否拿到了这些闪存盘的替代品？答：我确实——问：等等。让我们尽量多做一些问答。我想加快进度，确保我们没有叙述性陈述。答：我知道。问：那么，Wallop 女士，您是否必须出行去取得新的闪存盘？答：是。问：您去了哪里？10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1 答：那是我们拿到坏闪存盘的星期六。我星期一去了 New York（纽约）。我在那里大堂与 Yvette 见面。她给了我另外三个闪存盘。在那些闪存盘中，只有一个能用。\n5 问：Wallop 女士，让我打断您。是谁把那些给您的？\n6 答：Yvette。\n7 问：那么，最终那个能用的闪存盘，您能复制其中内容吗？\n9 答：能。\n10 问：然后那些——那些信息发生了什么？接下来被发送到哪里？\n12 答：我把它带回 Washington（华盛顿）或 Virginia（弗吉尼亚），然后我们设置了一些未连接互联网的打印机，以下载属于整个调查项目一部分的文件。\n16 问：那么，那些文件之后被发送给第1组，对吗？\n18 答：第1组于那周前来取走了它们。\n19 问：对于第1组，还必须做什么——让我撤回这个问题。\n21 问：在 January 16th 之后的最初几周内，您是否与 Yvette Wang 保持联系？\n23 答：哦，是的。\n24 问：好的。如果可以的话，让我们展示证物19。Wallop 女士，您认得证物19吗？\n\n共225页\nL4JPEAS4\nWallop（沃洛普）—再次询问\n\n1 答：认得。\n2 问：在我继续之前，法院提醒了我，然后我马上就忘了。\n4 格雷姆先生：我请求准许将证物16和17作为证据接纳。\n6 法院：该两项证物予以接纳，但须服从删除动议。我理解，对于这些文件的真实性或时间没有异议，对吗？\n9 克莱因女士（MS. CLINE）：正确。\n10 （被告方证物 DX16 和 DX17 已作为证据接纳）\n12 （下页续）\n\n1 格雷姆先生询问：\n2 问：Wallop 女士，抱歉，也许我没有听到您回答，您认得证物19吗？\n4 答：认得。\n5 问：这是什么？\n6 答：这同样是 Yvette 在 January 9th 发给我的。\n7 问：在此期间，Yvette 是否曾告诉您，她现在向 Guo 以外的某人报告？\n9 答：嗯，她在6日说过。\n10 问：好的。\n11 答：抱歉。\n12 问：对。我们现在谈的是9日。\n13 答：我知道。\n14 问：那么，从9日开始，假设直到 January 末，Yvette 是否告诉您，她是在为 Guo 以外的某人获取调查资料？\n17 答：据我所知没有，除非这份文件中有。\n18 问：如果您需要查看以确认，请花一点时间。\n19 答：我没有在这里看到这一点；如果我遗漏了，请您告知我应当查看哪一页。我没有看到。\n22 问：Wallop 女士，Yvette 是否努力安排您、Waller 先生和 Guo 之间的一次午餐？\n24 答：是。\n25 问：而她是在 January 中旬开始作出这些安排的吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员事务所）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n共225页\nL4JKEAS5\nWallop（沃洛普）—复询\n\n1 A. 她提到了。\n2 Q. 在这些信息中，她是否以任何特定方式称呼 Guo（郭文贵）？\n3 A. 是的。\n4 她要么称他为 captain（队长），要么为 boss（老板），要么为 chief（首长）。\n5 Q. 如果您看一下证物——抱歉，本证物第 229 页，深色部分——\n6 A. 是。\n7 Q. ——在 1 月 16 日，您看到她说：“早上好。\n完全不用担心。\n关于食物一事，我完全理解。\n我会通知 captain（队长）和 chef（厨师）。”\n您看到了吗？\n8 A. 是的。\n9 Q. 这就是您所指的吗？\n10 A. 是。\n11 Q. 这次会面最终安排好了吗？\n12 A. 是，安排好了。\n13 Q. Yvette（伊薇特）是否告诉您，该会面的目的是让 Guo 审阅研究成果？\n14 A. 是，但那是在合同签订仅五天后。\n15 Q. 那么，如果您看一下——抱歉，第 231 页，您能翻到那里吗？\n16 A. 是，我已翻到。\n17 Q. 您看到那是在 16 日，那是经协商确定的合同第一个起始日？\n18 A. 是的。\n\nL4JKEAS5\nWallop（沃洛普）—复询\n\n1 Q. 而她说：“与 captain（队长）核实”？\n2 A. 是。\n3 Q. 接着是“他建议下周与您会面，一同审阅每周结果，加上私密部分。”\n您看到了吗？\n4 A. 是的。\n5 Q. “私密部分”是什么？\n您是否理解那是什么？\n6 A. 我得就此询问 Dr. Waller（沃勒博士）。\n目前我不太确定。\n7 GREIM（格雷姆）先生：申请接纳证物 19。\n8 法庭：在日后申请删除的前提下接纳。\n我理解，对真实性没有疑问？\n9 CLINE（克莱因）女士：是的。\n10 法庭：很好。\n11 （被告方证物 19 作为证据接纳）\n12 GREIM 先生询问：\n13 Q. 您最终确实与 Guo 先生会面了，对吗？\n14 A. 是的，没错。\n15 Q. 那是在 1 月底？\n16 A. 是。\n17 Q. Guo 先生在那次会面中说了什么？\n18 A. 他说他想立即拿到报告，并且出于某种原因，他需要在 26 日前拿到所有材料，所以——嗯。\n\nL4JKEAS5\nWallop（沃洛普）—复询\n\n1 Q. 他是否告诉您为什么他需要在 26 日拿到它们？\n2 A. 没有。\n3 Q. 他是否告诉您，他有一个案件或诉讼，并且需要为此使用这些材料？\n4 A. 没有。\n5 Q. Wallop 女士，我想在这里稍微快进一下，转到协议被终止的期间。\n6 A. 好的。\n7 Q. 您记得那封终止函的日期吗？\n8 A. 终止函上的日期是 2 月 23 日。\n9 Q. 它寄到了您家吗？\n10 A. 我没有收到。\n它寄到了拉斯维加斯办公室，即注册代理人办公室。\n11 Q. 您最终何时收到那封信？\n12 A. 我想是在 2 月底。\n13 Q. 您能否看些材料以帮助恢复记忆？\n14 A. 如果我可以看一下您的——可以。\n15 Q. 您的日历？\n16 A. 可能。\n17 GREIM 先生：请展示证物 62。\n18 Q. 我们应当看哪个月份？\n19 A. 我想是 2 月。\n20 Q. 这封信寄出时，您在国内吗？\n\n1 A. 我想——是——不，我不在。\n我在伦敦。\n2 Q. 您为什么在伦敦？\n3 A. 我与 Fletcher（弗莱彻）及其他人一起工作，以获取一些信息。\n4 Q. 我们在您上一次询问中听说过 Fletcher。\nFletcher 再次是用来做什么的？\n5 A. 用于档案中的两条鱼。\n6 Q. 您为什么就那两条鱼去找 Fletcher？\n7 A. 首先，因为这是他所做的一类事情，而且他是一名专家，或者说他们是获取信息方面的专家，尤其是在英国获取有关个人的信息。\n8 Q. 您何时第一次联系 Fletcher？\n9 A. 哦，我认识他很多年了，但是——\n10 Q. 抱歉。\n就此事而言？\n11 A. 好的。\n就此事而言，我想我在 2 月 12 日左右给他打了电话，我会说是 2 月 12 日，告诉他我可能要前往伦敦。\n12 Q. 所以您与 Fletcher 会面了。\n那么，您与 Fletcher 的会面是在 2 月那一周，看起来从周一 19 日开始？\n13 A. 19 日，没错。\n14 Q. 好的。\n15 A. 但在那次谈话中，我曾向他大致提醒过，并非关于背景原因，而是关于那些姓名。\n16 Q. Wallop 女士，Foley Hoag（弗利·霍格）终止函立即终止合同，对吗，或者说其声称如此？\n\n1 A. 我想它确实如此，是的。\n2 Q. 现在，研究协议是否允许立即终止合同？\n3 A. 不允许。\n4 Q. 它要求什么？\n5 A. 它要求提前 30 天通知——\n6 Q. 其目的是什么——\n7 A. ——由双方作出。\n8 Q. 那是为了什么目的？\n9 A. 这样我们能够解散团队，并以某种方式收尾，无论结果如何。\n10 Q. 30 天通知还有其他目的么？\n11 A. 嗯，我们也想确保有时间或许——我不会说重新谈判，但讨论任何存在的问题。\n事实上，我们一直在与 Lianchao（李传良）进行沟通——\n12 Q. 让我们确保回答——不过，我本来要问您的是，您在收到 Foley Hoag 信函后，实际上是否试图与 Guo 协商？\n13 A. 哦，我们通过 Lianchao 这样做了。\n14 Q. 这一努力成功了吗？\n15 A. 在联系到他方面，是的。\n16 Q. 您成功联系到 Guo 了吗？\n17 A. 是的，通过 Lianchao。\n\n1 Q. 在收到那封信后，您是否继续尝试在 2 月完成仍有可能完成的工作？\n2 A. 是。\n3 Q. 我现在想问您有关损害赔偿的问题。\n我知道我们之前花了一些时间看一些颜色图表，我想看看我们能否澄清几件事。\n4 GREIM 先生：那么请展示标记为证物的材料——嗯，实际上是我方证物 64 和 65，即被告方证物 64 和被告方证物 65。\n5 很好。\n实际上，让我们聚焦于 64。\n6 Q. 现在，Wallop 女士，我理解，有人依据拟议事实认定和法律结论中的一则脚注向您作了说明。\n我要问您的问题是——我只聚焦于这份证物，好吗——在 1 月份，有两笔不同的、为 Guo 汇出的 $200,000 电汇；对吗？\n7 A. 没错。\n8 Q. 它们去了哪里？\n那两个不同实体是哪里？\n9 A. 一笔去了 Cyber Sol（赛博·索尔），另一笔去了 GRG。\n10 Q. 现在，其中哪一笔实际转给了 Team 1（第 1 团队）？\n11 A. 我相信是 GRG。\n12 Q. 现在，您明白您今天早些时候作证说是 Cyber Sol？\n13 A. 是。\n我不确定哪个是哪一个。\n14 Q. 好的。\n\n1 A. 但现在我想我明白了，看得更仔细之后。\n2 Q. 此外，您还作证说——再说一次，我理解这是依据拟议事实认定中的脚注向您作的说明——您为自己的工作支付给自己 200,000？\n3 A. 我支付了 250,000。\n4 Q. 不，对。\n那么我们这样问：\n今天早些时候，您作证说您支付给自己 200,000，对吗？\n5 A. 是，我不确定该如何处理律师的那张图表。\n6 Q. 那么让我问您，Wallop 女士：\n在提交之前，您是否仔细审阅了律师就拟议事实认定所作的脚注？\n7 A. 没有。\n8 Q. 没有？\n9 A. 我没有。\n10 Q. 我不是在责怪您，Wallop 女士。\n好吗？\n让我问您——\n11 A. 我本应当审阅。\n12 Q. ——根据证物 54，您在此为自己的工作预留了多少？\n13 A. 是 250,000。\n14 Q. 好的。\n15 GREIM 先生：好的。\n我没有其他问题了。\n\n1 法庭：还有再次复询吗？\n2 CLINE 女士：对不起，法官阁下，我没听到。\n3 法庭：还有再询问吗？\n4 CLINE 女士：有，请允许。\n5 法庭：您认为您的再询问将持续多久？\n6 CLINE 女士：大概 20 分钟，或许。\n7 法庭：好的。\n您可以继续。\n8 请稍等。\n我理解，在我们结束对 Wallop 女士的询问后，下一位证人已经准备好出庭？\n9 GREIM 先生：他就在这里，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：很好。\n11 CLINE 女士：Chris（克里斯），请调出脚注 140。\n12 再次复询\n13 CLINE 女士询问：\n14 Q. 那么，Wallop 女士，我只想谈一下这笔钱——Strategic（斯特拉蒂吉克）就向您支付的这笔款项所主张的金钱——Strategic 就向您支付的这笔款项所主张的损害赔偿。\n15 那么，您会同意，在脚注 140 的任何地方都没有提及向您分配 $250,000，对吗？\n16 A. 显然是这样。\n17 Q. 好的。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\nL4JKEAS\nL4JKEAS5 Wallop（沃洛普）—再次复询，共225页\n\n1 Q. 我想，如果我正确理解这里的问答，\n2 Strategic 并未将目前主张的这笔 $250,000 付款与任何特定业务费用挂钩；对吗？\n3 A. 没错。\n4 Q. 那么，向您支付 $250,000 所主张的损害赔偿依据是什么？\n5 A. 我并不真正理解这个问题。\n6 Q. 您要求我的当事人对可分配给您的 $250,000 负责，而我问的是，其依据是什么？\n7 A. 嗯，依据显然是我们没有得到合同中规定的 30 天通知——\n8 Q. 所以您不是——\n9 A. ——。\n10 Q. 所以这与实际支出费用毫无关系？\n11 A. 不，它确实与实际支出费用有关，但是，您看，我想这可能正是事情对某些人而言变得复杂的地方。\n我把这 250,000 留在账户里，我从中支取，因为我自己的会计人员、律师告诉我可以这样做，不是本案律师。\n然后我列出了业务费用，其中有许多确实分配给这份特定合同，我逐项查看——坦率说，查看银行账户，并标出了我认为属于正当业务费用的项目，同时显示汇出的电汇以及电汇收款人。\n12 法庭：请稍等。\n\n1 法庭：您是在说，我们所看的那张清单中以黄色标示的一些费用构成这 $250,000 的一部分吗？\n2 证人：不，它们不是这 250,000 的一部分，法官阁下。\n它们是分开的。\n3 法庭：好的。\n4 您可以询问。\n5 CLINE 女士询问：\n6 Q. 那么，在脚注 140、原告方证物 PX 23 或其他任何地方，是否有任何地方让我们能够理解分配给您的 $250,000 的依据？\n7 A. 我得询问我的律师。\n我不知道如何回答。\n8 Q. 当 Greim 先生就合同中的通知条款询问您时，您的部分回答是，按您的理解，这 30 天将给予双方解决分歧的时间；对吗？\n9 A. 是。\n10 Q. 您会同意，合同中没有争议解决机制，对吗？\n11 A. 嗯，按照通常情况，这 30 天本应能做到这一点，是的。\n12 Q. 合同中没有任何条款要求双方的负责人会面、进行调解，或作任何类似事情，对吗？\n13 A. 我们当时正与 Lianchao 这样做。\n\n1 Q. 我的问题是：\n合同中是否有任何内容——\n2 A. 有。\n3 Q. ——要求特定的争议解决方式，即双方聚集在一起、参加和解会议或寻求调解人，或任何类似安排？\n4 A. 并非——不，并非直接如此，但口头上当然如此。\n5 Q. 您作证说，合同条款是保密的，对吗？\n6 A. 是。\n7 Q. 合同的标的也是保密的，对吗？\n8 A. 是。\n9 Q. 事实上，它如此秘密，以至于您必须在本案诉讼中隐去分包商的姓名，对吗？\n10 A. 没错。\n11 Q. 而且您在短信交流中使用了代号，对吗，即 Paris（巴黎）这个代号，对吗？\n12 A. 是。\n那只是我的信号称呼。\n13 Q. 事实上，对于保密性存在这样的担忧，以至于您不想在合同中加入有关 Guo 先生异见人士身份的陈述，对吗？\n14 A. 抱歉，您得再说一遍。\n15 Q. 我理解您的证言是，在 Greim 先生提问时——\n\n1 至于为何合同中没有载明关于郭先生是异见人士的陈述，我以为您的回答是，因为您希望合同高度保密？\n\n2 是的，正确。\n答。\n\n3 问。\n好的。\n\n4 但是，在收到包含待调查对象姓名的 U 盘后，您走到邻居家，把一个 U 盘交给了他？\n\n5 答。\n是的。因为里面没有任何内容，所以没有问题。\n\n6 问。\n当您于 January 2018 签署合同时，合同顶部的相对方名称是 Eastern Profit（东方利润公司），对吗？\n\n7 答。\nJanuary 6th，正确。\n\n8 问。\n而且，当您看到 Eastern Profit 这个名称时，您没有拒绝签署合同，对吗？\n\n9 答。\nYvette 说那是一家空壳公司。\n\n10 问。\n您没有拒绝——\n\n11 答。\n没有。显然，我签了；她没有。\n\n12 CLINE 女士：\nChris，请调出 DX 16。\n\n13 法院：\n该回答的最后部分，即“她没有”，将予以删除。\n\n14 Wallop（沃洛普）女士，现指示您请仅回答所提问题。\n\n15 证人：\n好的。\n\n1 由 CLINE 女士提问：\n\n2 问。\n您的律师刚才就 DX 16 向您提问。您是否记得刚才作为证物使用的这段短信往来？\n\n3 答。\n这有什么？\n\n4 问。\n您记得您和他讨论过这份证物？\n\n5 答。\n是。\n\n6 CLINE 女士：\nChris，您能否向下滚动——在这里稍微滚动一点。\n\n7 请到下一页。第 3 页。\n\n8 问。\n您记得这部分短信内容，其中 Wang（王）女士告诉您，她不希望将月费——拟定的月费——写入合同，对吗？\n\n9 答。\n那是在 January 5th，是的。\n\n10 问。\n好的。\n\n11 CLINE 女士：\n然后，Chuff（查夫）先生，请您滚动到第 5 页。\n\n12 问。\n在后续的短信往来中，您表示，为确保定价可预测，报告将会——抱歉，定价将与每月报告的数量挂钩，对吗？\n\n13 答。\n正确。\n\n14 问。\n而在这段短信往来之后，合同即被签署，对吗？\n\n15 答。\n是。\n\n1 问。\n该合同载有我们先前查看过的、位于第 3 页的定价条款，称每项交付成果的价格均为 300,000，对吗？\n\n2 答。\n正确。\n\n3 问。\nGreim（格雷姆）先生问您，在订立合同时，您是否依赖了据称由郭文贵先生作出的某些陈述。您记得吗？\n\n4 答。\n记得。\n\n5 问。\n对于您据称所依赖的那些陈述，您没有进行任何尽职调查，对吗？\n\n6 答。\n什么时候？\n\n7 问。\n在订立合同之前？\n\n8 答。\n我们依赖了 Lianchao Han（韩连潮），也依赖了 Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）的声誉和确认。\n\n9 法院：\nCLINE 女士，我们不是已经讨论过这个问题了吗？\n\n10 CLINE 女士：\n是的。我只是在她的律师询问之后作补充澄清。我会继续下一个问题。\n\n11 由 CLINE 女士提问：\n\n12 问。\n在您今天上午的证言中，我问过您合同本身对于其目的的表述；而今天下午格雷姆先生问过您 Strategic Vision（战略愿景公司）实际调查了哪些对象。您记得吗？\n\n13 答。\n记得。\n\n1 问。\n而且，您坚定地证称，战略愿景公司没有调查犯罪或民事侵权行为。您记得吗？\n\n2 答。\n是的，在美国。\n\n3 问。\n所以他们在海外调查了犯罪或民事侵权行为？\n\n4 答。\n没有。在向我们提供信息之前，我们不知道会发现什么。因此，我们并非有意这样做，没有。\n\n5 问。\n那么，无论是有意还是无意，您是否调查了海外的犯罪或民事侵权行为？\n\n6 答。\n没有。\n\n7 问。\n而且，事实上，您证称您不知道所交付的 U 盘中有什么内容，对吗？\n\n8 答。\n哪一次？\n\n9 问。\n在两个 U 盘交付给东方利润公司时，我以为您的证言是，您没有看过它们，您对其中内容没有个人知情，对吗？\n\n10 答。\n除了 Yvette 告诉我的其中内容外。它们应该是那些文件。\n\n11 问。\n抱歉，我说的是 Waller（沃勒）先生交付给东方利润公司的 U 盘。我以为您的证言是，您没有——\n\n12 答。\n抱歉，您说的是郭先生交付给东方利润公司。\n\n13 问。\n让我重新开始。\n\n14 答。\n好的。\n\n15 问。\n我们都同意，Strategic（战略公司）向东方利润公司交付了两个 U 盘，对吗？\n\n第225页（共225页）\nL4JKEAS5\n沃洛普——复交叉询问\n\n1 答。\n是。那是 Waller 博士。\n\n2 问。\n而且，您的证言是，您对那些 U 盘中有什么内容没有个人知情，对吗？\n\n3 答。\n除 Waller 博士告诉我的内容外。\n\n4 问。\n因此，您无从知晓第一组调查了什么，对吗？\n\n5 答。\n不对。\n\n6 问。\n您对第一组调查了什么有任何个人知情吗？\n\n7 答。\n有，因为我们与他们会面过，他们后来告诉我们其中一些 U 盘里有什么内容。我没有亲眼看到任何内容，因为郭先生告诉我们，他只希望对此类高度敏感的信息设立一个传递渠道，即由第一组的 Waller 博士前往欧洲取回 U 盘，在 24 小时内返回并与 Yvette Wang（王）女士会面。因此，我不可能看到它们，因为我在 Washington（华盛顿），而他在 New York（纽约）。\n\n8 问。\n格雷姆先生问过您一些问题，涉及战略公司——战略愿景公司调查的性质。您记得在您的证言录取中，即我对您进行证言录取的第二次证言录取中，您是否记得证称，您曾在 Turks and Caicos（特克斯和凯科斯群岛）进行过一些监视？\n\n9 答。\n我不会称之为监视。我们在跟进一条线索，有人说其中一个目标会在特克斯和凯科斯群岛，我们——我前往特克斯和凯科斯群岛查看情况是否如此，因为我们不知道该人与谁会面。\n\n第225页（共225页）\nL4JKEAS5\n沃洛普——复交叉询问\n\n1 CLINE 女士：\n那么，请调出沃洛普女士的第二次证言录取，Chuff 先生。\n\n2 由 CLINE 女士提问：\n\n3 问。\n那么，沃洛普女士，这是您 November 2019 的证言录取笔录。\n\n4 CLINE 女士：\nChuff 先生，请到第 98 页。\n\n5 问。\n那么，沃洛普女士，我们从第 98 页第 5 行开始，我问：\n\n6 “问。您为什么需要在特克斯和凯科斯群岛？\n\n7 “答。因为那两个晚上两名中国人都在那里。\n\n8 “问。您做了什么来调查他们？\n\n9 “答。我想，当您追踪某人时，您是在试图收集情报，而这正是我所做的。\n\n10 “问。这正是我在问您的。您是否在监视他们？\n\n11 “答。是。在某种程度上，是。”\n\n12 您看到了吗？\n\n13 答。\n看到了，但我认为——\n\n14 问。\n我的问题是，您看到了吗？\n\n15 答。\n是，是，是，我看到了。\n\n16 问。\n我读得正确吗？\n\n17 答。\n正确。\n\n18 问。\n您作出该证言时，那是真实的陈述吗？\n\n19 答。\n是。\n\nL4JKEAS5\n沃洛普——复交叉询问\n\n1 问。\n然后在第 99 页，我说：\n\n2 “问。就 Eastern Profit 合同而言，您本人是否进行了任何其他监视？\n\n3 “答。是。”\n\n4 您看到了吗？\n\n5 答。\n是。\n\n6 “问。您能描述一下吗？\n\n7 “答。我不知道从何说起。”\n\n8 您看到了吗？\n\n9 答。\n是。\n\n10 问。\n我读得准确吗？\n\n11 答。\n是。\n\n12 CLINE 女士：\n法官阁下，我能否用一点时间与我的同事商议？\n\n13 法院：\n可以。\n\n14 （暂停）\n\n15 CLINE 女士：\n我没有其他问题了，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n16 法院：\n好的。复询？\n\n17 GREIM 先生：\n有。我只有一个，或许两个问题，法官阁下。\n\n18 法院：\n好的。限于一个或两个。\n\n19 GREIM 先生：\n我一直被告诫不要这样说。\n\n1 重新询问\n\n2 由 GREIM 先生提问：\n\n3 问。\n沃洛普女士，我只就一个方面向您提问。这再次涉及我们的损害赔偿。\n\n4 您记得我们刚刚讨论过 $250,000 及其用途，对吗？\n\n5 答。\n正确。\n\n6 问。\n现在，您是否向自己支付了——我先问您，您是否向 Waller 先生支付了一定金额，以补偿他在该事项中投入的时间和精力？\n\n7 答。\n是。\n\n8 问。\n您是否向自己支付了一定金额，以补偿您在该事项中投入的时间和精力？\n\n9 答。\n我从中支取了款项，并没有直接向自己支付，没有。\n\n10 问。\n该金额是 $250,000 吗？\n\n11 答。\n是。\n\n12 GREIM 先生：\n没有其他问题。\n\n13 法院：\n好的。我们现在休庭十分钟如何——仅为了——沃洛普女士，您可以离席了。\n\n14 证人：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n15 （证人离席）\n\n16 法院：\n然后我们将开始听取 Waller 先生的证言，并持续至 4:45。\n\n17 非常感谢，沃洛普女士。\n\n18 证人：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nL4JKEAS5\nWaller——交叉询问\n\n1 （休庭）\n\n2 法院：\n请传唤下一位证人。\n\n3 CHUFF 先生：\nEastern 传唤 J. Michael Waller（J. 迈克尔·沃勒）出庭作证。\n\n4 法院：\nWaller 先生，请在陪审员席就座。\n\n5 J. MICHAEL WALLER，\n\n6 由原告传唤作为证人，\n\n7 经依法宣誓后，证言如下：\n\n8 书记官助理：\n请您为记录陈述您的全名，并拼写您的姓氏。\n\n9 证人：\nJohn Michael Waller，W-a-l-l-e-r。\n\n10 法院：\nWaller 先生，为便于法庭记录员记录，我请您尽量提高音量并缓慢讲话。\n\n11 您可以询问。\n\n12 CHUFF 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n13 交叉询问\n\n14 由 CHUFF 先生提问：\n\n15 问。\n下午好，Waller 先生。\n\n16 您在本次审判中担任战略公司的公司指定代表；对吗？\n\n17 答。\n是。\n\n18 问。\n请您陈述在本案诉讼中支付战略公司账单的实体的完整法定名称？\n\nL4JKEAS5\nWaller——交叉询问\n\n1 答。\n我不想放弃我与律师之间享有保密特权的谈话权利。\n\n2 法院：\n如果您知道该实体的名称，您必须回答这个问题，说出该实体的名称。\n\n3 证人：\n我知道，好的。\n\n4 Circinus（环星公司）。\n\n5 由 CHUFF 先生提问：\n\n6 问。\n您如何拼写？\n\n7 答。\nC-i-r-c-i-n-u-s。\n\n8 问。\n而且，Waller 先生，这是其完整法定名称吗？\n\n9 答。\n我不知道。\n\n10 问。\n您知道它是什么类型的实体吗？\n\n11 答。\n我不知道。\n\n12 问。\n您知道它的所在地吗？\n\n13 答。\n我不知道。\n\n14 问。\n您知道它的总部设在哪里吗？\n\n15 答。\n要么在 California（加利福尼亚州），要么在 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）。\n\n16 问。\n但您不确定其总部设在哪里？\n\n17 答。\n我不确定。\n\n18 问。\n您知道 Circinus 的所有者是谁吗？\n\n19 答。\n我知道——我不知道所有者是谁。我知道其中一名管理人员是谁，但不知道所有者是谁。\n\n20 问。\n您知道管理层成员——\n\n21 答。\n知道。\n\n22 问。\n是谁？\n\n23 答。\nElliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗迪）。\n\n24 问。\n您知道 Circinus 管理层的其他成员吗？\n\n1 答。\n不知道。\n\n2 问。\n而 Elliott Broidy 曾涉及——曾就试图使 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）被驱逐出境的共谋罪认罪；对吗？\n\n3 GREIM 先生：\n反对，法官阁下；缺乏基础。\n\n4 法院：\n我准许提问。\n\n5 由 CHUFF 先生提问：\n\n6 问。\n您是否知道 Elliott Broidy 被定罪——抱歉，曾就与 CCP（中国共产党）成员共谋将郭文贵驱逐出境而认罪？\n\n7 GREIM 先生：\n法官阁下，对于这个问题也是，缺乏基础。\n\n8 法院：\n驳回。\n\n9 证人：\n我知道他认罪了，也知道他获得了赦免。\n\n10 问。\n您知道他就与中共成员共谋将郭文贵从本国驱逐出境而认罪？\n\n11 GREIM 先生：\n法官阁下，必须有善意依据，我提出反对。\n\n12 法院：\n我将听取律师就其依据所作的说明。我假定您将提交认罪答辩和起诉书？\n\n13 CHUFF 先生：\n是。\n\n14 法院：\n但据我所知，我认为众所周知，Broidy 先生认罪具有善意依据。\n\n有罪。\n\n关于该问题，善意依据是什么？\n\nCHUFF先生：\n所以，抱歉，我正要——有几份证物。有一份新闻稿，还有认罪答辩。因此，我们可以向证人出示，或者，如果您愿意，我们可以向法官阁下出示。\n\n法庭：\n你为什么不把它们递给我。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n好的。它们可能在您的活页夹里。它们是PX 67、PX 61。\n\n法庭：\n抱歉，57？\n\nCHUFF先生：\n不，抱歉。六七，PX 67。\n\n法庭：\n你能把它们交给我的法庭助理吗？\n\nCHUFF先生：\n法官阁下，关于PX 67，我请您参阅第4段。\n\n法庭：\n好的。异议的依据是什么？\n\nGREIM先生：\n嗯，法官阁下，这个问题是关于——首先，其全部依据是，据称该客户由一名中共成员或关联方支付报酬。现在我们谈到了为——游说的努力；这篇文章中没有提到这一点，这全是传闻证据。这实际上是关于另一个名叫Joe Blow（乔·布洛）的人，但该问题假定其直接与中共存在共谋关系。即使在这些传闻文章中，这一点也完全没有得到确立，这就是异议的依据。\n\n法庭：\n好的。异议驳回。\n\n对此项询问具有善意依据。我的法庭助理可以将活页夹还给你。你可以询问。\n\nCHUFF先生讯问：\n\n问：那么，Waller先生，我们已经确定，第一，Circinus（Circinus公司）管理团队的一部分成员是Elliott Broidy（艾略特·布罗迪），对吗？\n\n答：Circinus。\n\n问：而管理团队的一部分成员是Elliott Broidy？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：他曾就与中共成员共谋将郭文贵驱逐出境认罪答辩？\n\n答：我知道他曾就与中国合作将郭文贵驱逐出境认罪答辩。我不知道中共成员的性质。\n\n问：你在此作证，部分是关于Eastern（东方公司）与Strategic Vision（战略愿景公司）之间的一份研究协议；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n我希望向证人及法庭公布PX 01。\n\nGREIM先生：\n抱歉，在等待期间，我们误拿到了一些东西。看起来是你们的庭审证物，不是我们的。\n\nCHUFF先生讯问：\n\n问：Waller先生，这是Eastern与Strategic之间的研究协议；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你参与了该协议的谈判？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你也参与起草了该协议，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而实际上是Strategic拟定了本页上的文字，并将其交付给Eastern的代表；对吗？\n\n答：嗯，我拟定了其中一些，然后将其转交，此后又作了修改。因此，我拟定了一些，Strategic也会拟定一些。\n\n问：好的。根据该研究协议，Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）是客户，而Strategic是承包方；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n我们现在可以取消公布研究协议PX 01。它已经被提交了。\n\n问：而Strategic由Wallop女士创立；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Wallop女士是Strategic Vision的唯一成员和经理？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你是Wallop女士多年的朋友；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你认识Wallop女士约35年？\n\n答：大约是。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区记录服务公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n问：自2016年以来，你曾与Strategic Vision就多个项目合作；对吗？\n\n答：除涉案项目外，还有另外两个项目。\n\n问：所以总共三个？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你与Strategic合作的项目涉及调查工作，对吗？\n\n答：涉及研究工作。\n\n问：是否涉及调查工作？\n\n答：嗯，这取决于你所说的“调查”是什么意思。对于一些具有博士学位的调查记者而言，这两个词可以相当互换地使用，但我理解法律对此有不同看法。\n\n问：你在证言录取中使用过“调查”一词。你记得吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：而你作证称，本项目及另外两个项目涉及调查工作；对吗？\n\n答：就研究的意义而言，是；不是就法律的某些解释意义而言。\n\n问：你使用过“调查”一词？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是真实的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是准确的？\n\n答：正如我刚才解释的那样，在附带保留条件的情况下是准确的。\n\n问：而该调查工作包括传统的侦探式工作；对吗？\n\n答：我可以在证言记录中看一下吗？\n\n问：先回答问题。这是真的吗？\n\n答：我想看一下证言记录。这是我说过的话，还是——\n\n问：我现在只是问你，今天在这里，你为Strategic Vision所做的三个项目的调查工作，是否包括传统的侦探式工作？\n\n答：不包括。\n\n问：不包括？\n\n答：不，并非三个项目都包括。\n\n问：你记得在本案中接受过两次证言录取吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：你记得在每次证言录取开始时，你都接受宣誓，要如同今天一样如实作证吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：而你在那些证言录取中如实作证，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n如果可以，请调出Waller先生的第一次证言录取。如果可以，请翻到——对，你已经在那里了，第13页。实际上——是。\n\n问：那么，第13页，如果你看第12行，你被问到：“除本案中我们将与你讨论的Eastern Profit项目之外，你还为Strategic Vision做过多少其他项目？”\n\n你回答：“可能两个。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：然后在第14页第3行，你被问到：“那么，你为Strategic Vision开展工作的项目总共是三个？”\n\n而你回答：“这是第三个，是。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：如果你向下看第21行，你被问到：“那么，这是调查工作吗？”\n\n你回答：“是。”\n\n然后你被问到：“什么类型的调查工作？你能描述一下吗？”\n\n而你回答：“计算机研究，某种学术研究，传统的侦探式工作。”\n\nWaller先生，在你的第一次证言录取中，有人问过你这些问题，而你作出了这些回答吗？\n\n答：是，但这脱离了之前的语境——\n\n问：Waller先生，请，我只是问你是否被问过那些问题——\n\n答：是。\n\n问：——以及是否在你的第一次证言录取中作出那些回答？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且那些回答是真实的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，我们再具体谈谈研究协议。\n\n那么，2017年末，你和Wallop女士被介绍给一名叫Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的人；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在2017年末你和Wallop女士被介绍给Guo先生之后，你们与他举行了多次会面？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而在这些会面期间，你和Wallop女士概述了你们能够提供的服务；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而调查工作是所提供服务之一，对吗？\n\n答：我不记得使用过那些词——那个词。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n如果可以，请再次调出Waller先生的第一次证言录取，这次我们看第29页。第29页，从第4行开始。\n\n问：你被问到：“你或Wallop女士是否说明了，就提供该研究而言，你的能力或Wallop女士的能力为何？”\n\n答：是。\n\n问：然后，在提出异议后，第10行有人问你：“你是否说明了，就该研究而言你能够提供什么服务？”\n\n你回答：“是。”\n\n然后你被问到：“你向在场各方说明了什么？”\n\n而你回答：“我会组建研究团队并监督研究团队。”\n\n然后你被问到：“那是将进行调查性研究的研究团队？”\n\n你回答：“是。”\n\nWaller先生，在你的第一次证言录取中，有人问过你这些问题，而你作出了这些回答吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且这些回答是真实的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：现在，在签订研究协议时，你理解Guo先生该项目的主要目标是揭露有关中国共产党的成员，即中共成员的信息；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而你理解Guo先生想要高质量的信息，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你也理解他希望极快地揭露该信息？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而实际上，你知道在合同第一个月内揭露高质量信息至关重要，对吗？\n\n答：是在合同的第一阶段，即头90天内，是。\n\n问：但你知道——而且这发生在第一个月内；对吗？\n\n答：嗯，我们来看看合同的措辞，然后我们可以讨论。\n\n问：我只是问你的理解。在签署研究协议时，你是否理解在第一个月内获得高质量信息至关重要？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而在该等信息中，Guo先生希望Strategic揭露中共成员、各中共成员违法的证据；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而这包括查找中共官员为其自身敛财而盗取资金的证据，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而你告诉Guo先生，你和Wallop女士能够做那类工作，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n法官阁下，我可以与我的同事商议一秒钟吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n（暂停）\n\nCHUFF先生讯问：\n\n问：抱歉，Waller先生。\n\n然后，刚才我们所描述的服务，你、Wallop女士和Strategic实际上着手开展了那些服务，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但你并未取得私人调查员执照，对吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：而且你从未取得过？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：现在我们再谈谈研究协议的条款，具体条款。\n\nEastern——首先，我只想为记录确认，Eastern和Strategic于January 6, 2018签订了研究协议；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而研究协议的明确目的，是侦测、制止和预防犯罪；对吗？\n\n答：这需要一个复杂的回答。这不是一个可以用“是”或“否”回答的问题。\n\n问：研究协议本身不是写明，其目的是侦测、制止和预防犯罪吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而为实现该目标，Strategic将提供质量极高的详细报告，揭示对象的真实、完整和全面状况；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：具体而言，Strategic被要求向Eastern提供以下三类交付成果——财务法证报告、当前追踪报告和社交媒体报告；这准确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你提到了时间安排，那么我们来看一下。当前追踪报告要求在第一个月每周提供报告，然后在月末再提供一份报告，不是吗？\n\n答：我相信是这样。如果我能看一下实际措辞会更有帮助，但我相信按你的说法确实如此。\n\n问：目前我们就按你的理解。并且所有交付成果都只能通过USB提供；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而Eastern同意就每一项向Strategic支付\\$300,000\n\n问：协议中规定，每项交付成果的交付价格；是否正确？\n\n答：按一年期间平均计算，是的。\n\n问：因此，合同规定每项交付成果的价格为$300,000；是否正确？\n\n答：是的，在一年期间内按月计算。\n\n问：每项交付成果在一年期间内每月$300,000？\n\n答：是的。现在我是凭记忆回答，因此如果我能看到措辞，我可以作出确定答复。\n\n问：如果Strategic（思特拉提吉克）未提供某项交付成果，则根据该研究协议无需付款；是否正确？\n\n答：不正确。\n\nCHUFF先生：我们能否打开PX 01。首先，能否滚动至B，“当前跟踪”。\n\n问：Waller先生（沃勒先生），只是确认我们刚才已经讨论过的内容，在第二段中，您看到B，“当前跟踪研究”，其载明：“承包商将按月向客户就每一名个人对象制作同步跟踪研究报告，但第一个月除外；第一个月应每周提交报告。”因此，再次确认，第一个月每周报告，之后每月一份报告？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在——\n\n答：还有另一个措辞，“每周或每晚直接向客户报告”，是的。\n\n问：但那要求更频繁地报告，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在，如果我们能翻到第3页。我们会再回到交付成果。\n\n答：嗯哼。\n\n问：因此，如果您看屏幕上倒数第二段，标题是“价格”？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：其中写明，每项交付成果A、B和C的价格均为每名对象每年300,000？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：所以再次确认，价格是针对交付成果的，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：然后如果您翻到——\n\n答：我希望修正我先前凭记忆作出的评论。本段内容是正确的。\n\n问：好的。该研究协议还授权双方提前30天发出书面通知终止合同；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：并且允许无因终止？\n\n答：是的。任何一方均可终止。\n\n问：该研究协议还要求Eastern（伊斯特恩）提供$1 million保证金；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：该$1 million保证金并非意在作为签约奖金，对吗？\n\n答：是的，正确。\n\n问：相反，该保证金应由Strategic作为预付款处理，并在合同期满时按比例抵扣，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：该研究协议还授权Eastern指示其他实体向Strategic付款，并且Strategic应将该等付款视为满意的报酬；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：2018年1月2日当日或前后，Strategic从ACA Capital（ACA资本）收到该$1 million保证金；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：那是在研究协议签署前几天？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：当时，Strategic是否说过，哦，不，我们不能接受这笔款项，因为它不是由Eastern支付的？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：随后仅数日后，其签署了研究协议？\n\n答：是的。这是我们与Guo Wengui（郭文贵）先生明确开展的一项工作。\n\n问：直至今日，Strategic尚未退还该保证金；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在，我们稍微谈谈研究协议签署后发生的事件。2018年1月8日，Wang女士（王女士）向Strategic交付了一个USB驱动器，其中载有根据研究协议须调查的15名人员的姓名；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我们能否调出PX07，向证人和法庭展示。Waller先生，您认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：认得。\n\n问：这是根据研究协议须对15个姓名进行研究的名单，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：该名单上的所有人员均为CCP（中国共产党）成员，或者与CCP成员关系密切；是否正确？\n\n答：这是Guo先生告诉我们的，是的。\n\n问：这是您的理解吗？\n\n答：至少几乎所有人都是，是的。\n\n问：您能否指出其中任何并非CCP成员或与CCP成员关系密切的人员？\n\n答：可以。我记得名单上有一人——我得滚动查看名单才能看到他的页面——他是香港警察高级官员。\n\n问：好的。但大多数人——您的理解是，其中大多数人是CCP成员？\n\n答：他们本人、其直系家属或其密切关联人是CCP成员，是的。\n\n问：您和Wallop女士（沃洛普女士）确实着手调查了该名单中的某些或全部人员，对吗？\n\n答：我们着手研究了他们，是的。\n\n问：现在，您自己使用的词是“调查”；不是吗？\n\n答：好的。只要我们牢记对“调查”一词的不同理解，是的。\n\n问：2018年1月初，您前往欧洲和中东聘请某些私家调查员；是否正确？\n\n答：当时我前往了欧洲，并未前往中东。\n\n问：好的。并且Strategic声称其确实聘请了某些私家调查员？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在，您此前确认，Strategic提供的研究成果将通过USB驱动器交付？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Strategic总共交付了两个USB驱动器；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：其中一个驱动器于2018年1月26日交付；是否正确？\n\n答：是的，我相信是26日。\n\n问：另一个于2018年1月30日交付？抱歉，我想我说成了2016年。\n\n答：没关系。我也将其理解为2018年。\n\n问：好的。因此，两个驱动器，一个于2018年1月26日交付，第二个于2018年1月30日交付？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：第一个驱动器，即2018年1月26日交付的驱动器中的信息，对Guo先生或Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）毫无用处，因为其不过是研究人员利用公开来源信息熟悉这15名对象的工作成果；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而2018年1月30日交付的第二个驱动器中的信息，也包含对Eastern无用或无法采取行动的数据；不是吗？\n\n答：不正确。\n\n问：好的。那么我们调出DX23。Waller先生，您认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：我看不见这个。我无法阅读中文，但我认为是的。当然，这是我的。\n\n问：Pyratz是谁？\n\n答：那是我在Signal上的名字。\n\n问：好的。您的短信是浅灰色，也就是两种色调中较浅的那种？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：因此，是底部那条？\n\n答：是的。这是Yvette Wang（王悦薇）发来的，是的。\n\n问：您答复她的询问时说：“这些报告无法据以采取行动，但用于展示工作如何执行。”我读得正确吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。然后，如果我们能翻到Waller先生的第二次证词记录，第11标签，并滚动至第115页。我们看第115页第19行。您看到了吗，Waller先生？\n\n答：还没有。\n\n问：哦，抱歉。请放大一下。请稍微向下滚动至第2行。因此，有人问您：“另一项USB交付成果的性质是什么？”您回答：“它是原始代码。”随后有人问您：“何时进行了交付？”您回答：“2018年1月30日当日或前后。”然后，如果您看同一页第21行，有人问您：“您看到有三个缩进项目，金融、法务、历史研究、当前跟踪研究和社交媒体研究。您看到了吗？”您回答：“是。”我读得正确吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：这三项就是根据研究协议应提供的三类研究成果，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后如果您翻到第116页顶部第2行，有人问您：“完全是代码的第二个USB，是否与这三个主题领域中的任何一个有关？”您回答：“它与三者均有关。让我说，它可能与三者均有关。”我读得正确吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后有人问您：“您所说的‘可能’是什么意思？”您回答：“它仍是加密代码，Wang女士和Guo先生坚持要求我们无论如何都交付。我说，它尚未解密，而他们基本上说，我们不在乎；我们无论如何都要。我们说，在解密之前，它对你们毫无用处。因此，我无论如何还是从他们那里取回了它。”我读得正确吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Waller先生，在您的第二次证词记录中，是否有人向您提出这些问题，且您是否作出了这些回答？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：这些回答真实吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在，该代码是否曾为Eastern Profit解密？\n\n答：我不知道，因为他们——我不知道是否解密过。\n\n问：Strategic是否为Eastern Profit解密了该代码？\n\n答：没有。我把USB驱动器交给了他们。我没有保留副本。该USB驱动器从未返还给我进行解密。\n\n问：所以答案是否定的？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您现在可以把那个放在一边。好的。我们稍微转换一下话题。您是否知道，Strategic在本案中对Eastern Profit提出了欺诈请求？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Strategic主张，Guo先生表示其是一名反对CCP的异见人士，但实际上，他是一名支持CCP的双重间谍。这是否是Strategic指控的性质？\n\n答：不完全是，不是双重间谍，因为那将意味着他是一名被招募的美国特工，被中国共产党策反，或者反之亦然。因此，我不熟悉双重间谍的指控。\n\n问：CCP的支持者？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。因此，他表示自己是一名反对者和异见人士，但您主张他实际上是CCP的支持者？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：作为其欺诈请求的一部分，Strategic主张，如果其知道Guo先生实际上如您所称是CCP的支持者，其绝不会订立研究协议；是否正确？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在，您称Guo先生在离开中国前曾参与CCP内部的权力斗争，并称该事实证明他是CCP的支持者；是否正确？\n\n答：是的，但那是在事后，即合同签署之后。我此前并不知道这一点。\n\n问：好的。事实上，在研究协议签署之前，您实际上已知悉，有些人认为Guo先生仅仅代表CCP内部领导层斗争中的一个派系；不是吗？\n\n答：我知道其他人是这样认为的，是的。我本人并不这样认为。\n\n问：但您知道有些人怀疑这一点？\n\n答：有些人是的。\n\n问：并且，在研究协议签署之前，您还知道有报道称Guo先生的财富归因于\n\n问：与 CCP（中国共产党）的关系，是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且您实际上并未觉得这有什么异常，是吗？\n\n答：以我的工作经验而言，没有。\n\n问：所以，您实际上认为，郭先生据称在离开中国后仍保持联系这一事实，是证明如您所称他仍然是或是 CCP 的支持者的证据吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：所以，在本案中，您的立场并不是，郭先生据称在离开中国后与 CCP 有联系这一事实，是证明他亲 CCP 的证据？\n\n答：这是一个复杂的回答。法官阁下，我可以解释吗？\n\n法庭：我认为可以。\n\n答：好的。多年来，我曾与许多共产主义叛逃者合作，实际上从我在 George Washington University（乔治·华盛顿大学）读本科时起就是如此，其中一些人曾是我的教授。多年来，我了解到，并且通过与美国情报和反情报部门的许多人交谈、学习，我了解到，要明确辨别一个脱离了共产主义体制的人——无论是苏联、中国还是其他体制——是否仍然保持忠诚，是非常困难的。\n\n第225页\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller — 交叉询问\n\n答：现在，他们中的许多人仍会保持联系，因为他们有家人或其他关联；如果他们确实是异见人士或真正的反对者，这些联系就会很有价值，因为他们可以从这些联系中获取对美国有用的信息，以损害他们自己的体制。因此，仅仅因为某人与 CCP 有所谓的“联系”，并不相关。相关的是维持这些联系的意图。在郭先生的案件中，他从一开始就明确表示，而且他对此非常公开，即他是通过中国共产党的机构以及国家安全秘密警察机构逐步上升的。\n\n答：因此，获得像他这样掌握中国共产党整个领导层和秘密警察内部信息的人，是一个有价值的发现，可以将其武器化以对付中国共产党，使其垮台。这就是为什么我觉得与他合作如此吸引人。\n\n问：所以您是说，郭先生与 CCP 成员之间存在联系这一事实，并不是欺诈的证据？\n\n答：我并非有意为难。是哪一种欺诈的证据？\n\n问：您在本案中所主张的欺诈，即郭先生表示自己是 CCP 的反对者，但如您所称，他实际上是支持者？\n\n答：正确。我们所主张的欺诈是，他向我们表示，他是中国共产党的异见人士，并希望推翻整个党。我们在提起诉讼后发现——\n\n问：抱歉——\n\n答：——他支持 Xi Jinping（习近平）。因此，那就是欺诈的证据。\n\n问：我所问的只是，我认为您刚才所说的是，郭先生可能与 CCP 成员有联系这一事实，并不是他亲 CCP 的证据？\n\n答：这不是一个可以用“是”或“否”回答的问题。这取决于这些联系的性质——\n\n问：好的。\n\n答：——以及他的意图。\n\n问：但无论如何——\n\n法庭：所以您的意思是，仅凭某人与中国共产党内部人士存在关系这一证据，本身并不一定表明该人是中国共产党的支持者；还需要其他内容？\n\n证人：是的。正确，法官阁下。\n\nCHUFF 先生询问：\n\n问：现在，无论如何，在签署研究协议之前，您知道郭先生即使在离开中国后，仍与 CCP 高层领导人保持密切联系，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：现在，我想您刚才提到过这一点。Strategic Vision（战略愿景）还指出，郭先生曾经——或者说——与 Ma Jian（马建）的关系，因此 Strategic 还指出郭先生与马建的关系——M-a, J-i-a-n，他是中国国家安全部前负责人——作为郭先生亲 CCP 的证据；是这样吗？\n\n答：不是，马建是国家安全部副部长，不是国家安全部负责人。因此，他是负责外国情报的国家安全部副部长。\n\n问：好的。但 Strategic 主张，他与郭先生的关系是郭先生亲 CCP 的证据；是这样吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：不是吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：我们能否看一下 Waller 先生的第二次证言笔录，我们将看第139页。因此，如果您看一下——我请您注意第139页第18行。律师当时正在宣读 Strategic 的反诉，您被问到：然后看第53段。第53段写道：郭先生的保护人，自约2004年起，是国家安全部副部长马建，直至马建在党内权力斗争中失势后，于2014年12月被逮捕并被开除出党。您看到了吗？您回答：看到了。然后您被问到：Strategic Vision 对该项指称的依据是什么？您回答：郭先生亲自告诉了我们这一点，而且媒体对此有广泛报道。我还要补充——抱歉。我还要补充，这场党内权力斗争很重要，因为那是另一个表明他不是真正异见人士的线索。\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller — 交叉询问\n\n第225页\n\n问：所以，Strategic 再次将郭先生与马建的关系作为他亲 CCP 的证据；是这样吗？\n\n答：不是，这并不准确。我们讨论的是两个不同的时间段。因此，他是与马建一起通过党的机构逐步上升的。当然，他当时亲 CCP。\n\n答：为郭先生赚得财富的马建，随后于2014年前后被逮捕，据我所知并被开除出共产党。这是促使郭先生开始反对 CCP 的触发点。这改变了郭先生与 CCP 的关系性质：从作为工具、某个机构的成员、盟友，或者无论如何，到成为反对者。\n\n答：就在那时——也就是他与 CCP 决裂的那个时候——他才会引起像我这样的人关注，使我愿意帮助他传播他的言论，并推进他的议程，以推翻该党。\n\n问：好的。好。那么，与马建的关系并不是本案中欺诈的证据？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：好的。\n\n答：除非这是一种持续的关系，当然，那就要取决于该持续关系的性质。\n\n问：但您并未主张存在持续关系？\n\n答：我没有——我相信存在这种关系，但我认为它不是起诉书的一部分。\n\n问：现在，您还称，在2017年5月的一次会面中，郭先生在其家中会见某些 CCP 成员，这是郭先生亲 CCP 的又一证据；这正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但同样地，您在签订研究协议之前就知道这次会面，对吗？\n\n答：不，我是在他提起诉讼后才知道的。\n\n问：好的。我们能看一下 DX34 吗？现在，这份标记为 DX34 的文件列在 Strategic 的证物清单上。您会看到，这是一篇 Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）文章，题为“中国追捕逃亡商人 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），引发一场堪比间谍惊悚片的曼哈顿事件”。如果我们稍微向下滚动，日期是 2017年10月22日。因此，该文章的日期在签署研究协议之前，正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且它是公开可获得的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。如果我们看第1页和第一段：Guo Wengui，一名富有的中国商人，坐在纽约第五大道 Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里荷兰酒店）18层公寓的阳光房内。与他在一起的是四名中国国家安全部官员，郭先生已同意与他们会面。\n\n问：然后，如果您看第3段，其中写道：据郭先生称，Liu Yen Ping（刘延平）是一名联盟官员，他在郭先生称其制作的一段关于5月会面的部分录音中说，他们是代表北京而来寻求解决方案的。您在签署研究协议之前并不知道这件事？\n\n答：是，我知道这篇文章，而且事实上，郭先生向我们解释了那次来访。\n\n问：Waller 先生，我只是问，您是否知道这次来访？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。\n\n答：但我要说，这又回到了关系的性质，因为我知道这次会面。我不知道——\n\n问：Waller 先生，Waller 先生。目前没有待回答的问题，您会有机会的。\n\n答：好。\n\n问：现在，尽管知道这一切，Strategic 仍然与 Eastern Profit（东方利润）签订了研究协议；这正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，Strategic 并未要求 Eastern 在研究协议中作出书面陈述，说明郭先生是一名反对 CCP 的中国异见人士，对吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：好的。我们稍微换个话题。那么，在这个项目中，您和 Wallop 女士同意将根据研究协议获得的利润按 50/50 分配；这正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，您对利润的理解是收入减去费用，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，您还就某些费用获得了单独报销；这正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，您的那一半利润，在该范围内，是 \\$265,000；对吗？\n\n答：不是，那并非全部是利润。其中包括费用。\n\n问：那么让我们看您的证言笔录，即您的第二次证言笔录，Waller 2，第66页。因此，如果您看第66页第20行，您被问到：大致而言，Strategic 就该合同支出了多少费用？您回答：这个问题最好问我的同事，但我可以通过反向推理告诉您，我那一半的余额约为250。您被问到：所以您那一半的收入是 250,000？您回答：是。Waller 先生，您记得在证言笔录中被问到这些问题并作出这些回答吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：而且那些回答是真实的？\n\n答：那些回答是真实的，但对此还有——还有补充。\n\n问：那是一个真实的陈述？\n\n答：那是一个真实的陈述，但它们并非全部是利润。并非全部是余额。我用自己的私人资金解决了某些未结事项。\n\n问：您是否提交了这些未结事项的任何文件？\n\n答：那些费用由我自己承担了。\n\n问：因此，记录中没有任何证据能够显示这些费用？\n\n答：我认为没有。\n\n问：我们能否看这份证言笔录的同一第182页。经过进一步询问后，我们又回到了这个问题，您在第8行被问到：因此，您个人获得的付款总额最终为 275,000；这正确吗？您回答：是这样加起来的吗？您被问到：那么我们再算一遍。因此，来自 Psyber Solutions（赛博解决方案）的有200，对吗？来自 Oceanic Advisors（海洋顾问）的 50,000。所以我们是250，对吗？您回答：是，265，听起来更准确。然后您被问到：265，这与您的记忆一致吗？您回答：对。这就是为什么我之前在说约250时作了更正。那是——\n\n1 估算。\n\n2 所以，你更正了你所分得的余额部分不是250，而实际上是265；对吗？\n\n3 是。\n\n问：如果我们可以打开审前命令活页夹。请原谅，\n\n4 Strategic（战略公司）的事实认定部分，我们看第23页，\n\n5 第——是的，就在这里。那么这里有七个类别。\n\n6 第一个，French（弗伦奇）的业务费用分摊，我们\n\n7 今天上午已经谈过了。第二个，Michael Waller（迈克尔·沃勒）\n\n8 的个人分摊，2018年1月为200,000，2018年\n\n9 6月为50,000。然后是第三个类别，通过Georgetown Research（乔治城研究公司）\n\n10 支付给Waller的差旅费，为$25,000。\n\n11 然后，如果你看最后一个类别，Georgetown\n\n12 Research，2018年5月为$15,000。你看到了吗？\n\n13 是。\n\n问：所以，你有第二个类别，即Michael Waller的\n\n14 个人分摊，200,000和50,000，即250,000，然后\n\n15 2018年5月Georgetown Research为15,000。这就是我们刚才\n\n16 谈到的265，对吗？\n\n17 是。\n\n问：然后是第三个类别，它以“差旅”一词\n\n18 开头；你看到了吗？\n\n19 是。\n\n问：因此，除265之外，你还获得了\n\n20 $25,000，用于你的差旅费用？\n\n21 是。\n\n问：现在，在案卷中，你提交了三张据称\n\n22 详细列明你在本案中费用的发票；对吗？\n\n23 是。\n\n问：好的。我们来看这些。如果可以打开\n\n24 DX58。\n\nCHUFF先生：法官阁下，还有一点程序性事项，\n\n25 我提交DX34的唯一目的是证明其所载内容，而非证明\n\n26 所陈述事项的真实性。我希望接下来会谈到该问题。\n\n法院：好的。那么该证物为该有限\n\n27 目的而接纳，但须服从删除动议。\n\n28 我理解，对该文章的真实性或\n\n29 日期没有异议？\n\nGREIM先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n30 （被告方证物DX34作为证据接纳）\n\nCHUFF先生询问：\n\n31 问：DX58，这是否是你提交的发票之一，\n\n32 即你本人，Waller先生，向Georgetown Research\n\n33 提交以报销你的费用的发票？\n\n34 是。\n\n问：下面的总额写的是$3,037.50？\n\n35 是。\n\n问：但随后又减去$464.30？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记公司，P.C.）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n36 是。\n\n问：你看到了吗？\n\n37 是。\n\n问：那是因为Delta（达美航空）就某次航班向你\n\n38 退还了一些钱吗？\n\n39 是一次被取消的航空航班，是的。\n\n问：对。因此，该发票的总额是$2,573.20？\n\n40 是。\n\n问：对吗？\n\n41 是。\n\n问：然后，如果我们看——\n\nCHUFF先生：实际上，法官阁下，我们能否将其作为\n\n42 证据提交？\n\n法院：接纳，但须服从删除动议。\n\n43 （被告方证物DX58作为证据接纳）\n\nCHUFF先生询问：\n\n44 问：现在，如果我们可以调出DX59。Waller先生，\n\n45 这是否是你本人于2018年2月27日向\n\n46 你的公司Georgetown Research提交的费用发票？\n\n47 是。\n\n问：其底部的总金额是$6,890.06？\n\n48 是。\n\nCHUFF先生：好的。法官阁下，我也将其作为\n\n49 证据提交。\n\n法院：同样裁定。予以接纳，但须服从\n\n50 删除动议。\n\n51 （被告方证物DX59作为证据接纳）\n\nCHUFF先生询问：\n\n52 问：然后请打开DX60，好吗？这同样是\n\n53 你本人向你的公司Georgetown\n\n54 Research提交的第三张发票；对吗？\n\n55 是。\n\n问：该总额是$1,053.79？\n\n56 是。\n\n问：好的。现在，我们可以计算，但我仅陈述\n\n57 该金额的总额仅为$10,000——\n\n58 $10,517.05，而这三张是你为证明你在本诉讼中的\n\n59 成本所提交的仅有三张发票；对吗？\n\n60 是。\n\n问：因此，$25,000中的一部分，大致上，约$15,000，\n\n61 实际上并未分配给费用，对吗？它更多是\n\n62 利润？\n\n63 不，那不是真的。\n\n问：案卷中是否有任何文件表明其\n\n64 被分配给一项费用？\n\n65 没有。法官阁下，如果我可以解释一下，澄清一下？\n\n66 否则，我会等待。\n\n问：不。\n\n法院：你可以。\n\n第225页\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller（沃勒）—交叉询问\n\n问：采购？\n\n答：鉴于欧洲和亚洲研究团队的性质，为确保我们为履行合同而进行的某些电子采购不存在电子签名痕迹，我们以现金支付了许多物品。\n\n我最终从这些账户中以现金支付了这些款项，但当然，没有记录可证明这一点。因此，我们会计算所花费的现金，并且——并承担就此缴纳税款的责任，即该金额的32%。你必须加上税收差额，这涵盖了我们为确保某些电子产品采购不可追踪而必须支付的现金款项成本。\n\n问：但你没有保留那些电子采购的任何收据？\n\n答：那样做会违背以该方式处理的目的。\n\n问：好的。\n\n法院：抱歉，当你购买电子产品时，你所购买的供应商不会生成记录吗？\n\n证人：是的，他们会出具收据。但当你进行电子采购时，该信息会进入数据库，而且有人担心中国情报机构能够访问如此多的美国数据库，以致可能存在追踪，将交易与电子设备上的序列号关联起来，而后可追溯至进行电子研究工作的研究团队。因此，我们希望排除发生这种情况的任何可能性。\n\nL4JPEAS6 Waller（沃勒）—复询问 第225页\n\n法院：而当供应商有关于其将电子产品出售给何人的记录时，不会引起这种担忧吗？\n\n证人：不会——他们开具了收据，但我没有保留收据，以防止留下任何纸面痕迹。因此，这是Guo先生支付的固定费率的一部分，我们从该固定费率中收回了这些费用。\n\nCHUFF先生：那么，法官阁下，目前我们没有更多问题。我们仅保留一些时间用于再次交叉询问。\n\n法院：我们何不先开始进行五分钟的询问，然后今天就休庭。\n\nChuff先生，我们在等候，我想我没有收到针对Waller先生的原告方证物活页夹。显然，我现在不需要它，但把它放在法官席上会有用。\n\n好的。Greim先生，你可以询问。\n\n复询问\n\nGREIM先生询问：\n\n问：Waller博士，如同我们对Wallop女士所做的那样，我将先进一步询问一些关于你的背景情况。你能说说你的教育背景吗？\n\n答：我在George Washington University（乔治·华盛顿大学）获得了国际关系学学士学位，主修苏联研究；在Boston University（波士顿大学）获得国际关系与传播学硕士学位，师从一名苏联集团叛逃者；随后在Boston University获得国际安全事务博士学位。\n\n问：该教育中的任何部分是否涉及你实际前往海外从事那里的工作？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是什么工作？\n\n答：我——就其学术方面、研究生学习而言，我经常前往苏联，撰写关于苏联解体——正在成为的苏联解体——的论文，重点关注苏联安全和情报部门。在那里，我开始与俄罗斯境内的民主地下反对派运动合作。\n\n问：苏联解体时你在那里吗？\n\n答：是。我在Boris Yeltsin（鲍里斯·叶利钦）使俄罗斯脱离USSR（苏联）的那天身处Kremlin（克里姆林宫）。\n\n问：你目前的工作是什么？\n\n答：我是Center for Security Policy（安全政策中心）的战略高级分析师。\n\n问：CSP是什么，如果我们可以这么称呼它？\n\n答：它是一家位于Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的智库。\n\n问：它关注什么？\n\n答：它关注国防、国家安全、外交政策、反恐。\n\n问：你在那里受雇多久了？\n\n答：断断续续约20年。\n\n问：除此之外，你做过其他事情吗，比如教学？\n\n答：是。我担任了13年的正教授。我曾任Institute of World Politics（世界政治研究所）的Annenberg Chair（安嫩伯格讲席）、国际传播学教授；该研究所是华盛顿的一所研究生院。我负责一个关于国际宣传和心理行动经济研究的项目。\n\n问：抱歉。请继续。\n\n答：请原谅。然后，我曾为Naval Postgraduate School（海军研究生院）和U.S. Army（美国陆军）担任合同讲师，为部署前团队讲授心理行动和信息行动。\n\n随后，我为Fort Bragg（布拉格堡）U.S. Army Special Forces（美国陆军特种部队）的Fourth Psychological Operations Group（第四心理行动大队）制定了关于分化行动的课程。我目前是John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School（约翰·F·肯尼迪特种作战中心和学校）的合同讲师。\n\n问：那么你说的是分化行动，这是否以任何方式与你在2017年12月同Guo讨论的内容有关？\n\n答：是的，这正是我当时在做的事情。\n\n问：你写过任何书籍或文章吗？\n\n答：写过。\n\n问：一般而言——不必为我们逐一列举——但一般而言，你写过哪些主题？\n\n答：关于共产主义政治体制、国际共产主义政治体制、共产党和国际有组织犯罪、俄罗斯和中国情报机构及行动，以及政治战中有关心理行动和信息行动的相关领域。\n\nL4JPEAS6\n\nWaller（沃勒）—复询问\n\n问：现在，你是否拥有自己的任何商业实体？\n\n答：是。我有一家名为Liberty Tree Partners（自由树合伙企业）的LLC（有限责任公司），并且我仍然拥有Georgetown Research。\n\n问：好的。那么Oceanic Advisors（大洋顾问公司）呢？你还拥有该实体吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：它们从事何种工作——三家是否，或者我想——Oceanic已经没有了。但它们是否都从事同类工作？\n\n答：没有。我设立了若干LLC作为中转实体，以使外部人士更难发现——例如，就与Guo先生合作一事而言，一组中转实体，即由我拥有或由他人拥有、但由我控制的组织，用于匿名化付款，保护客户。\n\n目前，Liberty Tree Partners只是一家一般用途LLC，而Georgetown Research是一家研究公司。\n\n问：好的。你说它是一家研究公司。你为Georgetown从事过何种工作？\n\n答：嗯，我们开始为我们现在谈到的这份合同提供服务。我曾就采矿、政治反对派研究、私人公司感兴趣的某些地缘政治问题，以及某些西半球问题和与威胁分析有关的问题进行调查研究。\n\n问：在你拥有Georgetown之前，你是否曾以Liberty Tree或Oceanic名义进行类似类型的研究？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Waller博士，你是否曾取得PI（私人调查员）执照？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你的任何客户是否曾要求查验你作为私人调查员的执照？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你是否曾考虑取得私人调查员执照？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：我们快速谈谈这里的Guo项目。你是否——\n\n法院：Greim先生，听起来我们要转入一条新的询问线；因此，如果可以的话，我们今天就休庭，明天上午9:30再开庭。\n\n我要求各方尽量在9:30前一点到达，或确保你们已在法庭内，准备开始——这也包括你，Waller先生——Waller博士——以便我们明天上午9:30准时开始。\n\n很好。各位晚上愉快。\n\n（休庭至2021年4月20日上午9:30）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记公司，P.C.）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n第225页，共225页\n\n1 询问索引\n\n2 询问人员：\n页码\n3 FRENCH WALLOP（弗伦奇·沃洛普）\n4 由 Cline 女士（克莱因女士）交叉询问 33\n5 由 Greim 先生（格赖姆先生）复询\n. 120\n6 由 Cline 女士再次交叉询问 168\n7 由 Greim 先生复询\n. 179\n8 J. MICHAEL WALLER（J. 迈克尔·沃勒）\n9 由 Chuff 先生（查夫先生）交叉询问 180\n10 由 Greim 先生复询\n. 218\n11 原告证物\n12 证物编号\n收取\n13 PX2\n.63\n14 PX1\n.69\n15 PX7\n.79\n16 24\n. 104\n17 22 和 23\n. 107\n18 29\n. 109\n19 被告证物\n20 证物编号\n收取\n21 DX38\n.58\n22 DX39\n.60\n23 DX8\n.80\n24 DX43\n.84\n25 DX62\n. 130\n\n共 225 页\n\n1 DX16 和 DX17 . 159\n\n19 . 162\nDX34 . 214\nDX58 . 215\n5 DX59 . 216","key_entities":["Guo","Je","CCP","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA","William Je","Kwok","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":362,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":61985,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-25","updated_at":"2026-08-24 00:12:37"}