{"id":"court_ctb_2032_61","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2032,"sub_number":61,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-07-25","title":"Exhibit 61 | | Case 22-50073
Case 1:18-cv-02185-LJL
Doc 2032-61
Filed 07/25/23
Document 364
243SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | |\n| 2
3 | ------------------------------x
EASTERN PROFIT CORPORATION
LIMITED, | |\n| 4 | Plaintiff, | |\n| 5
6 | v. | 18 CV 2185 (LJL) |\n| 7 | STRATEGIC VISION US LLC, | |\n| | Defendant. | |\n| 8
9 | ------------------------------x | |\n| | | New York, N.Y.
April 20, 2021 |\n| | | 9:39 a.m. |\n| | Before: | |\n| | HON. LEWIS J. LIMAN, | |\n| | | District Judge |\n| | APPEARANCES | |\n| | TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
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(Trial resumed)\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\nTHE COURT: Good morning, everybody. COUNSEL: Good morning, your Honor. THE WITNESS: Good morning.\n\nTHE COURT: Before we resume testimony, I received a couple of letters overnight from the defendant, and let me address them.\n\nFirst, there is an objection to one exhibit, it's PX 67. I understood that that was not being offered into evidence; in fact, it wasn't offered into evidence, and so, to the extent that there's an objection to PX 67, the objection is moot because the exhibit is not in evidence.\n\nWith respect to the remainder of the exhibits that were offered yesterday, which were received all subject to a motion to strike, there was no motion to strike last night as to any of the other exhibits, so all of those exhibits that were offered yesterday are received without objection subject, in some instances, they are received for the limited purpose that was reflected in the record.\n\nThe second issue that I wanted to address is the issue that was raised in the letter last night with respect to one of the witnesses who sent a letter to the Court indicating that the witness feared for his safety if he was going to testify in this courthouse. The parties should know -- well, first of all, I understand that there's no request by either side for 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n243\n\nrelief at this point with respect to that letter. Is that right, Mr. Greim? 1 2\n\nL4KKEAS1\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\nMR. GREIM: That is correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And, Ms. Cline, is that also correct? MS. CLINE: Yes, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: So, the parties should know, I don't know whether there's substance to the letter or not. There are no facts that are in evidence before me that indicate whether there's substance to that letter or not, but there are a couple of principles that should reassure the parties.\n\nFirst of all, with respect to any testimony that takes place in this courthouse, and in this courtroom, I've got control over it, over the security here, we've got court security officers, and the parties and the witnesses should be reassured that they will not be harassed or threatened, at least in this courtroom, for any of their testimony.\n\nSecond, I would instruct the parties — and, Mr. Greim, I would ask you to convey it to the witness — that if there are any specific threats rather than the generalized statement, they should bring it to the attention of the Court, and there are ways that the Court can address those, again, without opining as to whether there's substance to the specificity of the threat or not.\n\nThe third point — and this was raised with respect to one of the witnesses that the plaintiff mentioned to me — where\n\nL4KKEAS1\n\n25\n\nthere was a request for a way to enter the court, especially through the special entrance. I denied that request, and I denied it because there is no specificity, there was no particular reason that I found convincing, for the need for that witness to enter through a special entrance. But if there is a threat to somebody, or somebody feels threatened, entering this courthouse, such that they would be deterred from testifying, bring that to my attention, and we can deal with it. There are ways that people can enter the courthouse without having to be confronted by people who they may believe to be threatening to them. This is not the first case in which there are communications like the one that I received, it will not be the last one, and if there is a courthouse in this country that is capable of dealing with these issues, and dealing with them in a way that should make the witnesses feel comfortable, as comfortable as possible, it's this courthouse. So, with that said, is there anything with respect to that letter that we should addressing, Mr. Greim? MR. GREIM: No, your Honor, there really isn't. I just felt I should pass it along to the Court, but I think things stand where they were before. THE COURT: Okay. Very well. Ms. Cline? MS. CLINE: Nothing from us, your Honor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nTHE COURT: And, Ms. Cline, anything else we should\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | address this morning before we resume with the testimony? |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
No.
We're prepared to proceed. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Anything from the defense? |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
No, your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then we will resume. |\n| 6 | Mr. Waller, you're reminded that you are still under |\n| 7 | oath. |\n| 8 | Mr. Greim, you may inquire. |\n| 9 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) |\n| 10 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 11 | Q.
Good morning, Mr. Waller.
I want to start where we were |\n| 12 | just about to go yesterday, and I want to address your |\n| 13 | testimony about Mr. Broidy. |\n| 14 | Do you recall that at some point yesterday? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And do you recall testifying as to your understanding about |\n| 17 | what Mr. Broidy had pled to? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Now, yesterday you were not presented with the actual |\n| 20 | statement and facts to which Mr. Broidy pled to, were you? |\n| 21 | A.
No. |\n| 22 | Q.
Or the charging document? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
Is your understanding of what he was charged with and pled |\n| 25 | to based on media accounts? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A. | Yes. |\n| | | |\n| 2 | Q. | But, nonetheless, I assume that you have followed those? |\n| 3 | A. | Yes. |\n| 4 | Q. | Let me ask you, what is your understanding of when |\n| 5 | | Mr. Broidy was charged relating to the matter you testified |\n| 6 | | about yesterday? |\n| 7 | A. | My understanding is he was charged in the fall of 2020. |\n| 8 | Q. | Okay.
And what's your understanding about when he pled? |\n| 9 | A. | He pled shortly after that, in the fall -- later in the |\n| 10 | | fall of 2020. |\n| 11 | Q. | Do you have any understanding about whether he was pardoned |\n| 12 | | for that? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes, he was. |\n| 14 | Q. | And it was a federal offense, correct? |\n| 15 | A. | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q. | So do you know who pardoned him? |\n| 17 | A. | The president. |\n| 18 | Q. | What is your understanding of the federal statute that he |\n| 19 | | was charged with violating? |\n| 20 | A. | He was charged with violating the Foreign Agents |\n| 21 | | Registration Act. |\n| 22 | Q. | Is that also known -- have you heard that called FARA, or |\n| 23 | FARA? | |\n| 24 | A. | Yes. |\n| 25 | Q. | Do you have some understanding of what FARA requires? |\n| | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
What is that? |\n| 3 | A.
In general, in my layman's understanding, it's representing |\n| 4 | a foreign entity or person for the purposes of influencing the |\n| 5 | U.S. Government without registering with the Justice |\n| 6 | Department. |\n| 7 | Q.
Do you understand which foreign person Mr. Broidy was |\n| 8 | charged with representing without registration? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Who or what was that? |\n| 11 | A.
He was a national of Malaysia. |\n| 12 | Q.
Do you understand whether Mr. Broidy was charged with or |\n| 13 | pled to conspiring with the PRC? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
Or the CCP? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Now, you also testified yesterday that -- well, actually,
Q. |\n| 18 | let me take that back. |\n| 19 | Were you present when Ms. Wallop testified that she |\n| 20 | had conferred with you before taking on accepting third-party |\n| 21 | funding in this matter? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And did she, in fact, confer with you? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And do you recall when that was? |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
That was in the early summer of 2019. |\n| 2 | Q.
That was before this law firm was retained? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
I'm going to ask you a few questions about that, |\n| 5 | Mr. Waller, and I am just going to ask you -- these questions |\n| 6 | are all designed not to elicit attorney-client privileged |\n| 7 | communications, and so I will stop you if you do that, but that |\n| 8 | is not my intent, we do not waive any attorney-client or work |\n| 9 | product privilege.
I'm going to ask you solely about |\n| 10 | communications with people who are not lawyers.
Okay? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Now, when Ms. Wallop asked for your advice, did you do |\n| 13 | anything to -- well, let me ask you:
Did you ultimately make a |\n| 14 | recommendation to Ms. Wallop? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes, I did. |\n| 16 | Q.
And did you do anything to inform yourself before making |\n| 17 | that recommendation? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
What did you do? |\n| 20 | A.
I asked around about Mr. Broidy and his work, and I flew to |\n| 21 | Los Angeles to meet with him in person. |\n| 22 | Q.
What did you discuss generally with Mr. Broidy? |\n| 23 | A.
Generally discussed a range of issues, but with relating to |\n| 24 | this case.
I asked him about his controversial work in |\n| 25 | relation to this Guo matter. |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
What did Mr. Broidy tell you he had done with respect to |\n| 2 | just the overall Guo matter? |\n| 3 | A.
He said that it was all in the context of getting three |\n| 4 | American prisoners released from Communist China. |\n| 5 | Q.
Was there anything about those prisoners that Mr. Broidy |\n| 6 | said motivated him in particular? |\n| 7 | A.
There was one -- there was a woman who was a prisoner, and |\n| 8 | she was pregnant at the time. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did Mr. Broidy tell you whether before doing the things |\n| 10 | that he was charged with, or at least some of those things, did |\n| 11 | he tell you whether he had himself investigated whether Mr. Guo |\n| 12 | Wengui was a dissident? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
What did he say he had done? |\n| 15 | A.
He said that Guo Wengui was a part of the Chinese Communist |\n| 16 | Chinese Party. |\n| 17 | MR. CHUFF:
Sorry.
Objection; hearsay. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I'm going to receive it not for the truth, |\n| 19 | but for the fact that it was said as part of the due diligence |\n| 20 | into Mr. Broidy. |\n| 21 | You may proceed. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Mr. Broidy told me that he found that Guo Wengui was |\n| 24 | part of a losing battle in a Chinese Communist Party faction |\n| 25 | fight, and this was a fight over the spoils and political |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | infighting, and that he was not indeed a dissident. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did you ask Mr. Broidy whether he had done any |\n| 3 | investigation into whether Mr. Guo Wengui was an asset to the |\n| 4 | United States for intelligence purposes? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And what did he say he had done? |\n| 7 | A.
Mr. Broidy said -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Again, I'm receiving all of this not for |\n| 9 | the truth, but for the fact that this conversation took place. |\n| 10 | Q.
What did Mr. Broidy tell you he had done? |\n| 11 | A.
He said that he checked with his U.S. Intelligence contacts |\n| 12 | and said that he ascertained absolutely that Guo Wengui was |\n| 13 | not, and had not ever been, an asset to the United States |\n| 14 | Government. |\n| 15 | Q.
Now, did you do any -- well, let me ask you this:
Were |\n| 16 | Mr. Broidy's statements to you consistent with any other |\n| 17 | investigation you had been doing up to that point? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, they were consistent with my own investigations of the |\n| 19 | past -- of the previous 13 months or so.
I had found the exact |\n| 20 | similar information. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, you said the past 13 months.
So, when did you start |\n| 22 | your own efforts to dig into Mr. Guo Wengui's background? |\n| 23 | A.
On a really solid scale, it was right after he filed suit |\n| 24 | in May of 2019.
Pardon me, May of 2018. |\n| 25 | Q.
Okay.
Just generally speaking — and, again, do not |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | disclose communications with your attorneys, okay — I would |\n| 2 | like to ask you, just generally speaking, what categories of |\n| 3 | things you did to investigate Mr. Guo's background after you |\n| 4 | were sued? |\n| 5 | A.
I -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
What's the purpose of this testimony? |\n| 7 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I simply want to show the |\n| 8 | basis for Mr. Waller's recommendation on the third-party |\n| 9 | funding.
The whole relevance, the reason we got into this in |\n| 10 | the first place, was that Strategic's decision to do this was |\n| 11 | not credible, and that it -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I'll receive it for that limited purpose. |\n| 13 | I assume you're not going to spend all that much time on it? |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
No, I'm not.
We're just about done, |\n| 15 | actually. |\n| 16 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 17 | If you could, Dr. Waller — we'll get into other evidence
Q. |\n| 18 | later — I just want to know the categories of the things that |\n| 19 | you did. |\n| 20 | A.
I had open source research done by Mandarin-speaking people |\n| 21 | to look at -- to listen to recordings and watch videos of Guo |\n| 22 | and recordings that Guo had made of himself threatening Chinese |\n| 23 | dissidents in America. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay.
And what else did you do? |\n| 25 | A.
The same with recordings of him meeting with senior Chinese |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | secret police officials in his home and statements of him -- |\n| 2 | recorded video statements of him supporting Xi Jinping, the |\n| 3 | Chinese Communist Party leader, just two weeks before he sought |\n| 4 | American political asylum. |\n| 5 | Q.
Other than that investigation, did you make any contact |\n| 6 | with the United States Government? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes, I did. |\n| 8 | Q.
What did -- generally, who did you contact? |\n| 9 | A.
I contacted two FBI field offices and informed them that I |\n| 10 | was a witness in a case -- |\n| 11 | MR. CHUFF:
Objection, your Honor.
At the deposition, |\n| 12 | he refused to answer this question. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Is that right, Mr. Greim? |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
You know, actually, I can't remember, but |\n| 15 | I'm happy to withdraw it.
I don't want to spend -- it's not a |\n| 16 | critical issue. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
The question is withdrawn. |\n| 18 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 19 | Q.
So, is it fair to say, Dr. Waller, that as a result of all |\n| 20 | this investigation, you made a recommendation to Ms. Wallop? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes.
After I was conclusively convinced that Guo was not |\n| 22 | an asset and that pursuing this case would not harm any U.S. |\n| 23 | national interests. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay.
Let's go back now, Dr. Waller, to your relationship |\n| 25 | with Strategic Vision. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Had you done work with Strategic Vision before this |\n| 2 | project? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
And what did you do? |\n| 5 | A.
I did two other projects with them.
One was ghostwriting, |\n| 6 | and the other one was research on a strategic issue. |\n| 7 | Q.
What is the nature of your relationship with French Wallop? |\n| 8 | A.
We have known each other for between 30 and 35 years |\n| 9 | once -- after I was sentenced after I knew members of her |\n| 10 | husband's staff in the sentence. |\n| 11 | Now let's skip ahead.
Q.
Did you come to learn at some point |\n| 12 | from Ms. Wallop about a possible project for Guo Wengui? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
When was that? |\n| 15 | A.
That was in the fall of 2017, November. |\n| 16 | Q.
Did you attend any meetings after that? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
What was the first meeting you attended? |\n| 19 | A.
The first meeting I attended was at her house with a |\n| 20 | journalist, Bill Gertz, who I had also known for about 35 |\n| 21 | years, and with Lianchao Han. |\n| 22 | Q.
Tell us about your background with Mr. Gertz. |\n| 23 | A.
I first met Bill Gertz when he became a national security |\n| 24 | reporter with the Washington Times in the mid-1980s, and I had |\n| 25 | been a source of information for him, and we'd engaged on many |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | projects together, including setting up the Blue Team on China |\n| 2 | in the 1990s. |\n| 3 | Q.
I'm sorry, what is \"the Blue Team\"? |\n| 4 | A.
The Blue Team was a group of American policy experts and |\n| 5 | strategists who had a common interest in undermining the |\n| 6 | Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did you believe that Gertz was an honest person? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did you believe that he was diligent? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did you believe that he was a -- well, are you familiar |\n| 12 | with the term \"China hawk\"? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
What do you understand that to mean, just in common |\n| 15 | parlance? |\n| 16 | A.
Well, we were all China hawks.
That means we took a |\n| 17 | hawkish aggressive stance towards the Chinese Communist Party |\n| 18 | with sort of a very tough stance against the Chinese Communist |\n| 19 | Party. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did you understand whether Gertz was a China hawk? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Let's move to Lianchao Han, who you also mentioned. |\n| 23 | Describe your relationship -- just tell me, did you |\n| 24 | know Lianchao before this meeting? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
What did you know about him? |\n| 2 | A.
I knew -- I had met him numerous times.
I didn't know him |\n| 3 | well at the time, but we shared the same China hawk and human |\n| 4 | rights networks.
He had worked for a senator, who I knew for |\n| 5 | years and had confidence in him and his judgment of people, but |\n| 6 | most important, we had the same -- we found out we had the same |\n| 7 | Chinese mentor, a man named Bernie Yo, who had fought the |\n| 8 | Japanese in World War II and who fought Mao Zedong right after |\n| 9 | the Chinese Communist Revolution. |\n| 10 | So Bernie took me under his wing when I was a kid, and |\n| 11 | he took Lianchao under his wing when Lianchao came to the U.S. |\n| 12 | after Tiananmen Square. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did you have trust in Lianchao Han as a China hawk? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did you have trust in him as someone who was credible? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | By the way, who was that senator that you mentioned?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. |\n| 19 | Q.
In this initial meeting, what did Gertz say about Guo and |\n| 20 | what Guo needed? |\n| 21 | A.
He said that Guo Wengui was a dissident who broke with the |\n| 22 | Chinese Communist Party, considered himself the number one |\n| 23 | enemy of the Chinese Communist Party, and wanted to devote his |\n| 24 | resources to undermining it and causing it to collapse. |\n| 25 | Q.
Did he give you anything specific about what Guo wanted |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | from you? |\n| | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes.
He said that Guo was engaged in what he called a |\n| 3 | whistleblowers revolution, or whistleblower campaign, which was |\n| 4 | to expose the internal contradictions of the Chinese Communist |\n| 5 | leadership to cause it to collapse under its own |\n| 6 | contradictions. |\n| 7 | Q.
What about Lianchao, did he tell you anything different? |\n| 8 | A.
He told me essentially the same. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did there come a time when you went to meet Guo? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And do you recall when that was? |\n| 12 | A.
That was in late November 2017. |\n| 13 | Q.
What did you do to prepare for that meeting? |\n| 14 | A.
French Wallop and I worked with Lianchao to understand what |\n| 15 | Guo wanted, what he needed done.
Lianchao was acting as a |\n| 16 | helper to Guo and an advocate for Guo, so he knew what was in |\n| 17 | Guo's mind.
So we fashioned together a vision statement of |\n| 18 | what we thought could be done to assist him in taking down the |\n| 19 | Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 20 | MR. GREIM:
Can you put up Exhibit 38, Defense |\n| 21 | Exhibit 38, please. |\n| 22 | Q.
While we're doing that, Dr. Waller, I have another |\n| 23 | question.
Before this meeting, did you learn of Mr. Guo's |\n| 24 | connection with any other high-profile members in the China |\n| 25 | hawk group? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
He had a connection with Steve Bannon. |\n| 2 | Q.
How -- was that significant to you in any way? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, not because I personally trust Bannon's judgment, but |\n| 4 | I knew Steve Bannon to be a China hawk who had an |\n| 5 | influential -- he was an influential opinion shaper. |\n| 6 | Q.
At this time, what did you know about Guo's connection with |\n| 7 | Bannon? |\n| 8 | A.
I knew there was a -- I knew vaguely that there was a |\n| 9 | connection and that they were meeting, but I didn't know the |\n| 10 | extent beyond that at the time. |\n| 11 | Q.
Now let's turn to the exhibit we put in front of you.
This |\n| 12 | is Defense Exhibit 38.
We received this yesterday as a |\n| 13 | plaintiff's exhibit. |\n| 14 | Do you recognize this document? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
Is this the document you just told us about that you |\n| 17 | prepared with Lianchao Han? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
I'll move to admit it, just so that we |\n| 20 | have -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
It's in evidence. |\n| 22 | MR. GREIM:
It's in?
Okay. |\n| 23 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 24 | Q.
You'll see in the first line, it says, \"This is a vision |\n| 25 | for Mr. G\" -- did you mean Mr. Guo there? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A. | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q. | -- \"to remain safely in this country and accomplish his |\n| 3 | | mission back home.\" |\n| 4 | | Did I read that right? |\n| 5 | A. | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q. | Is that consistent with your understanding of what Guo |\n| 7 | | wanted to do at this time? |\n| 8 | A. | Yes. |\n| 9 | Q. | Now, it says \"remain safely in this country.\"
Let me ask |\n| 10 | | you, did you understand whether Guo had sought any kind of |\n| 11 | | permanent status here? |\n| 12 | A. | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q. | What had he done? |\n| 14 | A. | He had sought political asylum in September of 2017. |\n| 15 | Q. | And who told you that? |\n| 16 | A. | Lianchao Han and Bill Gertz. |\n| 17 | Q. | Did Lianchao Han tell you whether he had any role in that |\n| 18 | | asylum application? |\n| 19 | A. | Yes. |\n| 20 | Q. | What did he say he was doing? |\n| 21 | A. | He said that he had a legal background, and as a native |\n| 22 | | speaker of Mandarin, was helping Guo to apply or had helped Guo |\n| 23 | | to apply. |\n| 24 | Q. | Now, at this time, at this meeting, in late November, was |\n| 25 | | there any discussion about you being hired to do an |\n| | | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | investigation? |\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
Did Mr. Guo appear to disagree with any of the statements |\n| 4 | listed in Exhibit 38? |\n| 5 | A.
No. |\n| 6 | Q.
And let me back up a second.
I didn't ask you this:
Who |\n| 7 | was at this meeting with Mr. Guo? |\n| 8 | A.
At that meeting were French Wallop, Lianchao Han, Mr. Guo — |\n| 9 | we were in the meeting together — and Bill Gertz. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Dr. Waller, was this document, DX 38, |\n| 11 | provided to Mr. Guo in advance, or was it provided to him at |\n| 12 | the meeting for him to read?
How was it disseminated to him? |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
We handed it to him at the meeting in a |\n| 14 | paper form. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Did you see him read it at the meeting? |\n| 16 | How was it used? |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, he read it, but he needed help from |\n| 18 | Lianchao Han to make sure that he understood everything that |\n| 19 | was in there. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 22 | Q.
So, how did you -- was Lianchao Han acting, then, as a |\n| 23 | translator at this meeting? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
Now, did Guo appear to -- did you hear Guo speak English at |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | this meeting? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And did he appear to understand when you spoke English to |\n| 4 | him? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
In what circumstances was it necessary, then, for Lianchao |\n| 7 | to translate? |\n| 8 | A.
Well, it was necessary because he didn't -- he spoke |\n| 9 | English adequately in conversational English, but he would need |\n| 10 | an interpreter's help for any enunciation of ideas, or to make |\n| 11 | sure he understood something, or if I spoke too fast, or |\n| 12 | something like that. |\n| 13 | Q.
What did Guo say about himself in this meeting? |\n| 14 | A.
He said he was the number one enemy of the Chinese |\n| 15 | Communist Party and that he wanted to use his wealth, and his |\n| 16 | influence, and his contacts back in China to bring out |\n| 17 | information to expose the contradictions within the Chinese |\n| 18 | Communist Party to bring it down. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did he indicate to you that he still did have contacts back |\n| 20 | in China? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did he say that he had access to their information? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Did he tell you the nature of these contacts? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes.
He said they were personal contacts that he knew, and |\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller - Redirect\n\nhe boasted how -- not boasted, but I guess explained, and sometimes boasted, but how he knew everyone seemingly in the Communist Party leadership from Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the Communist Party, further down through the ranks, including government ministers, Beijing city officials, and MSS, or security and intelligence service officials, as well as prominent Chinese businessmen who were tied to the Communist Party. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n\nQ. Did he indicate that he could get information from these individuals? 9 10\n\nA. Yes. 11\n\nQ. What did he say about his upbringing and his background? A. He said he was from a rural background, described it as sort of a rags-to-riches story where he didn't have much education, he had a large family, had many brothers, six or seven brothers, and he suddenly became very wealthy — well, over a short period of time — through the real estate and construction building development business, real estate development business. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19\n\nQ. Did he say how he became close, given his background, how he became close to the CCP leaders? 20 21\n\nA. Yes. There was a question of ours, how can someone who was not a party member starting out become so wealthy so quickly, and he said it was through relations he developed with a man named Ma Jian, M-a J-i-a-n, and that Ma Jian then rose to 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | become the deputy minister of security, so it was the number |\n| 2 | two official in the Chinese security and intelligence |\n| 3 | apparatus.
So that's how Guo made his money, was on Ma Jian's |\n| 4 | coattails. |\n| 5 | Q.
Is that the agency you just mentioned? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
Now, in this meeting, what help did Mr. Guo -- as he was |\n| 8 | going through this document with you, what help did he say he |\n| 9 | wanted?
Did he give you anything more specific? |\n| 10 | A.
Well, this was our first presentation to him on what we |\n| 11 | proposed to do based on our conversations with Lianchao Han. |\n| 12 | He then fine-tuned it to more of what he was looking for.
He |\n| 13 | liked a lot of these ideas, he expanded on them, we |\n| 14 | brainstormed on a number of issues.
He mentioned that he had |\n| 15 | other teams doing different kinds of work at the time, and so |\n| 16 | we honed it down on what he was looking for and then advised |\n| 17 | him on what we thought would be in his best interests to help |\n| 18 | take down the CCP. |\n| 19 | Q.
When you say he said he had other teams doing different |\n| 20 | types of work, did he tell you what kind of teams and what kind |\n| 21 | of work? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes.
He said he had everything from public relations teams |\n| 23 | to research teams in various places around the world. |\n| 24 | Q.
Did he indicate any plans to you to use the media? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes.
That was the center of the whole plan. |\n| | |\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller - Redirect\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\nQ. And what did he say? What was his media plan? A. He wanted -- he had a dual approach. He wanted to address Chinese language -- Mandarin language viewers inside the People's Republic of China going past the great Chinese firewall, and, also, the Chinese speaking diaspora worldwide. So that was the one main group. The other group was English-speaking audiences, mainly in the United States, but also worldwide, to bring about information from within the Communist Party to discredit the Communist Party and its officials, cause infighting in the Communist Party. So that was the first part of it.\n\nThe second part of it was to create his own media machine, which he didn't have a name for then, but it would be Guo Media, or Miles Media, or certain variations thereof, to make himself sort of the number one personality, the go-to person, for the international Chinese opposition to the parties.\n\nQ. So how did this meeting come to an end?\n\nA. It was a favorable ending. We resolved to go back and refine this document into another document and to come back to him in a few days. 19 20 21\n\nQ. Did you, in fact, do that? 22\n\nA. Yes, we did. 23\n\nQ. Do you recognize Exhibit 39? 24\n\nA. Yes. 25\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Is this the follow-up document? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes.
This is the one I just referenced before. |\n| 3 | Q.
Who worked on this? |\n| 4 | A.
I was the prime writer, and I worked on it with French |\n| 5 | Wallop and Lianchao Han.
Lianchao was working in this capacity |\n| 6 | now as Guo's liaison with us working for what Guo wanted and to |\n| 7 | help us shape it according to the way he thought Guo would want |\n| 8 | to see something. |\n| 9 | Q.
Now, again, is there anything in this document about |\n| 10 | Strategic doing investigations or research? |\n| 11 | A.
No. |\n| 12 | Q.
How, if anything, did this differ from the last proposal? |\n| 13 | A.
It was more fine-tuned.
So the first one, we wrote before |\n| 14 | we'd met Guo.
Now, after we had a better part of a daylong |\n| 15 | meeting with him, got to know where his mind was, what his |\n| 16 | intents were, his desires were, we wrote this to address those |\n| 17 | interests. |\n| 18 | Q.
By the way, had you met -- so this is the second meeting. |\n| 19 | By this meeting, had you met Yvette Wang? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes.
I didn't know who she was at first, I didn't know her |\n| 21 | name at first, but I had seen her in and out of the first |\n| 22 | meeting. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did Guo come to introduce her at a particular meeting at |\n| 24 | some point? |\n| 25 | A.
At the first meeting, he just referred to her as like a |\n\n|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | servant.
In the second meeting, he introduced her as his |\n| 2 | assistant. |\n| 3 | Q.
Did he tell you her name at the second meeting? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes.
Her English name, Yvette. |\n| | Q.
I see. |\n| | A.
French name. |\n| | Q.
I should have asked you before:
Did you see Han Chunguang |\n| | in either one of these first two meetings? |\n| | A.
Yes. |\n| | Q.
At which one, or at which meetings? |\n| | A.
I saw him at a couple of them.
The first time, he was part |\n| | of the waitstaff serving hors d'oeuvres, and then the second |\n| | time -- a second time, he served lunch, and Guo described him |\n| | as his chef. |\n| | Q.
Now, how did the second meeting end? |\n| | A.
The second meeting ended favorably, also, and we fine-tuned |\n| | things more.
Guo came closer to what he wanted.
We had |\n| | brainstormed on a wide range of issues, including research. |\n| | And then he asked to come back with another proposal to |\n| | fine-tune this more. |\n| | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, can I ask the witness a |\n| | question? |\n| | Sir, on DX 39, on the fourth page, the first paragraph |\n| | under \"Action,\" there's a sentence that reads, \"Most can be |\n| | done through the foundation which eliminates any need to |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | register under FARA\"? |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Can you explain to me what that sentence |\n| 4 | related to and what the concern was?
Which foreign government |\n| 5 | would there have to be registration for? |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, this would be for a foreign |\n| 7 | national, so it was not for any foreign government.
We wanted |\n| 8 | to make sure that there was no political lobbying or policy |\n| 9 | lobbying involved, and so doing it under a 501(c)(3) |\n| 10 | educational foundation would allow funding for the project |\n| 11 | without having to comply with FARA. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 14 | Q.
Let me follow up on that, Dr. Waller.
Why was -- who was |\n| 15 | concerned with FARA? |\n| 16 | A.
Strategic Vision and I were concerned with FARA. |\n| 17 | Was the concern about the principal here, Guo Wengui?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
It was a concern with any foreign national, yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did you understand him to be a foreign national? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
What was Strategic's concern with registering for Guo |\n| 22 | Wengui? |\n| 23 | A.
Not a concern in principle, it's just the compliance with |\n| 24 | registering under FARA was -- Strategic Vision had not done any |\n| 25 | FARA relevant work before and neither had I. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Now, when did the research project first begin to be |\n| 2 | discussed in earnest? |\n| 3 | A.
Right about the time of the second meeting with Guo, but it |\n| 4 | was in the larger context of the ongoing work that he was |\n| 5 | having done by other teams already and his ongoing |\n| 6 | whistleblower campaign to expose the Chinese Communist Party |\n| 7 | leadership.
So it was -- his effort was slowing down at that |\n| 8 | time as if he was running out of inside information or he |\n| 9 | needed different types of information. |\n| 10 | Q.
Is this something that Guo said? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you ask Guo why he wasn't able to keep getting |\n| 13 | information from his supposed inside connections? |\n| 14 | A.
He said there was increasing danger to them, that he also |\n| 15 | had his family back in China, and if memory serves, his wife |\n| 16 | and two children were either back in China or back and forth |\n| 17 | from China, and that the more information that was exposed, the |\n| 18 | more the regime could hone in and figure out where the sources |\n| 19 | were. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did there come a time -- and I am not talking now about the |\n| 21 | actual signing of the agreement, but did there come a time when |\n| 22 | the outlines of the project coalesced into a definite proposal? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
About when was that? |\n| 25 | A.
This was around the third meeting. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | MR. GREIM:
Can we pull up PX 2. |\n| 2 | Q.
Dr. Waller, take a look -- why don't you scroll through |\n| 3 | that. |\n| 4 | Dr. Waller, do you recognize this document? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Was this prepared before or after the basic outlines of the
Q. |\n| 7 | project had coalesced? |\n| 8 | A.
This was performed after, meaning after the two previous |\n| 9 | documents in the exhibit. |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM:
Let's see if you could go back to the page |\n| 11 | where it says, \"1.
Targeted Intelligence Collection.\" |\n| 12 | There we go. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did anyone else help you prepare this? |\n| 14 | A.
I did it in consultation with Lianchao and French Wallop. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you recall what meeting this was discussed at? |\n| 16 | A.
I believe it was the third meeting. |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you recall roughly in December when that was? |\n| 18 | A.
From memory, maybe the 18th of December, give or take. |\n| 19 | Q.
Okay.
What document would you look at to determine that? |\n| 20 | A.
I would look at my handwritten notes. |\n| 21 | Okay.
Q.
Well, let's just keep moving.
Let's focus on -- I'm |\n| 22 | going to have you take a look at this page here. |\n| 23 | Does page 1 roughly summarize what became the research |\n| 24 | project in this case?
Take a second if you need to read |\n| 25 | through it. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
You will see in the fourth little arrow, bullet point, it |\n| 3 | says, \"Document, everything is leveraged to gain concessions, |\n| 4 | protect people, use as political weapon, or as aid in criminal |\n| 5 | prosecution and asset recovery.\" |\n| 6 | Did I read that right? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
Now, do you recall yesterday you testified that one of the |\n| 9 | goals of this, or one thing you thought you might find, was |\n| 10 | uncovering money stolen by CCP officials for their own benefit? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Is that related to this fourth bullet point? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did Mr. Guo, or Lianchao, or Yvette ever tell you about a |\n| 15 | particular criminal proceeding in which they wanted to use the |\n| 16 | research? |\n| 17 | No.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Did they ever tell you, explain to you, how the research |\n| 19 | was going to be used to recover a particular asset? |\n| 20 | A.
No. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did they ever tell you how the research was going to be |\n| 22 | used in even a hypothetical criminal prosecution? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
So, how did you understand the research was going to be |\n| 25 | used? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
The research, as the title page of this presentation |\n| 2 | showed, it was a psychopolitical campaign, meaning a |\n| 3 | psychological warfare/political warfare campaign against the |\n| 4 | Chinese Communist leadership. |\n| 5 | Q.
And if you see the fifth bullet point, I think -- well, let |\n| 6 | me just ask you:
Is that consistent with what Mr. Guo told you |\n| 7 | was his goal here? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
I see that the second to last point says, \"Burrow into |\n| 10 | commercial and political networks for business purposes.\"
Do |\n| 11 | you see that? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did Guo represent to you that that was another use of the |\n| 14 | information? |\n| 15 | A.
He said he wanted it for a wide range of reasons, but the |\n| 16 | main reasons were for building him up as the number one go-to |\n| 17 | person with all the knowledge.
He said he wanted to make his |\n| 18 | enemies afraid of confronting him and show he could defend |\n| 19 | allies and go after enemies. |\n| 20 | Q.
Now, by this time, I see that there are ten targets |\n| 21 | identified.
Is that consistent with what Guo or Lianchao told |\n| 22 | you? |\n| 23 | A.
At that time, yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And did Guo ever tell you that he actually had identified |\n| 25 | the first ten targets? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did he ever discuss any of them with you in these |\n| 3 | pre-contractual meetings? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
How did he do that? |\n| 6 | A.
He said they were all members of -- either members of the |\n| 7 | leadership of the Chinese Communist Party or immediate |\n| 8 | associates, as in family members — brothers, sisters, |\n| 9 | children — and then what he described as important in the |\n| 10 | Communist system were children born out of wedlock.
Because |\n| 11 | the Chinese Communist Party had a one-child policy, and for it |\n| 12 | to be known that Chinese Communist Party leadership was |\n| 13 | violating that policy left and right, it would show the |\n| 14 | hypocrisy of the party.
Through those children born out of |\n| 15 | wedlock, they were raised with different family names through |\n| 16 | aunts, or uncles, or other family members, and through those |\n| 17 | individuals, it was used to hide assets.
So they were running |\n| 18 | these assets through these out-of-wedlock children. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did Guo ever discuss party rules with you? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
What did he say about party -- the CCP party rules? |\n| 22 | A.
He said the party rules were very strict.
He described |\n| 23 | them to me.
They were somewhat similar with the Soviet |\n| 24 | Communist Party rules that I knew from years before, but they |\n| 25 | had their own differences, and they were very strict, and |\n| | |\n\n1\n\n25\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller - Redirect of 243\n\nalmost puritanical in certain ways.\n\nSo if you could find any violation of the party rules, then by the party's own rules, those members had to be expelled from the party. So any information that could be dug up of Chinese Communist Party members breaking the party's own rules meant that members of the central committee and the pole bureau de facto would have to expelled from the party, and if they were not expelled, that would put the party leadership into a crisis about expulsion or not expulsion and about the validity of the party's rules in the first place. Q. Did that seem like a plausible plan to you? A. Yes. Q. Why so? A. It seemed like a great plan. In my own experience in divisive operations, and in my own experience working against the Soviet Communist Party, and playing divisions among the Soviet Communist Party system, we had a great historical precedent to show it can work on such a very large target. So, in this case, it made perfect sense. Q. As you considered the plausibility of that plan, over what time period did you -- did you consider the time period over which that would have to unfold? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nA. Yes. I thought it would take five to ten years to do. Guo insisted it could be done in three. 23 24\n\nQ. Did anyone ever discuss doing it in one month?\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
No. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did anyone ever discuss doing it in six months? |\n| 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Q.
Did you actually see some of the names? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And this is before the contract was signed? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
How did you see them? |\n| 9 | A.
Guo handed us a paper copy — I believe it's one of the |\n| 10 | exhibits — with a list of 15 principal names among a total of |\n| 11 | about 92 names of either party officials or their close |\n| 12 | associates with, I think, one exception that he wanted |\n| 13 | researched. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did he give you copies that you could keep and take home |\n| 15 | with you? |\n| 16 | A.
No.
He showed us the paper copy at that time, and through |\n| 17 | Lianchao and, I believe, Yvette, described each of the |\n| 18 | individuals and the dynamics the reasons why he was interested |\n| 19 | in that particular person or group of people. |\n| 20 | Q.
Can you describe what it looked like? |\n| 21 | A.
Oh, it was about this thick, but it looked about a quarter |\n| 22 | inch thick stack.
It was a color printout of what appeared to |\n| 23 | be a PowerPoint presentation.
There were individual names of |\n| 24 | the 15 main people in Mandarin and English, color-coded in blue |\n| 25 | or pinkish red for female or male, followed by, in most cases, |\n\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | | sort of like a flow chart or a family chart to show their |\n| 2 | | relations with party officials, and then other statistical or |\n| 3 | | personal information about them. |\n| 4 | Q. | Did Guo tell you how he had gotten that information? |\n| 5 | A. | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q. | What did he say? |\n| 7 | A. | He said he spent a huge amount of resources, through |\n| 8 | | international teams, synthesizing a colossal amount of |\n| 9 | | information to boil down into that particular presentation. |\n| 10 | Q. | Did he say whether he had spent the money to compile that? |\n| 11 | A. | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q. | Did he say what it had cost him? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes.
He said he spent it personally.
He said it cost |\n| 14 | | \\$250 million. |\n| 15 | Q. | Did you believe it could have cost him that much? |\n| 16 | A. | No. |\n| 17 | Q. | Did you believe, however, that he had spent some money to |\n| 18 | | compile it? |\n| 19 | A. | Yes. |\n| 20 | Q. | Did he identify who the contractor or team was, or teams |\n| 21 | | were, that had compiled the information? |\n| 22 | A. | No. |\n| 23 | Q. | Did he say whether those teams were still working for him? |\n| 24 | A. | He was not specific, but I understood that some were still |\n| 25 | | working for him and some were not. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | |\n| 1 | Q.
Did he explain why he even needed Strategic Vision if he | |\n| 2 | already had teams working for him? | |\n| 3 | A.
He said he wanted a U.S.-based effort that would coordinate | |\n| 4 | with the media campaign. | |\n| 5 | Q.
Did you ever come to learn whether any of the teams had | |\n| 6 | quit or stopped working for Guo? | |\n| 7 | A.
After the fact, I did. | |\n| 8 | Q.
Did there come a time, then, when Strategic Vision had to | |\n| 9 | decide definitively whether to go forward with this contract? | |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 11 | Q.
And did you confer with French Wallop about whether to do | |\n| 12 | so? | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you think Strategic Vision should enter into this | |\n| 15 | agreement with Mr. Guo? | |\n| 16 | A.
Yes, because of the shared objective.
It was like we'd | |\n| 17 | worked all our lives for this opportunity, to go after the | |\n| 18 | Chinese Communist Party. | |\n| 19 | Q.
Did you rely on Guo's representations about himself and his | |\n| 20 | goals for the research in deciding whether to enter into the | |\n| 21 | contract? | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 23 | Q.
Would you have entered into -- I should say, would you have | |\n| 24 | recommended entering into the contract with Guo if you thought | |\n| 25 | he was not a true dissident? | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
No. |\n| 2 | Q.
Would you have recommended entering into the contract with |\n| 3 | Guo if you thought he did not intend to use the research to |\n| 4 | undermine the CCP? |\n| 5 | A.
No. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did Guo's statements about himself seem reliable? |\n| 7 | A.
They seemed reliable as Lianchao interpreted them for us, |\n| 8 | but Lianchao did caution that sometimes Guo spoke in more |\n| 9 | grandiose terms than practical, but even with Lianchao's |\n| 10 | caveats, it made a lot of sense. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did you take Lianchao's caution to you to indicate that Guo |\n| 12 | may actually not be a dissident? |\n| 13 | A.
No.
No, not at all. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you take Lianchao's caution to you meaning that Guo may |\n| 15 | not actually use the research to undermine the CCP? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Why did his statements seem reliable to you?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
Why did Guo's statements? |\n| 19 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 20 | A.
Because he spoke with, looking at this now, from a scholar |\n| 21 | of Communist political systems. |\n| 22 | Q.
Let me caution you, Dr. Waller -- I don't mean to interrupt |\n| 23 | you -- I want to ask you at the time why they did.
Don't tell |\n| 24 | me your perspective now. |\n| 25 | A.
Okay.
Because he had unique, fresh, inside information |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | from the Chinese Communist Party leadership. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did he actually share some of that with you in your |\n| 3 | meetings? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Why was that relevant to you? |\n| 6 | A.
It was relevant because it was a unique, brand new, very |\n| 7 | damaging source of extremely sensitive, valuable information |\n| 8 | about the internal practices, and habits, and traits, and |\n| 9 | actions of everybody from Xi Jinping on down within the Chinese |\n| 10 | Communist Party. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Can I ask you a question, Dr. Waller. |\n| 12 | When you talk about being an opponent of the Chinese Communist |\n| 13 | Party, I think you've described that there were factions inside |\n| 14 | the Chinese Communist Party; is that right? |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Is there a Xi faction and then an anti-Xi |\n| 17 | faction within the Chinese Communist Party? |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
Yes.
At the time Xi Jinping was |\n| 19 | consolidating control.
There was a big party congress coming |\n| 20 | up, which would mark the consolidation -- I think it was late |\n| 21 | 2017 and another event in early 2018 that marked Xi's |\n| 22 | consolidation of power, and there was a large purge going on |\n| 23 | that Xi Jinping would stay above the purge, but he'd have a |\n| 24 | second in command, Wang Qishan W-a-n-g Q-i-s-h-a-n, who was the |\n| 25 | enforcer, who did all the work to assist -- to carry out the |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | purge for Xi Jinping. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
As you were thinking about it at the time, |\n| 3 | I take it that you were opposed to Xi; is that correct? |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
In your thinking about it at the time, was |\n| 6 | the anti-Xi faction within the Chinese Communist Party |\n| 7 | potentially of help with respect to the anti-Xi campaign? |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
You know, at the time it was on -- it |\n| 9 | was severely on the decline, so I didn't see this as an effort |\n| 10 | for helping one faction gain control over the next.
I saw this |\n| 11 | as someone who was inside the Chinese Communist Party who was |\n| 12 | so frustrated and disgusted with the system, that he just |\n| 13 | wanted to make war on the whole system. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
You may proceed. |\n| 15 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 16 | Q.
Now, Dr. Waller, you also understood that Lianchao Han had |\n| 17 | been working, I think you testified earlier, working with Guo |\n| 18 | on his asylum application? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
Do you understand what an asylum application entails |\n| 21 | generally? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
Is there -- you're making sworn statements to the federal |\n| 24 | government? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
So did that play any role in your crediting Guo's |\n| 2 | statements about himself? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
Were you aware that Mr. Gertz had generally been writing |\n| 5 | articles about Mr. Guo for several months by this point? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And did you know whether Mr. Gertz had sat down and |\n| 8 | actually interviewed Mr. Guo many times? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
So did Mr. Gertz' involvement have any role in your |\n| 11 | decision that these were reliable statements? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes, a great deal. |\n| 13 | Q.
Now, if these statements by Guo about himself and his plans |\n| 14 | were so important to Strategic Vision, why not just insist that |\n| 15 | they be inserted as representations or maybe warranties into |\n| 16 | the research agreement? |\n| 17 | Well, the whole relationship with Guo was -- we all had a
A. |\n| 18 | common purpose, so you don't necessarily have to state a common |\n| 19 | purpose in an agreement, a business agreement, so both sides |\n| 20 | make money.
You don't necessarily put that in the agreement |\n| 21 | because it's just implicit. |\n| 22 | But, more importantly, we didn't mention Guo or China |\n| 23 | in the agreement deliberately, so that there would never be an |\n| 24 | issue of any traceability back to him because he still had |\n| 25 | contacts and family back in China. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect | |\n| 1 | Q.
And at whose insistence was that? | |\n| 2 | A.
His. | |\n| 3 | Q.
In fact, was that research agreement ever emailed among the | |\n| 4 | parties? | |\n| 5 | A.
No. | |\n| 6 | Q.
And why was that? | |\n| 7 | A.
It was because of concerns that the Chinese Secret Services | |\n| 8 | were able to -- had already penetrated or monitored our -- | |\n| 9 | America's email and electronic communication system, so he only | |\n| 10 | wanted material to be handed to him in writing or by thumb | |\n| 11 | drive. | |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
Did you, Dr. Waller, ever tell Guo, Yvette Wang, or | |\n| 13 | Lianchao Han that you were a licensed private investigator | |\n| 14 | under the laws of any state? | |\n| 15 | A.
No. | |\n| 16 | Q.
Did they ever ask you? | |\n| 17 | No.
A. | |\n| 18 | Q.
Was licensure ever discussed? | |\n| 19 | A.
No. | |\n| 20 | Q.
Have you ever been licensed as a PI? | |\n| 21 | A.
No. | |\n| 22 | Q.
Have you ever considered doing so? | |\n| 23 | A.
No. | |\n| 24 | Q.
Did Guo, Yvette, or Lianchao ever state that Strategic's | |\n| 25 | research was going to be used by Eastern Profit for its own | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | benefit? |\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
Did Lianchao ever mention Eastern Profit to you? |\n| 4 | A.
No. |\n| 5 | Q.
Even after the contract was signed? |\n| 6 | A.
No. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did Guo, Yvette, or Lianchao ever state that the research |\n| 8 | would be used -- forget about Eastern Profit for a second -- |\n| 9 | but by any person or entity other than Guo? |\n| 10 | A.
No. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did they ever state the research was going to be used to |\n| 12 | investigate any particular crime involving a particular victim? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did they state the research was going to be used in any |\n| 15 | particular case? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | In mid-December, did you -- as the contract began to be
Q. |\n| 18 | further discussed, did you begin to do any basic groundwork? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
What did you do? |\n| 21 | A.
We put together -- we wanted to make sure -- as Mr. Guo's |\n| 22 | stated desires fleshed out, we wanted to make sure we had the |\n| 23 | capability to assemble a team from scratch to do what he wanted |\n| 24 | done. |\n| 25 | Q.
Did you determine that you could do that? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
It took a while, it took a week or so, but we did determine |\n| 2 | that we could. |\n| 3 | Q.
Who did you communicate that to? |\n| 4 | A.
We communicated it to Lianchao Han. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did there come a time after that communication when |\n| 6 | Lianchao Han raised new demands by Guo? |\n| 7 | A.
Lianchao Han?
There was back-and-forth.
I wouldn't call |\n| 8 | them demands.
They were back-and-forth that Guo wanted to see |\n| 9 | if we could do more for the -- in the contract. |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM:
Pull up Exhibit 7. |\n| 11 | Q.
Okay.
Dr. Waller — just scroll through here — do you |\n| 12 | recognize this exhibit? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
What does this appear to be to you? |\n| 15 | A.
This is a single messenger correspondence between Lianchao |\n| 16 | Han and myself from December 2017. |\n| 17 | Okay.
Q.
And the opening one is on December 11th, and it goes |\n| 18 | all the way through January 4th? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes, I see December 11th. |\n| 20 | Q.
You have to look electronically? |\n| 21 | A.
Yeah, I can't scroll down. |\n| 22 | Q.
We'll fix that on a break. |\n| 23 | MR. GREIM:
If you could, Becka, just show him down to |\n| 24 | the very bottom. |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, till January 4th, 2018. |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Which bubbles are you and which bubbles are Lianchao Han? |\n| | |\n| 2 | A.
Mine bubbles are the darker ones on the right; his are the |\n| 3 | lighter ones on the left. |\n| 4 | Q.
If I could direct you, let's go to the page -- page SVUS64. |\n| 5 | Do you see here Lianchao Han making any request on |\n| 6 | behalf of New York friend? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes.
He's asking for more, quote, insurance. |\n| 8 | Q.
Who did you understand, if anyone, New York friend to be? |\n| 9 | A.
New York friend or, quote, NY in quotes, referred to Guo. |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM:
Go to the next page, please. |\n| 11 | Q.
And what was your response? |\n| 12 | A.
I said I didn't think that Guo was serious. |\n| 13 | Q.
And this is only two weeks before the contract was signed; |\n| 14 | is that right? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
Let's go on to SVUS66. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, where it's not dark, that's |\n| 18 | Lianchao Han; is that right? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
And he responds to your comment, \"I don't |\n| 21 | think the New York guy is serious,\" by saying, \"I have a mixed |\n| 22 | feeling about it.
Wants to do it, but wants to do it as cheap |\n| 23 | as possible.\" |\n| 24 | What was the mixed feeling?
What did you understand |\n| 25 | that to be? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
The way I understood it was that Guo |\n| 2 | said he wanted to go ahead with it, but he was also unsure |\n| 3 | about whether Guo actually would, and that price was an issue. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Let's go -- any follow-up, your Honor? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
No.
No. |\n| 6 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 7 | Q.
If you go to page 66, do you see that Lianchao then got |\n| 8 | back to you on Christmas Eve? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
And it looks like the night of Christmas Eve.
Does he |\n| 11 | report back to you on his conversation with Guo? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
Do you recall Lianchao Guo communicating on behalf of Guo |\n| 14 | that Guo wanted to negotiate a refund of the deposit provision |\n| 15 | in the agreement? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | What did Lianchao say was the reason for Guo wanting to do
Q. |\n| 18 | that? |\n| 19 | A.
He said that if he -- Guo wanted to put a clause in the |\n| 20 | contract to say that if I failed to provide the deliverables as |\n| 21 | defined in the scope, that Strategic Vision should return the |\n| 22 | deposit. |\n| 23 | Q.
Now, you say it's progress, so did you support that idea? |\n| 24 | A.
No.
It was just a comment that at least Guo is moving |\n| 25 | ahead on the issue, so we have at least some movement on the -- |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | movement forward. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did you have any concern about the kind of provision that |\n| 3 | Lianchao was suggesting? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Why? |\n| 6 | A.
Because in any deep dive research program, you simply don't |\n| 7 | know what you're going to find until you find it.
So if we |\n| 8 | can't go through the expense of setting up a whole research |\n| 9 | operation and running it, and if nothing comes up at first, or |\n| 10 | if it's inadequate information, or some other variable comes |\n| 11 | up, we can't just refund funds just because the information |\n| 12 | wasn't in that spot.
It's sort of like prospecting for oil, or |\n| 13 | minerals, or something; you don't know until you find it. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, I see in your response -- actually, if you look at |\n| 15 | your full response on page 68. |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Is this your full response to Lianchao's comment?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
This one is, yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
That's just the way this thing prints out. |\n| 20 | Did you have any opinion about whether it would be |\n| 21 | possible to make -- to produce deliverables within the scope |\n| 22 | within the first 30 days? |\n| 23 | A.
I said it probably would not be possible in the first 30 |\n| 24 | days because of startup work. |\n| 25 | Q.
What did you suggest? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I suggested a minimum of 90 days. |\n| 2 | Q.
Now, at this point, were you negotiating the contract on |\n| 3 | behalf of -- were you one of the people negotiating the |\n| 4 | contract on behalf of Strategic Vision? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
You were not like a back channel or anything to Lianchao, |\n| 7 | were you? |\n| 8 | I withdraw the question. |\n| 9 | Were you communicating with French on a regular basis |\n| 10 | about the negotiations? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And did either one of you have more responsibility than the |\n| 13 | other at this time? |\n| 14 | A.
At this time, because I knew the architecture of what to |\n| 15 | look for, I was the one handling those details. |\n| 16 | Q.
Now, you mentioned 90 days.
Did that concept make its way |\n| 17 | into the research agreement? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Okay.
Where? |\n| 20 | A.
I don't have the agreement in front of me. |\n| 21 | MR. GREIM:
Can we pull up, I think it's probably -- |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
A minimum of 90 days. |\n| 23 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up Exhibit 4. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Are you offering DX 7? |\n| 25 | MR. GREIM:
Thank you, your Honor.
I am offering |\n| | |\n\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect | |\n| 1 | Exhibit 7. | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Any questions as to authenticity or | |\n| 3 | the timing of it? | |\n| 4 | MR. CHUFF:
No, your Honor. | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
It's received subject to motion to strike. | |\n| 6 | (Defendant's Exhibit 7 received in evidence) | |\n| 7 | MR. GREIM:
This may be a good time, your Honor — I | |\n| 8 | know we did this yesterday — I wonder if I couldn't approach | |\n| 9 | the witness with one of the binders, so that he could just leaf | |\n| 10 | through and not have our person scrolling up and down for him? | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Why don't you put a binder to the side, | |\n| 12 | then you'll walk away from where you're putting the binder, and | |\n| 13 | he will approach, and, that way, you will maintain the social | |\n| 14 | distancing rules in the courthouse. | |\n| 15 | For future reference, what I will permit, in terms of | |\n| 16 | handing a witness the binder, is for a binder to be opened | |\n| 17 | approximately six feet from the witness, the lawyer who | |\n| 18 | presents the binder will then step away from the binder, and | |\n| 19 | the witness will be given leave to step out of the witness | |\n| 20 | chair, and grab the binder, and bring it back to the witness | |\n| 21 | chair.
So, that way, we will at all times maintain the social | |\n| 22 | distancing rules that are in effect by order of the court while | |\n| 23 | also being able to get the binder to the witness. | |\n| 24 | MR. GREIM:
May the witness now approach the binder? | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes. | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | MR. GREIM:
And, your Honor, is what I did okay for |\n| 2 | future reference just now? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Okay. |\n| 5 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 6 | Q.
All right.
Dr. Waller, I went ahead and opened it up for |\n| 7 | you to Exhibit 4. |\n| 8 | A.
Okay. |\n| 9 | Q.
Does that appear to you to be a copy of the research |\n| 10 | agreement? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
All right.
Do you see whether this 90-day provision -- the |\n| 13 | 90-day issue got placed into the research agreement at any |\n| 14 | place based on your understanding? |\n| 15 | When you find it, if you do find it, tell us the page. |\n| 16 | We'll put it up on the screen. |\n| 17 | There is a reference on page 2, the first full paragraph,
A. |\n| 18 | starting the contractor concerning a historical research report |\n| 19 | within three months and updates each following month. |\n| 20 | Q.
Okay.
Where else?
Or is that it? |\n| 21 | A.
There is a second reference on the top of page 4, |\n| 22 | stipulating through March and for the duration of the contract, |\n| 23 | and then the top -- the second paragraph of page 4, \"It is |\n| 24 | agreed by both parties for the first three months of this |\n| 25 | agreement\" concerning payment. |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Do you see any reference to an accounting recap? |\n| 2 | A.
Yeah, I just saw it, but I lost it. |\n| 3 | Yes, at the third paragraph on the top of page 4, \"It |\n| 4 | is also agreed by both parties that after the March reports,\" |\n| 5 | meaning third month reports, \"and payments are made,\" after |\n| 6 | that, \"all parties will need to recap the accounting prior to |\n| 7 | moving forward with the next quarter.\" |\n| 8 | Q.
What was your understanding of the purpose of that meeting |\n| 9 | where it says \"recap the accounting\"? |\n| 10 | A.
The purpose was because this was a new project, it was a |\n| 11 | very large project, and it was very complicated, given certain |\n| 12 | of the other parameters involved, that there were -- there was |\n| 13 | the startup phase, which was going to take some time, and then |\n| 14 | there was the finding and validating the sources of information |\n| 15 | phase as part of that startup that would take some time, so |\n| 16 | there were unpredictable factors for starting up, so then we |\n| 17 | would recap after month three to make sure we were all on the |\n| 18 | same page as to how it was going to be working. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, Dr. Waller, when it refers to |\n| 20 | accounting in the phrase that says recap the accounting, what |\n| 21 | accounting did you understand it to be referring to? |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
This was the accounting, meaning the |\n| 23 | so-called fish metaphor, how are we actually tracking the fish |\n| 24 | or the separate information units that were spelled out in the |\n| 25 | contract. |\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller - Redirect\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\n22\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: So what was to be accounted at the March or so meeting?\n\nTHE WITNESS: Well, let's say, did we find the proper information requested on target A and any of the couple of categories under target A, and did this make sense or should we stop and move on to a different target with a different parameter, and was this working properly.\n\nThere were other opportunities that were brought up in our discussions, but not stipulated in the contract, that we would find something completely new that no one was expecting that would have value for the client, and then that would satisfy certain of the client's expectations in lieu of specific fish per individual, because the client was interested in certain corporations, party-controlled corporations, that were not individuals, per se, so they didn't fit into the fish formula of the contract.\n\nTHE COURT: So it wasn't financial accounting, for example, of your costs?\n\nTHE WITNESS: No. That was all flat rate.\n\nTHE COURT: You may inquire.\n\nBY MR. GREIM: 21\n\nQ. You can turn to page 3, please.\n\nAnd you will see -- you see a bolded paragraph called the \"Irregular Circumstances\"? 23 24\n\nA. Yes.\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
\"Both parties understand that occasionally unforeseen |\n| 2 | challenges may arise that will slow or block comprehensive |\n| 3 | research, and that there may be periods in which information is |\n| 4 | irregular, unavailable, or incomplete.
The contractor will |\n| 5 | endeavor to make all research and reports as complete as |\n| 6 | possible in a timely scheduled manner.\" |\n| 7 | Did I read that right? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did you insist this provision be put into the contract? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Why is that? |\n| 12 | Because there were going to be irregular circumstances.
A.
We |\n| 13 | were not, and we never professed to be, a freestanding |\n| 14 | organization.
We were putting together compartmented teams |\n| 15 | with no corporate profile to keep the -- because we hadn't |\n| 16 | built those teams yet and also to keep the -- not just the |\n| 17 | privacy of the client, but the safety of the client, and his |\n| 18 | interests, and his family in China. |\n| 19 | So this would be very compartmented and, therefore, |\n| 20 | much more challenging to manage, and then you never know where |\n| 21 | you're going to -- and this is reflected elsewhere in the |\n| 22 | contract where we never know where we're going to not find |\n| 23 | information, or we'll find information that's not of sufficient |\n| 24 | value to the client, and the client would direct us to go to a |\n\ndifferent target that wasn't even on the principal list.\n\n25\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Now, Dr. Waller, you testified yesterday that you believed |\n| 2 | it was important to have quality information in the first |\n| 3 | month. |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
Now, what did you mean by \"quality information\"? |\n| 8 | A.
We had to show that our methods and our sources were |\n| 9 | sufficient to produce information of a quality that would be of |\n| 10 | value to the client.
So it wasn't supposed to be a quantity of |\n| 11 | quality information, but just showing -- again, like mining for |\n| 12 | mineral, the ore has to be of a certain quality to know it's |\n| 13 | worth mining this and processing this to make it a worthwhile |\n| 14 | venture.
So it's the same thing with information here. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did you have an understanding that you were supposed to be |\n| 16 | producing information that Guo could begin to publish in the |\n| 17 | first week? |\n| 18 | A.
No. |\n| 19 | Q.
How about in the first three weeks? |\n| 20 | A.
No. |\n| 21 | Q.
Or in the first month? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
Now, did that come to be your understanding, that he |\n| 24 | expected that later? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes.
In working with Lianchao, it was explicit in our |\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller - Redirect\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n17\n\n18\n\nconversations that we would put this together to make sure we didn't jeopardize our sources, or our methods, or even Guo's sources inside China. So there would be a waiting period or sorting-out stage where it would be guaranteed that the information wouldn't endanger the source or ruin the methods. Q. But my question is: Did you understand later that Guo did, in fact, expect to have information he could publish within the first few weeks?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. We'll come to that later. 10\n\nNow, you see your second paragraph in this response to Lianchao, you say, \"As it stands, the written contract gives either party the right to terminate for any reason with 30 days' notice. So if he gives 30 days' notice, we would prorate the 30 days from the deposit and return the balance under any normal circumstance.\" 11 12 13 14 15 16\n\nDid I read that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And was that your understanding? 19\n\nA. Yes. 20\n\nQ. Did that understanding come to be reflected in the research agreement? 21 22\n\nA. Yes. 23\n\nQ. Is it in the section that deals with the million-dollar deposit? 24 25\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
Yes.
The second paragraph of page 5. |\n| 2 | MR. GREIM:
Can you highlight that? |\n| 3 | Q.
Now, where this prorating -- what part of this implements |\n| 4 | your understanding here, Dr. Waller? |\n| 5 | A.
What do you mean by what part of it? |\n| 6 | Q.
Well, let me strike that.
It's a bad question. |\n| 7 | You see the second sentence, it says, \"The deposit |\n| 8 | will be credited on a prorated basis to the final one and |\n| 9 | one-third months of the contract\"? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And so if Strategic -- I'm sorry.
If Eastern Profit had |\n| 12 | decided to cancel the agreement in week two, what did you |\n| 13 | understand would happen with your deposit? |\n| 14 | A.
We would prorate for the first two weeks and return the |\n| 15 | rest. |\n| 16 | Q.
Well, what about the 30 days' notice? |\n| 17 | Well, no, there would be the 30 days -- you give the 30
A. |\n| 18 | days' notice, so you would subtract -- you would add 30 days to |\n| 19 | two weeks, and then you'd prorate from those six weeks. |\n| 20 | Q.
Is that what you indicate in your second paragraph to |\n| 21 | Lianchao? |\n| 22 | A.
Yeah, I don't see it. |\n| 23 | Q.
I'm sorry, back to -- we've got to go back to -- there we |\n| 24 | go. |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
Now, let's stick with this exhibit and go to the next page. |\n| 2 | By the way, do you see Lianchao says, \"I don't know |\n| 3 | who will sign\"? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Was that concerning to you? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes, it was. |\n| 7 | Q.
Why? |\n| 8 | A.
Because we had confidence in Lianchao through -- for |\n| 9 | reasons discussed earlier.
Based on our knowledge of him, we |\n| 10 | were comfortable working with him, we trusted him, and he |\n| 11 | shared the same vision, and having lived in Washington for such |\n| 12 | a long time, he knew how things worked.
Guo had his ideas, but |\n| 13 | he didn't necessarily understand how everything worked, and |\n| 14 | Yvette Wang never gave any indication that she knew how it |\n| 15 | worked. |\n| 16 | Q.
Did you also have a concern about information being |\n| 17 | released prematurely without Lianchao's involvement? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, I was concerned about that. |\n| 19 | Q.
By the way, I see you mention in here, in dark, \"Anybody |\n| 20 | who is friends with Bernie and Judd is my kind of person.\" |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
What is \"Bernie\" referring to there? |\n| 23 | A.
That was Bernie Yo, who was the Chinese warrior who fought |\n| 24 | against the Japanese in World War II, and then fought against |\n| 25 | Mao during the -- up to the 1949 revolution, and who lived in |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Washington, and he's the one who took me under his wing when I |\n| 2 | was in college, and he did the same thing for Lianchao when |\n| 3 | Lianchao came over after Tiananmen Square. |\n| 4 | Judd Gregg was the senator, Judd Gregg from New |\n| 5 | Hampshire. |\n| 6 | Q.
Now, moving forward from this time, did there come a point |\n| 7 | where Yvette Wang took over the final stages of the |\n| 8 | negotiation? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Do you recall about when that happened? |\n| 11 | A.
It was a couple of days after Christmas 2017. |\n| 12 | Q.
Let's talk about her for a moment. |\n| 13 | You've told us how Guo introduced her to you in your |\n| 14 | meetings with Guo.
Were those in New York? |\n| 15 | A.
How Lianchao? |\n| 16 | Q.
I'm sorry, how Guo introduced her. |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 19 | Now I'd like to ask you about what Ms. Wang said about |\n| 20 | her role.
Did she have a name for her role in this project? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes.
First she said she was Guo's assistant, and then she |\n| 22 | described herself as she would be the project manager. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did she have any name for Guo or any term she used to |\n| 24 | describe him? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes.
She called him chief.
She gave him some military |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | ranks.
She called him the boss. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did you have any understanding as to whether things that |\n| 3 | she negotiated with you ultimately had to be approved by Guo? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
And did they? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
Do you recall that there came a time when Yvette Wang |\n| 8 | actually came to D.C.? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Did you understand she was coming to sign the contract? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Was the contract actually signed? |\n| 13 | A.
Not the first time she was there in late December. |\n| 14 | Q.
When she left, did you have any understanding as to whether |\n| 15 | a contract would ever be signed? |\n| 16 | A.
We were not sure because the way it was originally written, |\n| 17 | it was done -- negotiated with Guo through Lianchao Han. |\n| 18 | Q.
Did you reach out to Lianchao after she went back to |\n| 19 | New York? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And what did Lianchao say to you? |\n| 22 | A.
He was uncertain of what his role would be. |\n| 23 | Q.
If I could have you turn -- let's go to page 74 of |\n| 24 | Exhibit 7. |\n| 25 | Do you see in dark, is this your message to Lianchao |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | after Yvette Wang had gone home? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And what was his response to you? |\n| 4 | A.
He said, \"I talked with F,\" meaning French Wallop.
\"It's |\n| 5 | better to wait a couple of days.
Miles, Guo, communicated with |\n| 6 | me a few times today, but did not mention the failure.\" |\n| 7 | Q.
Then he mentions something else about Japan in the next |\n| 8 | one.
Is that relating to this matter? |\n| 9 | A.
No. |\n| 10 | Q.
Sir, were you working with Lianchao on other matters? |\n| 11 | A.
He was -- we weren't working with him on other matters.
He |\n| 12 | was raising other issues with us to helping bring down the CCP. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did that further add to your confidence in Lianchao Han? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
I move to admit DX 7, if I haven't done so |\n| 16 | already. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I think you did, and I ruled that it was |\n| 18 | received subject to a motion to strike. |\n| 19 | Q.
By the way -- |\n| 20 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up DX 13. |\n| 21 | Q.
Dr. Waller, I'm going to ask you to look at DX 13. |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
Do you recognize this document? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
What is it? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
That is the first page of the multipage PowerPoint that I |\n| 2 | referenced earlier with the main 15 names who Guo wanted |\n| 3 | research on and a total of about 92 people within those pages |\n| 4 | that he was interested in. |\n| 5 | Q.
So this is a document that Guo actually brought out at one |\n| 6 | of your meetings with him in December? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And let's just be clear, were you able to take any portion |\n| 9 | of this with you? |\n| 10 | A.
No. |\n| 11 | Q.
Were you able to take notes on it and take it with you? |\n| 12 | A.
No. |\n| 13 | Q.
And -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Did you recognize the names? |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Did you recognize all of them or most of |\n| 17 | them? |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
I didn't recognize any changes in them. |\n| 19 | So the names that I saw, I recognized -- or the names that I |\n| 20 | recognized, I had seen earlier, and the pictures of the people |\n| 21 | associated with those names, I remembered. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
But when he handed it to you in December, |\n| 23 | and you looked at the names, were they names that you had known |\n| 24 | and that were known to you? |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
No, with one exception. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
What was the exception? |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
He was the son of former Chinese leader, |\n| 3 | Deng Xiaoping -- I believe it's Deng Xiaoping.
I might be |\n| | |\n| 4 | mistaken.
Either Deng Xiaoping or Yuexiang. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Move to admit Exhibit 13. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Exhibit 13 is already in evidence. |\n| 8 | And this may be a good time for me to instruct the |\n| 9 | parties that after we're done with testimony, you are to meet |\n| 10 | and confer and make sure that there's a schedule indicating a |\n| 11 | single exhibit number for each of the documents.
And you might |\n| 12 | even try to do that work tonight or during breaks, so we don't |\n| 13 | have multiple different exhibit numbers attached to the same |\n| 14 | document. |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
Yes.
It's a bit of a challenge.
I |\n| 16 | prepared a direct, and I wasn't quite sure whether it would be |\n| 17 | used, so we'll cross-reference it and avoid this. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 20 | Q.
Okay.
Dr. Waller, at some point, did you learn of Eastern |\n| 21 | Profit before the agreement was signed? |\n| 22 | A.
I believe, yes, right when Yvette went to meet with French |\n| 23 | Wallop in late December. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay.
So it was the first meeting and not the second |\n| 25 | meeting? |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I believe so.
I wasn't present. |\n| 2 | Q.
So, who did you first hear about Eastern Profit from? |\n| 3 | A.
From French Wallop. |\n| 4 | Q.
And she told you that Yvette had told her the name? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did you do anything to look into Eastern Profit when you |\n| 7 | learned that name? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
By the way, had you heard of the name before? |\n| 10 | A.
No. |\n| 11 | Q.
What did you do to learn about it? |\n| 12 | A.
Well, we had an arrangement with Mr. Guo that payment would |\n| 13 | be run through companies, separate entities, so it couldn't be |\n| 14 | traced back to him and then have an adverse effect on his |\n| 15 | interests, and his family, and so forth.
So we were expecting |\n| 16 | a different company name. |\n| 17 | I looked up the -- after hearing about the name, I |\n| 18 | looked it up.
I found it on the Hong Kong registry, and I |\n| 19 | found it had been incorporated in Hong Kong and registered to |\n| 20 | Guo Wengui's daughter, Mei Guo M-e-i G-u-o. |\n| 21 | Q.
So did the results of that investigation have any |\n| 22 | significance to you? |\n| 23 | A.
Well, it assured me that it was a Guo family-controlled |\n| 24 | company, but it was also disturbing because it went against our |\n| 25 | understanding that this would be done circuitously so that the |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Chinese Government couldn't find out about it. |\n| 2 | Q.
So Strategic went ahead and signed the contract with |\n| 3 | Eastern listed as the contracting party? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, did you further understand that the contracting party |\n| 6 | may not be the party that actually paid Strategic? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And what was the reason for that? |\n| 9 | A.
That was, again, to protect Guo Wengui's interests, so that |\n| 10 | the funds could not be traced to him. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did you have any understanding that the research results |\n| 12 | were going to somehow be sent to Hong Kong? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did putting Eastern Profit into the contract at all change |\n| 15 | the purpose of the agreement, in your view? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | And so as of signing — let's just recap — what did you
Q. |\n| 18 | understand the purpose of this agreement to be? |\n| 19 | A.
The purpose was simply to put down in writing a general |\n| 20 | idea of what we would do, the time frame for doing it, what the |\n| 21 | deliverables would ultimately be, and what the payment schedule |\n| 22 | would be. |\n| 23 | Q.
What did you understand the purpose of the research to be? |\n| 24 | A.
The purpose was explicitly that Mr. Guo was to provide |\n| 25 | information for his whistleblower media campaign. |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Would it have changed your planning or work if Lianchao, or |\n| 2 | Guo, or Yvette had ever said the research was going to be used |\n| 3 | in a specific proceeding or to investigate a specific crime? |\n| | |\n| 4 | A.
No. |\n| 5 | Q.
Would it have changed your planning or -- |\n| 6 | A.
Pardon me, would you repeat that question? |\n| 7 | Q.
Sure. |\n| 8 | Would it have changed your planning or work if |\n| 9 | Lianchao, or Guo, or Yvette had ever said the research was |\n| 10 | going to be used for a specific crime or a specific proceeding? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, it would have changed my entire -- I wouldn't have |\n| 12 | been interested in the agreement. |\n| 13 | Q.
Would it have changed your planning or work if any of those |\n| 14 | three — Lianchao, Guo, or Yvette — had ever said the research |\n| 15 | was going to be used to recover specific property? |\n| 16 | A.
We wouldn't have been interested in the agreement. |\n| 17 | Why is that?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
Because this was a risky undertaking to incur the wrath of |\n| 19 | the Chinese Communist Party leaders.
Bad things happen to many |\n| 20 | people who cross the party like this.
So it was very risky, |\n| 21 | and it was never in my own personal professional history.
I |\n| 22 | don't care about -- it's not of interest to me to recover |\n| 23 | things or work on legal cases.
It's in my political -- my |\n| 24 | policy or my personal interests if you can take down the Soviet |\n| 25 | Communist Party in a big way, let's move on to do the same way |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to the Chinese Communist Party.
So that was my interest. |\n| 2 | Q.
Let's shift gears now, Dr. Waller, and talk about the work |\n| 3 | itself. |\n| 4 | Were there certain basic areas of research that were |\n| 5 | going to be conducted? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
What were those? |\n| 8 | A.
Those were outlined -- they were formally outlined in the |\n| 9 | agreement.
There were three.
The first was financial forensic |\n| 10 | historical research, the second was current tracking research, |\n| 11 | and the third was social media research. |\n| 12 | Q.
And were there any parameters or restrictions on your |\n| 13 | research that were not written into the contract? |\n| 14 | A.
Well, one of them was we would not violate U.S. law. |\n| 15 | Q.
And who did you have that understanding with? |\n| 16 | A.
With Guo specifically. |\n| 17 | He said that he was happy to tangle with the Chinese |\n| 18 | Communist Party, but he doesn't want to tangle with the |\n| 19 | American legal system, and I wasn't interested in breaking the |\n| 20 | law in any way. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, let's talk a little bit more about the physical |\n| 22 | aspects of this.
Let's get into the details. |\n| 23 | Who was going to be doing -- as of this time, as of |\n| 24 | early January, after the contract was signed, who was going to |\n| 25 | be doing the actual work? |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | A.
I was the manager for the bulk of the initial deep-dive |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | research, so my job was to assemble and manage what we called |\n| 3 | Team 1, which was a team of computer engineers and data |\n| 4 | analytics engineers who would set up -- it was a ten-person |\n| 5 | engineer team, where we later added a subject matter expert and |\n| 6 | linguists, to run a 24/7 research operation, where we would get |\n| 7 | our primary raw material. |\n| 8 | Q.
Okay.
What did this -- first of all, where was this |\n| 9 | research team going to be based? |\n| 10 | A.
It would be based in Europe. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did you know all the members of this team? |\n| 12 | A.
No. |\n| 13 | Q.
Was there a certain person who actually went and hired |\n| 14 | them? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
What was that person's role?
What was their title? |\n| 17 | A.
He was somebody I knew, he was American, and he had worked |\n| 18 | for a long time in that country.
So he put together that team, |\n| 19 | and he had a computer background. |\n| 20 | Q.
Now, what exactly -- so you mentioned computers.
What did |\n| 21 | the team need to do its work? |\n| 22 | A.
It needed an acquired set of ten high-speed computers and |\n| 23 | related software, and then the peripheral material for that |\n| 24 | necessary to do a data mining operation aimed at this |\n| 25 | particular number of targets at the same time. |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
What is a data mining operation? |\n| 2 | A.
Data mining is where you take large amounts of commercially |\n| 3 | available data, like a marketing company would do in the United |\n| 4 | States, and you, quote, mine that data to determine networks of |\n| 5 | people, social desires, like what kind of things they like or |\n| 6 | don't like, travel habits, where they go, what types of |\n| 7 | establishments they frequent, even financial data that's |\n| 8 | available by subscription commercially, and you mine that in |\n| 9 | order to hone in on -- to identify the networks, in this case, |\n| 10 | of the people on the target list and to develop visual |\n| 11 | renditions of that data to show patterns of behavior and |\n| 12 | association, where they do their banking, where they travel, |\n| 13 | and move their money, and so forth. |\n| 14 | Q.
So, it may be a basic question, but is this coming just off |\n| 15 | the regular internet like we can get off of Google here and |\n| 16 | begin to data mine?
How does that work? |\n| 17 | No, no, it's by subscription.
A.
So let's say the credit card |\n| 18 | companies and banks sell all of our personal data to whoever |\n| 19 | wants to buy them.
Practically anytime we make an online |\n| 20 | purchase, or credit card purchase, or a banking transaction, |\n| 21 | that's all recorded somewhere.
Some of it is private, but much |\n| 22 | of it is not, and most customers don't realize that they're |\n| 23 | waiving their privacy when they click I accept on the user |\n| 24 | terms.
So this data is then sold and packaged to really almost |\n| 25 | anybody who wants to subscribe to it. |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS1
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Are you familiar with the term \"the dark web\"? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
What is that? |\n| 4 | A.
The dark web is a term for information that is available on |\n| 5 | the internet where a lot of illicit activity takes place.
Some |\n| 6 | of it's just a privacy-oriented nature, some of it is of a |\n| 7 | nefarious or criminal nature.
But on the dark web, there's a |\n| 8 | lot of commercial exchange of information as well. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did Team 1 look for any information on this dark web? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Was that part of the data mining operation, or was that a |\n| 12 | separate deal? |\n| 13 | A.
That was to verify -- to verify what was on data mining or |\n| 14 | to follow up on leads produced by data mining. |\n| 15 | Q.
So you got the team, you got the computers.
What are some |\n| 16 | of the peripheral other things that had to be purchased and |\n| 17 | assembled for them to start working? |\n| 18 | A.
They -- your standard security measures, both electronic |\n| 19 | and physical.
There was a lot of travel, because these were |\n| 20 | cash purchases made in three separate countries to prevent any |\n| 21 | electronic tracing of the serial numbers of the devices with |\n| 22 | the purchaser, if it was on a charge card or a bank card, and |\n| 23 | then brought back to another country to actually be set up, and |\n| 24 | then there was activity in a fourth country to get some other |\n| 25 | electronic material for the purposes of camouflaging where the |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | actual activity was taking place. |\n| 2 | Q.
Now, could you just communicate with these folks by email |\n| 3 | or -- let's just say encrypted email or encrypted phone? |\n| 4 | A.
No. |\n| 5 | Q.
How did you have to get information to and from this team? |\n| 6 | A.
On instructions of Mr. Guo, we could only exchange |\n| 7 | information in person by exchanging USB drives. |\n| 8 | Q.
Were there any precautions that had to be taken to ensure |\n| 9 | that this team could do its work? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes.
There was compartmentation to make sure that if any |\n| 11 | link in the chain was broken, that it couldn't betray the other |\n| 12 | links in the chain.
Again, this was to defend the interests of |\n| 13 | the client and the safety of his family members in China. |\n| 14 | And there was -- well, just the actual travel itself |\n| 15 | was very onerous because you would have to -- it would take two |\n| 16 | or three days to do a round trip, to stop what you're doing, |\n| 17 | meet in a third location, and then exchange the data, and then |\n| 18 | return back to the respective places to continue.
So that was |\n| 19 | a very cumbersome process, so it's not like everything could be |\n| 20 | done online or even by encrypted text. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, could Strategic know in advance what information it |\n| 22 | was going to be able to successfully obtain on each of these |\n| 23 | individuals? |\n| 24 | A.
No. |\n| 25 | Q.
Why not? |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | |\n| 1 | A. | | Well, first, because you never know what you're going to |\n| 2 | find. | | You know you're going to find something, but then our |\n| 3 | researchers encountered a problem -- | | |\n| 4 | MR. CHUFF: | Objection. | |\n| 5 | THE COURT: | What's the basis? | |\n| 6 | MR. CHUFF: | | Hearsay and relevance.
He's about to |\n| 7 | | | testify about Team 1's experience investigating, and they're |\n| 8 | not here to testify, and their identities haven't been | | |\n| 9 | disclosed in this litigation. | | |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM: | The question was -- | |\n| 11 | THE COURT: | | I think the question is fine, so the |\n| 12 | objection is overruled. | | |\n| 13 | The question is: | | From your understanding, sir, just |\n| 14 | | | taking it from your understanding, why could Strategic not know |\n| 15 | | | in advance what information it was able to successfully obtain |\n| 16 | on the individuals? | | |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS: | Yes, your Honor. | It's also like from my |\n| 18 | | | own academic background, one writes -- or one does research or |\n| 19 | | | writes a dissertation based on things we don't know, and so we |\n| 20 | | | don't know what information we're going to find until we put it |\n| 21 | together and synthesize it. | | So like any other research |\n| 22 | | | project, we wouldn't know what we're going to find in advance. |\n| 23 | BY MR. GREIM: | | |\n| 24 | Q. | | Now, as this work got underway, did you have concerns about |\n| 25 | confidentiality of Team 1's research? | | |\n| | | | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
About keeping the research confidential? |\n| 2 | Q.
About keeping their activity confidential. |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
What was that concern? |\n| 5 | A.
Well, there were a couple of concerns.
First was premature |\n| 6 | public release of the information. |\n| 7 | Q.
What would be the danger of that? |\n| 8 | A.
It could reveal the fact that certain things are being |\n| 9 | researched or certain people are being researched, so that if |\n| 10 | you're looking at someone who's doing something illicit or |\n| 11 | subversive, then they could be tipped off that this is |\n| 12 | happening to them, and they would take measures to prevent -- |\n| 13 | they would take countermeasures to prevent exposure. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did Guo ever tell you that you or Strategic Vision was |\n| 15 | actually being watched by the Chinese? |\n| 16 | A.
He said to assume that we were. |\n| 17 | Q.
Did he indicate that the Chinese embassy was watching |\n| 18 | anyone? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes, he did. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did Guo, Lianchao, or Yvette ever tell Strategic's -- |\n| 21 | actually, strike that. |\n| 22 | Did they ever tell you that the information that |\n| 23 | Strategic Vision obtained would be given to a company called |\n| 24 | ACA? |\n| 25 | A.
No. |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2 | of 243 | Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | MR. GREIM: | | Your Honor, I'm getting ready to move on |\n| 2 | to a new topic. | | I just wonder if this isn't a good time. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: | | Why don't we take our midmorning break. |\n| 4 | We'll take ten minutes. | | We'll reconvene at 11:30.
You should |\n| 5 | be back in your seats by 11:30. | | |\n| 6 | (Recess) | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT: | | Dr. Waller -- is it Dr. Waller or |\n| 8 | Mr. Waller? | | |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS: | | Whichever the Court prefers.
I have a |\n| 10 | doctorate. | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT: | | You're reminded, sir, that you are still |\n| 12 | under oath. | | |\n| 13 | You may inquire. | | |\n| 14 | BY MR. GREIM: | | |\n| 15 | Q. | | Dr. Waller, let me ask you, was it your understanding that |\n| 16 | the number of total reports given to Eastern Profit was | | |\n| 17 | predictable? | | |\n| 18 | Let me strike that. | | |\n| 19 | | | The number of reports that Strategic would give to |\n| 20 | | | Eastern Profit in a given year was predictable in advance? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes.
Well, it was averaged. | | It would be averaged out in |\n| 22 | advance. | | |\n| 23 | Q. | | So for each area of research, were different reports |\n| 24 | required? | | |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| | | | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Different timing? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And different number of reports? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
And who chose what types of research were done for each |\n| 6 | individual subject or fish? |\n| 7 | A.
The client would ultimately choose which areas that were |\n| 8 | outlined in the contract would be done, but at first we were |\n| 9 | just to see what we could find based on the methods that we |\n| 10 | were creating at that time. |\n| 11 | Q.
If a fish or subject was removed from consideration, would |\n| 12 | Strategic have to start again with a new one? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up the agreement.
Let's put up |\n| 15 | Exhibit 4. |\n| 16 | Q.
By the way, whenever Strategic would take on a new subject |\n| 17 | or replacement subject, would that require more or less work |\n| 18 | than just keeping the subject that had just been jettisoned? |\n| 19 | A.
That's starting cold each time with each change. |\n| 20 | Q.
So would that require more or less work? |\n| 21 | A.
That would be more work. |\n| 22 | Q.
Would Eastern Profit -- I'm sorry, would Strategic be able |\n| 23 | to recover extra for that from Eastern? |\n| 24 | A.
No. |\n| 25 | Q.
Why not? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Because we agreed on a flat rate. |\n| 2 | Q.
And what was the flat rate per month? |\n| 3 | A.
The flat rate was \\$750,000 per month. |\n| 4 | Q.
Do you recall testifying -- |\n| 5 | MR. GREIM:
Let's go to -- yes, let's stay on this |\n| 6 | page. |\n| 7 | Q.
If you go to the fourth paragraph, do you see it says, \"The |\n| 8 | pricing for 30 units or deliverables per year remains a |\n| 9 | constant \\$9 million per year, or 750,000 per month, for 12 |\n| 10 | months\"? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you understand that the units -- that each individual |\n| 13 | unit or deliverable was not set in advance at the start of the |\n| 14 | year? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And so if a subject -- if subject A had research on |\n| 17 | financial tracking information for the first six months, and it |\n| 18 | changed to subject Z with social media tracking for the next |\n| 19 | six months, was that still one unit? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, earlier -- yesterday, do you remember testifying at |\n| 22 | some point that the flat fee was \\$300,000 per month? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Now, did you have the agreement in front of you when you |\n| 25 | said that? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
No.
I misspoke. |\n| 2 | Q.
Your testimony is that it is not \\$300,000 per month for |\n| 3 | anything -- |\n| 4 | A.
Correct. |\n| 5 | Q.
-- is that right? |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Let's go to page 3. |\n| 7 | Q.
Now, under \"Price,\" the very first line there says the |\n| 8 | price for each deliverable, A, B, or and C, are \\$300,000 each |\n| 9 | per subject per year.
Do you see that? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Do you recall being asked about that before? |\n| 12 | A.
Something to that effect, yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did you -- let me take you now to the very last paragraph. |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
Well, the last two.
Let's highlight both |\n| 15 | of those. |\n| 16 | Q.
Do you see where it says, \"Therefore, when a fish is |\n| 17 | removed from consideration, a new fish will be put in its place |\n| 18 | by the client, keeping the number of fish being monitored at |\n| 19 | any time at 10\"? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did I read that right? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
Was that your understanding? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And then for each of the ten, there would be how many |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | subject matters for each? |\n| 2 | A.
Three. |\n| 3 | Q.
For a total of how many? |\n| 4 | A.
Thirty. |\n| 5 | Q.
And then in the first month, you were given how many fish? |\n| 6 | A.
Fifteen. |\n| 7 | Q.
But how many subjects for each one? |\n| 8 | A.
Two. |\n| 9 | Q.
For a total again? |\n| 10 | A.
Thirty. |\n| 11 | Q.
Nice job. |\n| 12 | If you go to the very final paragraph -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, what are the two subjects for |\n| 14 | the first month? |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, that's not in this agreement. |\n| 16 | That is -- let me clear that up. |\n| 17 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 18 | Q.
So the 15 initial subjects and the two areas per subject, |\n| 19 | is that in the research agreement? |\n| 20 | A.
That -- I would have to reread the agreement, but it's on |\n| 21 | the tasking list that the client gave us, which we already |\n| 22 | discussed in the previous exhibit or an earlier exhibit. |\n| 23 | Q.
Do you see -- actually, if you go to page 4, do you see it |\n| 24 | says, \"The first month, January, this contract will include up |\n| 25 | to 15 fish\"? |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
For a total of 30 reports? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
So is that your understanding of the deal that was reached? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And was this early or late in the negotiations when this |\n| 7 | was added in? |\n| 8 | A.
This was later. |\n| 9 | Q.
Let's go back to the third page.
Let me take you to the |\n| 10 | last paragraph. |\n| 11 | So, we just discussed this idea of moving fish in, |\n| 12 | taking fish out, and you will see the very bottom says, |\n| 13 | \"However, this solution does not provide for predictable |\n| 14 | budgeting or workloads.\" |\n| 15 | Do you see that? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Was that Strategic's concern?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
And was that discussed with Guo? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And then it says, \"To ensure the maximum workload for |\n| 22 | predictability of the agreed price, we will measure the |\n| 23 | deliverables as 30 units per year.\"
Did I read that right? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
Ten fish times three reports — A, plus B, plus C — each, |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | right? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And then it has an equals sign, and it says, \"30 |\n| 4 | jobs/reports at any given time.\"
Did I read that right? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did you understand that that was Strategic's obligation, to |\n| 7 | be working on 30 jobs/reports at any given time? |\n| 8 | A.
Per year, over a year. |\n| 9 | Q.
Well, over the course of the year, but at any given time as |\n| 10 | well, right? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, but starting up, we'd have to -- it was an |\n| 12 | unpredictable starting up.
So you don't know until you've |\n| 13 | actually begun what the load would be. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you have any understanding as to whether the \\$750,000 |\n| 15 | per month had to be paid each month? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Did it depend based on -- did it depend on how many reports
Q. |\n| 18 | were actually delivered to Eastern under any of the categories? |\n| 19 | A.
No. |\n| 20 | Q.
What did it depend on? |\n| 21 | A.
Well, I would have to reread the exact wording.
So do you |\n| 22 | want the exact wording or my understanding? |\n| 23 | Q.
Well, I just want your understanding. |\n| 24 | A.
We would do the job for a flat rate of \\$750,000 a month, |\n| 25 | with the understanding that for the first 90 days or so, it |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | would be irregular because of the nature of starting up a big |\n| 2 | research project. |\n| 3 | Q.
And let me take you now to the very last page, page 5.
We |\n| 4 | looked at this paragraph earlier regarding the million-dollar |\n| 5 | deposit. |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Let's highlight that. |\n| 7 | Q.
You see it allows for a credit of the deposit at the end of |\n| 8 | the contract? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
And is that credit based on the number of reports that |\n| 11 | Strategic Vision completes? |\n| 12 | A.
No. |\n| 13 | Q.
What's it based on? |\n| 14 | A.
It's based on the number of months worked or the amount of |\n| 15 | time that the work was done. |\n| 16 | Q.
By the way, we saw your text already with Lianchao Han |\n| 17 | regarding the issues in the first 30 days and 90 days of |\n| 18 | starting up.
Did you express those views about the difficulty |\n| 19 | of startup and reviewing the quality of work with anyone else |\n| 20 | on Guo's team before the agreement was signed? |\n| 21 | A.
I raised it with Guo himself, and with Lianchao Han, and |\n| 22 | with Yvette Wang. |\n| 23 | Q.
What was Guo's response to you? |\n| 24 | A.
Guo's response was do it as quickly as you can.
Lianchao's |\n| 25 | response was, he understands the complexities of starting |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | something like that. |\n| 2 | By this time, he's acting as Guo's agent to us, not |\n| 3 | simply a helper or an ally.
He was Guo's designated |\n| 4 | representative to us, so the interlocutor.
So he was telling |\n| 5 | us he understood the complexities of starting this up and just |\n| 6 | to also do -- see what we could get in the first hauls of |\n| 7 | information. |\n| 8 | Yvette Wang seemed to not understand this at all. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay.
Thank you, Dr. Waller. |\n| 10 | Let's now move on to a topic we started to explore |\n| 11 | earlier.
The contract had been signed, we talked about the |\n| 12 | initial work that had to be done.
When did you actually |\n| 13 | receive -- or did there come a time when you actually received |\n| 14 | the subject names on a thumb drive? |\n| 15 | A.
French Wallop received those names in early January — she |\n| 16 | testified to that yesterday — and the thumb drives contained |\n| 17 | malware or were contaminated somehow electronically, and there |\n| 18 | was -- she had to go back up to New York to get a fresh set of |\n| 19 | thumb drives. |\n| 20 | Q.
I'll just stop you. |\n| 21 | Did there come a time when you got your hands on those |\n| 22 | yourself? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And then what did you do with them? |\n| 25 | A.
So to erase any electronic metadata, I put -- I had bought |\n| | |\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect of 243\n\n| 1 | a computer that had never been attached to the internet and a |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | printer that had never been attached, and then printed out the |\n| 3 | contents of that thumb drive, which was only that list as |\n| 4 | contained in this previous exhibit, printed it out and then |\n| 5 | scanned it, and then put it on a new encrypted drive to send to |\n| 6 | Europe, to deliver to Europe. |\n| 7 | Q.
Is there a name for something like that, a laptop that's |\n| 8 | never been on the internet? |\n| 9 | A.
We referred to it as a virgin laptop.
I don't know if |\n| 10 | that's a technical term or not, but that was the closest thing |\n| 11 | we could -- we just called it a virgin laptop, so it was |\n| 12 | completely clean.
And we paid cash for the laptop, so there |\n| 13 | could be no tracing of the purchase. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, we heard yesterday that the initial start date for the |\n| 15 | contract became January 16th.
Is that your understanding? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
I take it you handed them over to Team 1? |\n| 18 | A.
Handed one over to Team 1. |\n| 19 | Q.
Right.
And that was handed over in the U.S. or overseas? |\n| 20 | A.
In the U.S. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did you begin to learn what Team 1 was finding? |\n| 22 | A.
After a few days -- and, again, we couldn't get immediate |\n| 23 | results because we couldn't have any electronic transfer of |\n| 24 | information apart from the vaguest messages that, hey, we're |\n| 25 | setting up or we're proceeding, that type of thing.
So, I had |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | to make a trip to Europe to get the first status report. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
When did you do that? |\n| 3 | A.
It is in my handwritten notes, and it's contained in the |\n| 4 | receipts, but it was around mid-January.
It was about a week |\n| 5 | or so after the contract officially began. |\n| 6 | Q.
Would it help you to look at those notes? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
Why don't you do that. |\n| 9 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, can the witness approach that |\n| 10 | binder? |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 12 | MR. GREIM:
We don't need to publish these. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
But we should indicate for the record by |\n| 14 | an exhibit number what the witness is looking at. |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
That's right.
The witness is looking at |\n| 16 | Exhibit 57. |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
Okay.
We delivered the drive to the |\n| 18 | Team 1 leader on January 24th, 2018, in the Washington, D.C. |\n| 19 | area.
And it does not appear in these notes, but I went to |\n| 20 | Europe at the client's insistence several days later. |\n| 21 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 22 | Q.
Well, do you recall making -- let's talk about that.
Let's |\n| 23 | maybe work backwards from there. |\n| 24 | Do you recall when you delivered the first initial |\n| 25 | thumb drive to Eastern Profit? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
When was that? |\n| 3 | A.
That was -- I'm correcting myself.
I received the drive |\n| 4 | from team leader one on January 24th. |\n| 5 | Q.
Very good. |\n| 6 | And where was that?
Overseas? |\n| 7 | A.
That was at French Wallop's house. |\n| 8 | Q.
I see. |\n| 9 | And when did you then deliver that on to Eastern |\n| 10 | Profit? |\n| 11 | A.
I informed Lianchao Han that day that we had the drive and |\n| 12 | then made arrangements to provide it to Yvette. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did you ultimately do that a couple of days later? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes.
In New York. |\n| 15 | Q.
Let's talk about that meeting with the Team 1 leader on the |\n| 16 | 24th. |\n| 17 | First of all, I think you corrected yourself.
You did |\n| 18 | not give him the names on the 24th, you received information |\n| 19 | from him on the 24th? |\n| 20 | A.
That's correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
And this is the information you ultimately relayed to |\n| 22 | Yvette Wang? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
Is there anything that Team 1 leader told you that you did |\n| 25 | not pass on to Lianchao Han or Yvette Wang? |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Nothing material, no. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did you learn that Team 1 had had any difficulties in their |\n| 3 | first week of review? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. CHUFF:
Objection, your Honor; calls for hearsay. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yes, the objection is sustained.
The |\n| 7 | witness can testify as to what he said to Yvette Wang, but not |\n| 8 | what he learned. |\n| 9 | MR. GREIM:
Okay. |\n| 10 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 11 | Q.
What did you -- let's start with Yvette Wang.
What did you |\n| 12 | tell Yvette Wang -- first of all, did you tell Yvette Wang the |\n| 13 | things you were telling her you had learned from Team 1? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did you tell Lianchao Han the things you learned from |\n| 16 | Team 1? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
What did you tell Yvette Wang? |\n| 19 | A.
I told her that Team 1 reported to us that -- |\n| 20 | MR. CHUFF:
Objection, your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I'm receiving it, but not for the fact |\n| 22 | that Team 1 actually said it to the witness.
So it's not |\n| 23 | coming in for the truth, but there is a question in terms of |\n| 24 | whether there was frustration of purpose, et cetera, in this |\n| 25 | contract.
So it's coming in for that limited purpose, but if |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | you want to introduce evidence with respect to the difficulties |\n| 2 | of the research, you're going to have to introduce it from a |\n| 3 | person who has direct percipient knowledge. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Understood. |\n| 5 | What we're trying to establish is what was told to |\n| 6 | Eastern about the work that had been done. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So it's coming in not for the truth, but |\n| 8 | for the fact that that's what was said to Yvette Wang. |\n| 9 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 10 | Q.
So, Dr. Waller, the question is:
What did you tell Yvette |\n| 11 | Wang that you had learned from Team 1? |\n| 12 | A.
It was a status report at first for material that couldn't |\n| 13 | be related through a USB drive.
It was to show that they found |\n| 14 | information that they verified not by computer means about -- |\n| 15 | to give a status report on what they found.
One of them was |\n| 16 | locations of certain offshore companies, one involved the |\n| 17 | passwords to a computer server run by Chinese Government, the |\n| 18 | server for CITIC, C-I-T-I-C, securities, and ways to access |\n| 19 | that server or not to.
It also included -- and that was a real |\n| 20 | huge, huge -- |\n| 21 | Q.
Dr. Waller, let's just list these, and we'll go back |\n| 22 | through them, okay? |\n| 23 | A.
Okay. |\n| 24 | Q.
So number one, we've got location of offshore companies? |\n| 25 | A.
Uh-huh. |\n| | |\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect\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\nQ. Second, we've got passwords to computer servers? And we'll come back to that.\n\nA. Uh-huh.\n\nQ. And then what else?\n\nA. That they had started work -- the team was orienting itself on all 15 targets by just researching what could be found publicly. So if the researchers themselves could understand their targets, know who they are, know what they -- how they operated, and basically anything necessary to understand what you're researching. So this was all open-source, social media, or other types of media, public domain material, and then their own social media or related accounts, or those of others.\n\nThey said that there are gaps in place, they are finding gaps in some of the information that -- that Yvette Wang had provided us with those 15 names in this exhibit, and that some of the names, they said, were misspelled in Mandarin, that there was a -- a mass of invalid data that was hard to absorb and map, but they were doing it, and their mapping, they expect to come up with a hundred names and links very soon, but their challenge was that they were being given false names. So of those 15 names, three to four of them were inaccurate names or led to the wrong people. So that's a big differential in research if 20 to 30 percent of your names are not accurate. Q. Dr. Waller --\n\nTHE COURT: Is the witness reading from a document\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that's not in evidence? |\n| | |\n| 2 | MR. GREIM:
I was just -- |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
Pardon me. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
-- going to establish that. |\n| 5 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 6 | Q.
Dr. Waller, I see that you are -- as you're testifying, |\n| 7 | you're looking at DX 57. |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
So, my question is:
Are these notes that you made when you |\n| 10 | were talking to the Team 1 leader in the January 24th meeting? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And then did you use those notes in conferring with Yvette |\n| 13 | Wang a few days later? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes.
And with Lianchao that day. |\n| 15 | Q.
Okay.
So, just so we're clear, you conferred with Lianchao |\n| 16 | about the January 24th meeting on January 24th; you conferred |\n| 17 | with Yvette Wang about that a couple of days later? |\n| 18 | A.
When I saw her in person. |\n| 19 | Q.
Both times, you used those notes? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And in reviewing the notes now refreshing your recollection |\n| 22 | about what you said to Yvette Wang and Lianchao Han? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | MR. CHUFF:
Objection.
I'm sorry, your Honor, I just |\n| 25 | want to make sure that your ruling as to the admissibility also |\n| | |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | applies to these notes as well? |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The notes haven't been offered yet, and I |\n| 3 | think they're just being -- I hear them being used to refresh |\n| 4 | recollection. |\n| 5 | MR. GREIM:
They may well be offered.
I just want to |\n| 6 | keep going along. |\n| 7 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 8 | Q.
Dr. Waller -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
But, sir, if you're looking at a document |\n| 10 | to refresh your recollection, your job, as a witness, is, if |\n| 11 | you don't remember without looking at the document, you can, at |\n| 12 | your counsel's instruction, look at the document to see if it |\n| 13 | brings back a memory.
If it brings back a memory, you should |\n| 14 | testify to your memory, whether or not the memory is identical |\n| 15 | to what's written on the document.
If it doesn't bring back a |\n| 16 | memory even if you see it written on the document, then it |\n| 17 | means your recollection hasn't been refreshed, and your answer |\n| 18 | is, I don't have a memory. |\n| 19 | Do you understand that? |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 22 | Q.
And, Dr. Waller, let me be clear, then.
Maybe I didn't go |\n| 23 | my final step here. |\n| 24 | Is your memory of your discussion with the Team 1 |\n| 25 | leader, and with Yvette Wang, and Lianchao Han refreshed by |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | reviewing these notes? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | MR. GREIM:
I will move for the admission of -- we've |\n| 4 | got -- of Exhibit 57 in evidence. |\n| 5 | MR. CHUFF:
And, your Honor, I just ask that your |\n| 6 | ruling apply to those notes as well. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm going to be consistent in that I'm |\n| 8 | going to receive the exhibit subject to the motion to strike, |\n| 9 | and counsel will be aware that if there is a motion to strike |\n| 10 | as to this, the testimony about the testimony will be stricken |\n| 11 | if the exhibit is stricken.
So you're proceeding at your peril |\n| 12 | in terms of making sure you've established a record. |\n| 13 | MR. GREIM:
Well, your Honor, in that case, I'm not |\n| 14 | going to -- I'm going to withdraw my moving this into evidence. |\n| 15 | We're going to rely on the witness' refreshed recollection as |\n| 16 | he reviews the document. |\n| 17 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 18 | Q.
So, Dr. Waller, let's -- we talked about four things that |\n| 19 | you reported to Lianchao Han and Yvette Wang, Wang on the 24th |\n| 20 | Han on the 26th. |\n| 21 | Did you report them any concerns about Chinese |\n| 22 | translators? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
What did you tell them? |\n| 25 | A.
Well, that Guo had specifically instructed that we not have |\n\n25\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect of 243\n\n| 1 | any speakers of Mandarin on the research team, which, of |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | course, made it a huge challenge to understand information that |\n| 3 | was being recovered by the people in Europe.
So I conferred |\n| 4 | with Lianchao, and -- after Team 1, and Team 1 was able to get |\n| 5 | some retired European diplomats who spoke fluent Mandarin who |\n| 6 | were not of Chinese background, because Guo's idea was that so |\n| 7 | many ethnic Chinese might be spies for the CCP.
That satisfied |\n| 8 | Lianchao acting as Guo's agent, so the Team 1 went and retained |\n| 9 | one and then a second linguist. |\n| 10 | Q.
So two linguists were retained for Team 1 as a result? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes.
And a subject matter expert who understood the |\n| 12 | Chinese Communist Party's control structure and financial |\n| 13 | networks. |\n| 14 | Q.
When were those ultimately retained? |\n| 15 | A.
Immediately following that meeting with the Team 1 leader |\n| 16 | when he was still in town, I gave him instructions to go back |\n| 17 | and to employ them. |\n| 18 | Q.
When you told Lianchao Han that three to four of the names |\n| 19 | were fake or misspelled, what did he tell you in response? |\n| 20 | A.
He agreed that there were three or four names that were |\n| 21 | wrong on that list. |\n| 22 | Q.
How much time had already been spent, up to that point, on |\n| 23 | data mining for those three or four names? |\n| 24 | A.
A good week.
A good week anyway. |\n| | |\n\nQ. Let's go to the first issue here that you mentioned, the\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | location of offshore companies. |\n| 2 | What about that did you tell Yvette? |\n| 3 | A.
I said they located offshore companies that Mr. Guo had not |\n| 4 | identified to us and asked if that would be of interest. |\n| 5 | Q.
Where were they? |\n| 6 | A.
The one I recall offhand was in Turkey. |\n| 7 | Q.
Were they offshore companies of one of the subjects? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
So, what was Yvette's response? |\n| 10 | A.
She gave no instruction at all and just said this isn't |\n| 11 | good enough. |\n| 12 | Q.
Were there any other offshore companies that you reported |\n| 13 | to Lianchao or Yvette in this first set of meetings? |\n| 14 | A.
If I recall correctly, there were Cayman Islands companies |\n| 15 | and other Caribbean companies, some of them which Guo had |\n| 16 | identified to us in general in our personal meetings with him |\n| 17 | and some of them that the Team 1 had discovered on its own, or |\n| 18 | evidence of them that Team 1 had discovered on its own. |\n| 19 | Q.
What was Yvette's response to that disclosure? |\n| 20 | A.
It was all junk. |\n| 21 | Q.
What about Lianchao Han? |\n| 22 | A.
He said these are good leads, keep working on them.
They |\n| 23 | were only leads. |\n| 24 | Q.
Is there anything else in this first category that you |\n| 25 | informed Lianchao or Yvette about in the first set of meetings? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
The first category of subjects or -- |\n| 2 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 3 | A.
The biggest one was the access to the Chinese Government's |\n| 4 | own, we call it, treasure house, they're CITIC. |\n| 5 | Q.
We'll come to that.
That's our second category. |\n| 6 | I take it, then, you can't recall anything else from |\n| 7 | the first -- |\n| 8 | A.
Offhand, I can't. |\n| 9 | Q.
Do you recall anything about Panamanian companies? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Was that in this first meeting or the later one? |\n| 12 | A.
That was the later one. |\n| 13 | Q.
We'll come back to that later. |\n| 14 | Let's talk about -- you had indicated -- you said |\n| 15 | CITIC.
Is that the Chinese Government itself or a separate |\n| 16 | company? |\n| 17 | Yes, it's a 100 percent state-owned company of the Chinese
A. |\n| 18 | Government that's run by Chinese Communist Party officials. |\n| 19 | Q.
So why did you have Team 1 looking at CITIC? |\n| 20 | A.
That was a target of opportunity that we found.
We had |\n| 21 | discovered it.
It was also an object of interest to Guo, but |\n| 22 | it was not in the contract, but because of its colossal |\n| 23 | importance, we went and reported back, hey, we have access to |\n| 24 | this Chinese Government server, and then we asked for guidance. |\n| 25 | Q.
Now, why did you have to ask for guidance?
Why not just go |\n| | |\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect\n\nin? 1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\nA. Well, there were two ways to do it on a foreign -- if it was -- first, if it was a private server, we wouldn't have done this, but it's a government server. The first one is to lay low and wait until you can find a way to get in through one of the people that you're watching. You can watch them access their email accounts on this server, and then get in. And, that way, you can go in without detection.\n\nThe second way is what's called a brute force attack. It's a hacker's term, which is, you know, just the way it sounds, but what that does is it sounds alarms on the server, causes the system either to shut down or erects new security protocols to prevent anyone from getting in, and then alerts the leaders of the entity, or at least the IT security people, to realize that someone's trying to access the server. That would defeat the whole purpose of trying to find out the information that was in there by these targets. So -- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nQ. Let me stop you.\n\nSo did you advise Yvette Wang about those consequences of each option? 19 20\n\nA. Yes.\n\n21\n\nQ. Did you ask -- I take it you asked her for guidance on which one to do? 22 23\n\nA. Yes. 24\n\nQ. And what did she say? 25\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
She said go ahead and do the brute force attack. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
Did she go do it? |\n| 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Q.
Why not? |\n| 5 | A.
Because it was in -- in conferring with Lianchao, it was in |\n| 6 | the interests of the client to -- to make sure you could get |\n| 7 | the information, not to shut down the means of breaking -- |\n| 8 | breaking to get information. |\n| 9 | I also went and asked permission for a legal review in |\n| 10 | the country in question to make sure this was legal in that |\n| 11 | country. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you pay for that legal opinion? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
Is that the legal opinion that Ms. Wallop referenced |\n| 15 | yesterday? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Ultimately, then, did you take any steps, after talking to
Q. |\n| 18 | Lianchao, to go around Yvette and try the low-key approach with |\n| 19 | the CITIC server? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes.
Acting with his assent, Lianchao's assent, in the |\n| 21 | interests of the client's longer term goals, we did not do what |\n| 22 | Yvette insisted on. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did you ultimately gain access to that before the contract |\n| 24 | was terminated? |\n| 25 | A.
No. |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Let's go to the third category.
You indicated that social |\n| 2 | media pages were pulled for all 15 targets? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
And I probably didn't appropriately characterize your |\n| 5 | testimony, but let me just ask you:
Were there any targets |\n| 6 | left out of that review? |\n| 7 | A.
There were some who didn't have social media accounts.
And |\n| 8 | some, if you look at how social media is defined in the |\n| 9 | agreement, it's not all social media as we understand the term, |\n| 10 | it's other online media, some information was either |\n| 11 | conflicting or unavailable. |\n| 12 | Q.
Well, now, what about -- you testified that three or four |\n| 13 | were fake names? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Was information found on them? |\n| 16 | A.
On different people, with similar names or identical names. |\n| 17 | I see.
Q. |\n| 18 | Now, when you mentioned the fake names to Yvette, did |\n| 19 | she promise to go back and get you replacement names or -- let |\n| 20 | me just ask you, what was her response? |\n| 21 | A.
She said our team was incompetent; she's not going to put |\n| 22 | up with this garbage. |\n| 23 | Q.
Now, this social media research, is that what was actually |\n| 24 | on the thumb drive that you got from Team 1 the first time? |\n| 25 | A.
The first time, yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
And if you were to put it into a computer, how would it |\n| 2 | display?
How would you be able to see it? |\n| 3 | A.
Part of it was organized in folders, and part of it was |\n| 4 | not, and it was so there were 15 folders of each of the |\n| 5 | different individuals on the target list.
But this was the |\n| 6 | only -- and I advised the client in advance, all it was was |\n| 7 | advance research for the purposes of Team 1 understanding who |\n| 8 | their targets were.
So it wasn't a deep-dive research that was |\n| 9 | needed, but it was the foundation on which the social media |\n| 10 | research would be built. |\n| 11 | Q.
Now, you said you picked this up on the 24th from the |\n| 12 | Team 1 leader in Virginia? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
And he'd have to come here from oversees; is that right? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
The contract started on the 16th, correct? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Did you have any understanding as to the cutoff date for |\n| 19 | that first thumb drive?
In other words, when did it have to be |\n| 20 | loaded onto the thumb drive for him to come over here and give |\n| 21 | it to you on the 24th? |\n| 22 | A.
It would have to be the day previous. |\n| 23 | Q.
I'm sorry? |\n| 24 | A.
It would have to be the day previous to his arrival in |\n| 25 | Washington. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Well, when did he arrive in Washington? |\n| 2 | A.
He arrived the day of that meeting. |\n| 3 | Q.
Now, did Lianchao indicate whether he communicated this |\n| 4 | information on to Guo? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did he tell you what Guo's response was? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes.
He said Guo was angry, and we're all incompetent and |\n| 8 | trying to rip him off. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did Lianchao give you at least replacement names for the |\n| 10 | three or four that were fake or misspelled? |\n| 11 | A.
No.
We requested them, but they never came. |\n| 12 | Q.
You know, I forgot to ask you, going back to my question |\n| 13 | about what was on the computer screen, so you said that some of |\n| 14 | the information was arranged in folders for the different |\n| 15 | subjects, but was there other information that was not in a |\n| 16 | specific folder? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A.
Some of the -- anytime you do a dive for information, |\n| 18 | you're going to come up with things that are -- they still need |\n| 19 | to be sorted out before you put them in folders.
The purpose |\n| 20 | of the folders was to account for which, quote, fish would go |\n| 21 | with which individual on the list, and that would establish the |\n| 22 | accounting system for the work product ultimately.
This was |\n| 23 | just the foundational part of it, to make sure the client |\n| 24 | approved of the method of keeping track. |\n| 25 | Q.
By the way, did you hang on to another copy of that USB |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | drive? |\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
So you gave the only copy to Eastern? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes.
That was at their request. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did the information on this first drive include any of the |\n| 6 | data mining results? |\n| 7 | A.
No. |\n| 8 | Q.
Is there anything else that you communicated to Yvette or |\n| 9 | Lianchao in this first -- after this first meeting with the |\n| 10 | Team 1 leader? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
What else? |\n| 13 | A.
One of the issues was that they discovered that the |\n| 14 | passport of one of the people on the list, it was a non-Chinese |\n| 15 | passport of a NATO ally, was a counterfeit passport, and this |\n| 16 | was established through the checks that -- the electronic |\n| 17 | research that Team 1 did, and then the Team 1 leader brought it |\n| 18 | to the embassy of the country in question, and talked to their |\n| 19 | intelligence station chief and said, hey, we found this |\n| 20 | passport, we think it's false. |\n| 21 | That developed intense interest by this allied |\n| 22 | intelligence officer, who then thanked the Team 1 leader for |\n| 23 | discovering what, indeed, was a false passport.
So I |\n| 24 | referred -- I informed both Lianchao and Yvette Wang to this |\n| 25 | effect, and, again, it's not something that you would get from |\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | data mining, this was physically going to another embassy.
And |\n| 2 | this was a great find because it shows how we've got a |\n| 3 | Communist Party person violating Communist Party rules by |\n| 4 | having a non-Chinese passport. |\n| 5 | Q.
What was Lianchao's response? |\n| 6 | A.
He thought it was great and thought we should keep moving. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did you? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Now, is there anything else from this first meeting? |\n| 10 | A.
I'm sure there are, but without referring to my notes, I |\n| 11 | can't recall. |\n| 12 | Q.
Well, this is our time right here, so I'm -- |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
May I? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 15 | The record should just reflect that the witness is |\n| 16 | looking at his notes — you'll tell me the exhibit numbers — to |\n| 17 | refresh his recollection. |\n| 18 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 19 | Q.
Mr. Waller, are you turning again to Exhibit 57? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Oh, pardon me, they found -- I don't see it here in |\n| 22 | these notes yet, but I was just reminded, they found -- Team 1 |\n| 23 | found that there were other -- someone else online that seemed |\n| 24 | like various individuals or groups were searching for the same |\n| 25 | names at the same time, and some of these deep-dive searches. |\n| | |\n\n| KEAS2 |\n|-------|\n|-------|\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect of 243\n\n| 1 | So Team 1 was concerned of two things:
First, are |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | they -- they asked are there competitive teams to -- that are |\n| 3 | part of this project, and because if Team 1 persisted in its |\n| 4 | searches, it would risk detection or it could risk |\n| 5 | electronically compromising those other research teams if the |\n| 6 | Chinese intelligence services were looking for this type of |\n| 7 | research to be done. |\n| 8 | They stopped their research to ask for instructions to |\n| 9 | make sure it would be safe and not compromise Mr. Guo's project |\n| 10 | for them to go ahead. |\n| 11 | Did you convey that question on, then, to Yvette and
Q. |\n| 12 | Lianchao? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
What was Yvette's response? |\n| 15 | A.
She said to go ahead. |\n| 16 | Q.
What was Lianchao's response? |\n| 17 | A.
He -- I don't recall his exact response.
I remember him |\n| 18 | saying he would check, but I don't remember if he also told us |\n| 19 | to go ahead. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did either of them confirm whether Mr. Guo did, in fact, |\n| 21 | have other competing teams looking into the same subjects at |\n| 22 | the same time? |\n| 23 | A.
Mr. Guo had told us personally in advance that he had other |\n| 24 | teams. |\n| 25 | Q.
But did either Yvette or Lianchao confirm when you raised |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the question? |\n| 2 | A.
Well, I believe Lianchao said he thought he did.
I mean, |\n| 3 | there was room for caution in the response, but Yvette said to |\n| 4 | go ahead anyway. |\n| 5 | Q.
So, did you instruct Team 1, then, to go ahead and keep |\n| 6 | reviewing? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
Do you know how long Team 1 was down in their research |\n| 9 | because of that? |\n| 10 | A.
Well, it would take at least two days for the Team 1 leader |\n| 11 | to return -- get the answer from here, return back to the |\n| 12 | country, and then convey that to the team. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
Dr. Waller -- |\n| 14 | A.
There was one other piece of data that was important as |\n| 15 | well, and that was that Team 1 detected who the client was. |\n| 16 | Q.
I'm sorry, Team 1 detected who the client was? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
And by client, who do you mean here? |\n| 19 | A.
They detected Guo Wengui. |\n| 20 | Q.
How did they do this? |\n| 21 | A.
Well, we took measures to make sure that no one knew who |\n| 22 | the client was, again, to protect Mr. Guo's identity and his |\n| 23 | interests.
They found that they -- and it was explicit with |\n| 24 | Team 1 that we would not say who the client was.
The team |\n| 25 | leader came back and said:
Is your client a guy named Guo |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Wengui, or Miles Kwok, or Miles Guo? |\n| 2 | We said:
Why do you want to know? |\n| 3 | They said:
A lot of the information already exists |\n| 4 | online, and it traces exactly back to him and his operation. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did that concern you? |\n| 6 | A.
It was very concerning because one of the items was a |\n| 7 | portion of the very document shown in the exhibit with Anita |\n| 8 | Suen's name on it.
The first person on that list of 15, that |\n| 9 | exact image was already existing online as part of Guo's |\n| 10 | previous media operations. |\n| 11 | Q.
Now, you say the image.
Was it the full page or just her |\n| 12 | picture? |\n| 13 | A.
It was the full page with the text, the same text, the same |\n| 14 | color, the same fonts, everything. |\n| 15 | Q.
Now, what had Guo told you about this PowerPoint? |\n| 16 | A.
Guo said it was extremely secret and it cost a fortune to |\n| 17 | produce. |\n| 18 | Q.
Did he tell that you it was okay to share that publicly? |\n| 19 | A.
No, never. |\n| 20 | Q.
So, after you learned this from Team 1, what did you do? |\n| 21 | A.
I informed Lianchao, and I informed Yvette Wang. |\n| 22 | Q.
And what was Yvette Wang's response? |\n| 23 | A.
She said don't worry about it. |\n| 24 | Q.
What about Lianchao? |\n| 25 | A.
He was very concerned. |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Based on his response, did you believe he had understood |\n| 2 | the same as you about the confidentiality of the slides? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
So, did you make any response to Team 1, then, after |\n| 5 | talking to Lianchao and Yvette? |\n| 6 | A.
I just said keep going.
I didn't confirm or deny who the |\n| 7 | client was. |\n| 8 | Q.
So, is there any other information you gave Yvette or |\n| 9 | Lianchao after the first Team 1 meeting? |\n| 10 | A.
May I refer to my notes? |\n| 11 | Q.
Sure. |\n| 12 | MR. GREIM:
The witness is looking at DX 57. |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
They compared this to sucking up sand, |\n| 14 | this information collection effort, which was not a complaint, |\n| 15 | it was just an expression of how, instead of finding a mother |\n| 16 | load of something of great value, right away you have to vacuum |\n| 17 | up a whole lot of electronic sand.
They requested further -- |\n| 18 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 19 | Q.
Now, hold on, Dr. Waller.
My question is about what you |\n| 20 | told Yvette -- |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
-- and Lianchao. |\n| 23 | A.
Yes.
And they requested we ask the client for some more |\n| 24 | specific data to help them narrow things down and speed things |\n| 25 | up. |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
What more specific data did they say they needed? |\n| 2 | Well, let me ask you this:
What more specific data |\n| 3 | did you tell Yvette and Lianchao? |\n| 4 | A.
They needed -- they requested an analytical document to |\n| 5 | help them understand greater context of what they would be |\n| 6 | looking for, so they wouldn't just be vacuuming up sand. |\n| 7 | Q.
What was Yvette's response to that? |\n| 8 | A.
Basically more of the same.
If this is such a great team, |\n| 9 | why are they so incompetent. |\n| 10 | Q.
And Lianchao? |\n| 11 | A.
Lianchao understood exactly, and he kind of shrugged. |\n| 12 | Q.
By the time you spoke with Lianchao, you had already spoken |\n| 13 | with Yvette; is that right -- no, it's the other way around, |\n| 14 | you spoke to Lianchao first? |\n| 15 | A.
I spoke to Lianchao first. |\n| 16 | Q.
Have we exhausted the first set of meetings with Yvette and |\n| 17 | Lianchao to the best of your recollection here today? |\n| 18 | A.
To the best of my recollection, yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Okay.
Did there come a time that you got a second USB for |\n| 20 | delivery? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
And when was that? |\n| 23 | A.
That was just a few days later.
Yvette was very impatient, |\n| 24 | wanted more information, and insisted that I go and retrieve |\n| 25 | the next USB drive of information.
That was just within two or |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | three days. |\n| 2 | Q.
So what did you do to retrieve the second USB drive? |\n| 3 | A.
So I flew to Ireland. |\n| 4 | Q.
Okay.
And did you meet someone there? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes.
I met the Team 1 leader there. |\n| 6 | Q.
What did you get from him? |\n| 7 | A.
I got a USB drive from him, where he had informed me, in |\n| 8 | advance, of the basic nature, so we could communicate vaguely |\n| 9 | on encrypted self-destruct text messages.
So he said we got a |\n| 10 | lot of encrypted material that we haven't decrypted yet, so if |\n| 11 | you come and get it, it's not going to be of value until we |\n| 12 | decrypt it.
I informed this to Yvette Wang. |\n| 13 | Q.
Were these the data mining results? |\n| 14 | A.
This was -- no, they hadn't been completed yet because of |\n| 15 | the nature of the time it takes to do.
This was about 80 lines |\n| 16 | of encrypted code, computer code. |\n| 17 | Where had it come from?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
It was from the dark web. |\n| 19 | Q.
So did you inform Yvette Wang of this before you flew to |\n| 20 | Dublin to get it? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
And what was her response? |\n| 23 | A.
She said she didn't care, she just wanted me to go get it. |\n| 24 | Q.
So you did that? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Is this a drive you delivered to her in Penn Station? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
On what date was that? |\n| 4 | A.
It was one of the last couple of days of January. |\n| 5 | Q.
Dr. Waller, what was on that drive? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes.
It was only encrypted text that was illegible. |\n| 7 | Q.
Now, were any lines or parts of that code potentially of |\n| 8 | use? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
What part? |\n| 11 | A.
Team 1 told us that there were 16 lines of code among the |\n| 12 | 80,000 lines of code that would be usable. |\n| 13 | Q.
And what did -- how did Team 1 convey to you it would be |\n| 14 | usable? |\n| 15 | A.
They consisted of encrypted email addresses and passwords |\n| 16 | of Communist figures on Guo's list. |\n| 17 | So among the subjects?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Now, you said there were 16.
We know that three or four of |\n| 20 | the names were fake.
So, did you find the fake names as well, |\n| 21 | or were there others? |\n| 22 | A.
I don't know.
There were 16 lines of code, not 16 people. |\n| 23 | Q.
So did you convey this to Yvette? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
What was her response? |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
She said to go and get it anyway.
So I went back -- |\n| 2 | Q.
I'm sorry, did you convey the 16-line information? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
The 16 lines? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
What was her response to that? |\n| 7 | A.
She said it's all junk. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
How do you convey 16 lines of code? |\n| 9 | MR. GREIM:
Well, your Honor, let me ask a better |\n| 10 | question. |\n| 11 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you convey the information about the 16 lines of code |\n| 13 | to her? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And you actually handed her the flash drive? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | There was no -- was there any way that Yvette herself could
Q. |\n| 18 | use the 16 lines of encrypted code? |\n| 19 | A.
Not to my knowledge. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did you tell her that Team 1 was working, though, on the 16 |\n| 21 | lines? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And did you tell her what they were doing with it? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes.
I said they told me that it would take about, |\n| 25 | roughly, six days each to decrypt each email address and |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | password.
So it was not six consecutive days for all six, but |\n| 2 | they could all be done simultaneously, but it would take about |\n| 3 | six days. |\n| 4 | Q.
And you retrieved that information -- let me ask you this: |\n| 5 | What was the actual day you retrieved the information in |\n| 6 | Dublin? |\n| 7 | A.
I want to say January 30th.
It might have been a day |\n| 8 | before, but January 29th or 30th. |\n| 9 | Q.
And the person who met you there had themselves traveled |\n| 10 | from somewhere else in Europe? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
So, do you know when the information had been -- let me ask |\n| 13 | you this:
Did the Team 1 leader tell you when the information |\n| 14 | had been loaded on to the drive? |\n| 15 | A.
It would have been that morning, when I arrived in Europe. |\n| 16 | Q.
So, at this point, we're, what, 13 days into the contract? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
And did you express any concerns to the Team 1 leader that |\n| 19 | they weren't working fast enough? |\n| 20 | A.
I expressed the client's concerns that they weren't working |\n| 21 | fast enough, and this person's a computer engineer, and he was |\n| 22 | incredulous that it's simply not humanly or technically |\n| 23 | possible to work faster. |\n| 24 | Q.
Did you tell that to Yvette Wang? |\n| 25 | A.
I conveyed -- yes, something to that effect, yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Is there anything else that you learned from the Team 1 |\n| 2 | leader on January 30th that was different from your |\n| 3 | January 24th meeting? |\n| 4 | A.
Different? |\n| 5 | Q.
Or in addition to? |\n| 6 | A.
Probably.
I don't recall. |\n| 7 | Q.
Well, earlier you mentioned the Panamanian issue.
Is this |\n| 8 | when you learned that information? |\n| 9 | A.
No, this was -- they found a connection, but this related |\n| 10 | to Team 2, where there was actual -- a large amount of |\n| 11 | material, but they also did find a connection with a series of |\n| 12 | Panamanian front companies. |\n| 13 | Q.
Let me stop you.
We'll come back to that later. |\n| 14 | Did you have messages with Yvette Wang about the work |\n| 15 | that you conveyed to her with these first two drives? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | MR. GREIM:
Can we put up -- let's start with |\n| 18 | Exhibit 21. |\n| 19 | Q.
And, Dr. Waller -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Can I ask a question, Mr. Greim? |\n| 21 | MR. GREIM:
Sure. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
On the research agreement, there's a |\n| 23 | provision, remember, that says there will be a single line of |\n| 24 | communication between the contractor and the client.
The |\n| 25 | individuals through which such communication will be made will |\n| | |\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect\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\n25\n\nbe identified upon the initiation of the contract.\n\nWho was it that Eastern identified as the line of communication for them? And how did they identify that person? THE WITNESS: It alternated between Lianchao Han, who lived near us in the Washington, D.C. area, and so we could just visit him that day within minutes, and Yvette Wang, up here in New York.\n\nTHE COURT: I mean, I understand those are the people you communicated with. My question goes to: Who from Eastern Profit conveyed who the line of communication was going to be, and what did it say? Or maybe there wasn't such a --\n\nTHE WITNESS: Yes. Yvette Wang said it in writing on one occasion that I recall in a text. But, previously, it was dealing directly with Lianchao, who talked to Mr. Guo, where Yvette Wang wasn't part of it. So we were working directly through that -- through Lianchao Han as the interlocutor with Guo.\n\nTHE COURT: And then Yvette Wang subsequently sent a message that said what? 18 19\n\nTHE WITNESS: Later on, we were instructed at a lunch at Guo's house, at his residence, in roughly the third week of January, that we would work only with Yvette Wang, and then subsequently on the 30th or so of January, in a text message, Yvette instructed me to only work with Lianchao. 20 21 22 23 24\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| BY MR. GREIM: |\n| Q.
Let's talk about that.
Let's just pick up on that, |\n| Dr. Waller, and cut forward here a little bit faster.
Let's |\n| talk about that meeting at Mr. Guo's apartment. |\n| What did Mr. Guo say at that meeting? |\n| A.
At which meeting? |\n| Q.
The meeting that you just referenced in response to the |\n| Court's question. |\n| A.
He -- |\n| THE COURT:
And when was this meeting? |\n| THE WITNESS:
This was sometime in the third week of |\n| January.
I want to say the 24th, roughly, but I'm not quite |\n| positive of the date. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry, could you -- |\n| BY MR. GREIM: |\n| Q.
What did Mr. Guo say at this meeting? |\n| A.
It was at a lunch with French Wallop, Mr. Guo, Yvette Wang, |\n| and myself, and she related the instruction in Mr. Guo's |\n| presence that she would be the sole interlocutor. |\n| Q.
What did Mr. Guo say about the results at that meeting? |\n| A.
He was very upset.
It was during that meeting, he was very |\n| upset that we hadn't come up with the mother load of material |\n| right away. |\n| And what did you tell him?
Q. |\n| |\n\n| of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| A.
We tried to explain to him the way that it was all being |\n| set up.
We hadn't expressed -- we hadn't told him face to face |\n| before, we only had through Lianchao or Yvette, and he was |\n| still very angry and said that he wanted the information now. |\n| Q.
Let's look now at Exhibit 21.
If you look at -- I'm sorry, |\n| Exhibit 20.
I apologize. |\n| If you look at -- first of all, do you recognize |\n| Exhibit 20? |\n| A.
20 is -- it looks like a text exchange.
That's my handle |\n| on Signal, Pyratz.
And I don't see the other pages, but it |\n| looks like the communication with Yvette. |\n| MR. GREIM:
I would ask the witness, it may be easier |\n| with these exhibits to use the binder in front of you, so you |\n| can flip back and forth. |\n| THE WITNESS:
Which exhibit number again? |\n| BY MR. GREIM: |\n| Q.
20. |\n| Okay.
A.
Yes, this is communication between Yvette Wang and |\n| me. |\n| Q.
Do you recall trying to explain to Yvette the reason for |\n| the reports that you had made to her so far? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
And do you recall trying to explain to her that you |\n| expected to find longer term, but not necessarily immediate |\n| results? |\n| |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes.
That was understood from the very start. |\n| 2 | Q.
Is that what you're communicating on the first page of |\n| 3 | Exhibit 20? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
And then you see her response the next day, she says -- or |\n| 6 | the next message, \"He said the biggest problem is that your |\n| 7 | people didn't even find the door after ten days, not mentioned |\n| 8 | about entering the door.\" |\n| 9 | Do you see her concern there? |\n| 10 | A.
Which page was this? |\n| 11 | Q.
Just the very next page of Exhibit 20.
Her response to |\n| 12 | your statement.
It should say 263 at the bottom. |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
By the way, did you understand who she's speaking on behalf |\n| 15 | of here when she says \"he\"? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes.
Guo Wengui. |\n| 17 | That was not Han Chunguang, to your understanding, was it?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
No. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did you have concern at this point about the relationship |\n| 20 | of the parties? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
What was your concern? |\n| 23 | A.
Well, we had now -- we had two points of contact that |\n| 24 | conflicted with one another, we had both designated by Mr. Guo. |\n| 25 | One was Yvette Wang; the other one was Lianchao Han. |\n| | |\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect of 243\n\n| 1 | Lianchao understood, really, everything.
He |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | implicitly understood it, and he -- and he understood the |\n| 3 | details.
She seemed not to understand any of the details, but |\n| 4 | was just demanding information that we told them was literally |\n| 5 | impossible to produce in the startup time period. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did Ms. Wang tell you whether she had any experience with |\n| 7 | research projects like this? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did she seem to have experience with research projects? |\n| 10 | A.
Not at all. |\n| 11 | Q.
Do you recall her, during this exchange at some point, |\n| 12 | telling you that a big budget was ready, and that investors |\n| 13 | could pay you even without a contract? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | MR. GREIM:
Can you pull up Exhibit 21, please. |\n| 16 | Q.
Unfortunately, we have a chain that was produced to us in |\n| 17 | these clips like this, but I'm just going to direct you.
You |\n| 18 | see in gray at least a clip of your response, one of your |\n| 19 | messages to her? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes.
Mine is light gray. |\n| 21 | Q.
And then she's in dark gray? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And you see she tells you, \"Yes, as you know, big budget is |\n| 24 | ready for this long-term project.
The investors can even pay |\n| 25 | your team without contract\"? |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
What was your reaction to receiving that message from her? |\n| 3 | A.
It was twofold, because a lot of our work with Guo was |\n| 4 | understood in our conversations, and we would just go ahead and |\n| 5 | do it, but we still needed it within the framework of a |\n| 6 | contract to ensure payment.
This was the first time we had |\n| 7 | heard anything about or that I had heard anything about |\n| 8 | investors and something outside the contract. |\n| 9 | Q.
Did you ever ask her who the investors were? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
What did she say? |\n| 12 | A.
She refused to say. |\n| 13 | Q.
Let's go to the next page, the rest of her response. |\n| 14 | You'll see, it says, \"But the investors would not continue to |\n| 15 | spend money on the things they don't need, for instance, the |\n| 16 | things of today.\" |\n| 17 | Now, Dr. Waller, was this the day you had given her |\n| 18 | that second drive? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
And then she says, \"Checked with them.
We have 20 days to |\n| 21 | update them two to three times, hopefully with the financial |\n| 22 | and tracking results agreed in contract.
Even partly, but |\n| 23 | please be correct.
Without above, the investors could not move |\n| 24 | to second month with us, and hard to do future with us, I'm |\n| 25 | afraid.\" |\n\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | Do you see that? | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q.
What was your reaction to that? | |\n| 4 | A.
Well, first of all, it told me that she somehow understood | |\n| 5 | and accepted the complexities involved with the startup saying | |\n| 6 | we have another 20 days to update whoever it was that was being | |\n| 7 | updated.
But the second one was disturbing because she said | |\n| 8 | that without that precondition, quote, the investors could not | |\n| 9 | move to a second month, which put an end to something, but it | |\n| 10 | was just more of a hypothetical, but it was still a warning | |\n| 11 | sign. | |\n| 12 | And I accepted that as the client showing they | |\n| 13 | expected something more, but they were definitely giving us | |\n| 14 | another 20 days to begin producing more to their satisfaction. | |\n| 15 | Q.
When were you expecting the first payment on the contract? | |\n| 16 | A.
On the 15th of February. | |\n| 17 | Q.
And how much was that supposed to be under the contract, to | |\n| 18 | your understanding? | |\n| 19 | A.
That was supposed to be \\$750,000. | |\n| 20 | Q.
And so was Strategic Vision counting on that payment to | |\n| 21 | continue paying its teams? | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 23 | Q.
I should say its team? | |\n| 24 | Yes.
A. | |\n| 25 | Q.
Did you have any concern that the contract may get | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | prematurely terminated around this time? |\n| 2 | A.
No, we were not expecting it.
We were not expecting it to |\n| 3 | be terminated because we expected to resolve the issues. |\n| 4 | Q.
Let me take you to Exhibit 22 now. |\n| 5 | Do you see there -- and, again, is this a message from |\n| 6 | you to Ms. Wang? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And you say, \"There was a disconnect we need to resolve. |\n| 9 | Our understanding was that the first 90 days would be for |\n| 10 | starting up and developing the data, with regular reports to |\n| 11 | him, so he can: (1) see the progress, and (2) critique the work |\n| 12 | so we can make necessary adjustments.\" |\n| 13 | Did I read that right? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And was that your consistent understanding from negotiation |\n| 16 | through performance? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A.
Including face to face with Mr. Guo. |\n| 18 | Q.
And do you see next, you say, \"We did not understand that |\n| 19 | he expected actionable data in the first days or week\"? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
\"Had we understood this, we would have told him that that |\n| 22 | is not how it works in our experience.\" |\n| 23 | Did I read that right? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
Was that true? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
So you say, \"So this is something that needs to be resolved |\n| 3 | fast,\" right? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, was it resolved fast? |\n| 6 | A.
No.
We addressed it fast, and we produced results fast, |\n| 7 | but it wasn't resolved fast. |\n| 8 | Q.
What did you -- did you make any changes in the |\n| 9 | investigation work after this exchange? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
What did you do? |\n| 12 | A.
We retained a different group in the United States to |\n| 13 | research using very different methodologies. |\n| 14 | Q.
By the way, I'm sorry, I skipped ahead a little too fast, |\n| 15 | Dr. Waller. |\n| 16 | MR. GREIM:
Exhibit 23, please pull that up. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I assume you're going to offer them at |\n| 18 | some point? |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
I will.
I'm just going to do the whole |\n| 20 | sling here. |\n| 21 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 22 | Q.
Do you see in Exhibit 23, Ms. Wang says, \"Once again, I |\n| 23 | apologize for the straightforward translation of comments |\n| 24 | above.
To be honest to each other, this is the only way to |\n| 25 | make the project happen.
I hope you could share the same |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | feeling with us.
Thank you.\" |\n| 2 | Did I read that right? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
And then your response:
\"Good to know.
The reports are |\n| 5 | not actionable, but to show how the work is being executed,\" |\n| 6 | and then you go on? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
Was that your belief at that time? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
You indicated you were starting cold? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
What did you mean by that? |\n| 13 | A.
Meaning we had no corporate structure.
We were not an |\n| 14 | existing -- we had no corporate structure to do this kind of |\n| 15 | work, that we had to create the teams from the start, which is |\n| 16 | what was part of our negotiations with Mr. Guo. |\n| 17 | Did you then ask for a meeting with Guo after the 30th for
Q. |\n| 18 | him to give guidance on whether to continue with the current -- |\n| 19 | on whether to provide guidance? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did that meeting happen? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | MR. GREIM:
Now I move the admission of Exhibits 21 |\n| 24 | through 23. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I take it no objection as to the |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | authenticity or the timing of each of these? |\n| 2 | MR. CHUFF:
None, your Honor. |\n| 3 | MR. GREIM:
I'm sorry, I wanted to add 20. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So, those are received subject to the |\n| 5 | motion to strike. |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Just to be clear, I added 20.
I just |\n| 7 | missed it. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
20 to 23 are received subject to the |\n| 9 | motion to strike. |\n| 10 | (Defendant's Exhibits 20 through 23 received in |\n| 11 | evidence) |\n| 12 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 13 | Q.
So, Dr. Waller, what did you do, then, to change or to |\n| 14 | supplement your research methods after this exchange? |\n| 15 | A.
We hired a firm in Texas with a completely different set of |\n| 16 | skill sets and methodologies to research names on the list. |\n| 17 | What do you mean by that, \"completely different\"?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
So rather than do data mining and intrusive computer |\n| 19 | capabilities, this organization was working with other |\n| 20 | commercially available databases and contacts within the |\n| 21 | federal government. |\n| 22 | Q.
Was it your intent to keep using Team 1, but also to add |\n| 23 | Team 2? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
Do you recall when you first met with Team 2? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
It was just a couple of days after the meeting with Yvette |\n| 2 | Wang, so the first couple of days of February 2018. |\n| 3 | Q.
Where were they? |\n| 4 | A.
In Dallas, Texas. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did you fly down there to see them? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
What did you discuss at that first meeting? |\n| 8 | A.
I presented them with that list of research names that were |\n| 9 | in the exhibit, so the 15 names with the 92 total, and then |\n| 10 | asked them to research a selection of those names to see what |\n| 11 | they do come up with using their own methods. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you feel comfortable hiring this Team 2? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Why?
Q. |\n| 15 | A.
I had known members associated with the team for several |\n| 16 | years, and they came recommended through a colleague who I had |\n| 17 | worked with on China issues for, I had worked with him for many |\n| 18 | years, and he lived in Dallas. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did ASOG get back to you on the research? |\n| 20 | Yes.
A.
ASOG was the company we retained to do research, and |\n| 21 | they got back to us within a week. |\n| 22 | Q.
How did they -- did they provide the information to you? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes.
We flew down to Dallas to meet with them.
They gave |\n| 24 | us -- we met with their entire research staff and management, |\n| 25 | we met for several hours, and they showed us the data that they |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | came up with, and they explained to us the context of all that |\n| 2 | data, but they would not provide us physical copies of the |\n| 3 | data. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up Exhibit 56. |\n| 5 | Q.
Do you recognize this document? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
What is it? |\n| 8 | A.
That's the invoice that what we called Team 2, ASOG, |\n| 9 | presented to us for the services rendered. |\n| 10 | Q.
And it looks like it came to Georgetown Research, Michael |\n| 11 | Waller? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
That's you? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you see on the first page, under \"Description,\" does |\n| 16 | this reflect the work that they told you that they did? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
Now, I see there on the third bullet point, it says, \"Track |\n| 19 | misinformation to the source to verify\"? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did they indicate to you what they meant by that? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
What did they say? |\n| 24 | A.
They said some -- |\n| 25 | MR. CHUFF:
Objection, your Honor.
Statements by |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Team 2 has already been recognized as hearsay in your Honor's |\n| 2 | motion in limine ruling, and it's irrelevant to go to the state |\n| 3 | of mind of ASOG. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Do you have the cites of my in limine |\n| 5 | ruling? |\n| 6 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes.
It's Docket 310, page 2 -- page 1 |\n| 7 | and 2. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, do you want to respond? |\n| 9 | MR. GREIM:
Sure. |\n| 10 | Your Honor, I'm doing the same thing I did before. |\n| 11 | The motion was on this record's protected designation.
I'm |\n| 12 | trying to get from the witness what ASOG told him it did and |\n| 13 | found, and we're going to have testimony shortly — and I can |\n| 14 | lay that foundation first — that he conveyed this on to Yvette |\n| 15 | Wang and Lianchao Han. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
But how is it anything other than hearsay |\n| 17 | with respect to -- if it's received from what ASOG did? |\n| 18 | MR. GREIM:
Well, it will be received for -- again, I |\n| 19 | can work backwards, as I did before with Team 1's results, but, |\n| 20 | no, this goes to what was communicated by ASOG, and the |\n| 21 | instructions that were then asked for from Yvette Wang and |\n| 22 | Lianchao Han, that because -- well, I won't say what the |\n| 23 | testimony will be. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Sorry, I cut you off.
Go ahead. |\n| 25 | MR. GREIM:
The Court, in its ruling, said defendant |\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\n23\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller - Redirect of 243\n\nshould be prepared to address whether the statements have any relevance taken only for the purposes of state of mind. Well, it's not coming in for the statement of ASOG's mind, it's coming in to explain what was learned and passed on to Lianchao Han and Yvette Wang about those names independent of whether ASOG actually did this work. The point is that it was passed on to Yvette Wang and questions were asked of her.\n\nTHE COURT: So, if that's the purpose for which you are trying to elicit this testimony, then I think the question is irrelevant, because whether ASOG said it to Mr. Waller or not, the question -- what you want to elicit is what Mr. Waller said to Yvette Wang. For all I know, and you won't ask this question, whether -- what Mr. Waller said to Yvette Wang is what Mr. Waller was told by ASOG, you'll just ask whether this is what he said.\n\nMR. GREIM: Okay. I will ask that question, then.\n\nTHE COURT: Is there any objection to testimony with respect to what Mr. Waller said to Yvette Wang? That is, I assume, part of the deliverables. Maybe it doesn't satisfy the contract, but it's relevant to that question. Counsel?\n\nMR. CHUFF: As long as it's not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. 21 22\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\nSo, the objection to the question about what ASOG said to Mr. Waller is sustained. You can move on. 24 25\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 2 | Q.
So I'm not going to ask you about what ASOG said to you, |\n| 3 | okay?
I'm now going to ask you what -- I probably should have |\n| 4 | raised this a second ago.
I'm going to ask you what you saw, |\n| 5 | what you saw, if you can recall that, and, again, you cannot |\n| 6 | tell me what ASOG told you. |\n| 7 | What did you see in the second meeting at ASOG? |\n| 8 | A.
I saw a great deal of information, so I can't reconstruct |\n| 9 | all of it, but it included the tracking information, very |\n| 10 | detailed tracking information, it included that certain |\n| 11 | subjects on the list shared the same U.S. Social Security |\n| 12 | number, showing Social Security fraud and arguably tax fraud in |\n| 13 | the United States, it showed evidence of forged U.S. documents, |\n| 14 | official U.S. documents -- |\n| 15 | Q.
Let me stop you. |\n| 16 | Did they show you -- did you see photocopies? |\n| 17 | Printouts, yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Printouts. |\n| 19 | Was it a printout on a piece of paper, or did you look |\n| 20 | on a computer screen? |\n| 21 | A.
They were printed out in color on paper. |\n| 22 | Q.
Were they presented to you in some sort of organized |\n| 23 | fashion? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And this was in a meeting? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Again, do not tell us -- as you're going through here, do |\n| 3 | not tell us what ASOG told you. |\n| 4 | A.
Okay. |\n| 5 | Q.
What else did you observe? |\n| 6 | A.
That they had a great deal of very useful, usable, and |\n| 7 | actionable information, which was exactly what Mr. Guo wanted. |\n| 8 | Q.
Why did you not take that information with you? |\n| 9 | A.
They would not -- ASOG would not allow me to. |\n| 10 | Q.
Did they tell you why they would not allow you to? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
What did they say? |\n| 13 | MR. CHUFF:
Objection, your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Sustained. |\n| 15 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 16 | Q.
Well, at any rate, you were not able to remove it and bring |\n| 17 | it back; is that right? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, but it is stated on this -- |\n| 19 | Q.
We can't -- |\n| 20 | A.
Okay. |\n| 21 | Q.
By the way, did you ever show this invoice to Yvette Wang |\n| 22 | or Lianchao Han? |\n| 23 | A.
By that time, I had been instructed by Yvette Wang to not |\n| 24 | have any more contact with her — this was on or about |\n| 25 | January 30th — and to work solely with Lianchao Han. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q. | So by this point, you're back to working with Lianchao Han? |\n| 2 | A. | Yes. |\n| 3 | Q. | Did you show this invoice to Lianchao Han? |\n| 4 | A. | I believe I did.
This was dated later than this immediate |\n| 5 | time. | This was dated a couple of weeks later. |\n| 6 | Q. | Okay. |\n| 7 | A. | The invoice was dated a couple of weeks later. |\n| 8 | Q. | Now, ASOG was prepared to charge you about \\$105,000? |\n| 9 | A. | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q. | And they only charged you \\$5,412? |\n| 11 | A. | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q. | Do you have any understanding as to why that is? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q. | Is it based on something ASOG told you? |\n| 15 | A. | I mean, I'd be happy to freely answer the question, but I |\n| 16 | | understand the restrictions. |\n| 17 | Q. | It's just a yes or no.
If it's yes -- |\n| 18 | A. | I understand why. |\n| 19 | Q. | Is it based on something ASOG said to you? |\n| 20 | A. | Yes. |\n| 21 | Q. | All right. |\n| 22 | | Did you report the results of this to Lianchao, then, |\n| 23 | | and not Yvette Wang? |\n| 24 | A. | Yes. |\n| 25 | Q. | What did you tell Lianchao Han? |\n| | | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I told him that I was told that it was illegal to obtain |\n| 2 | this information under federal law, given the nature of what |\n| 3 | was found. |\n| 4 | Q.
Did you tell him why it was illegal? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
What did you tell him? |\n| 7 | A.
I was told that the five subjects on -- |\n| 8 | Q.
No, no, I'm sorry. |\n| 9 | Did you tell him -- don't tell us what you were told; |\n| 10 | tell us what you told Lianchao. |\n| 11 | A.
I told Lianchao Han that ASOG told me that it would be a |\n| 12 | federal crime to investigate the five subjects any further |\n| 13 | because the U.S. Government had classified those individuals |\n| 14 | as, quote, RP, or records protected. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did Lianchao appear to understand what \"records protected\" |\n| 16 | meant? |\n| 17 | He didn't know what it meant, but when I explained to him
A. |\n| 18 | what it meant, he agreed. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did you tell Lianchao anything about any federal agency |\n| 20 | that would have designated them records protected? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
What did you tell him? |\n| 23 | A.
I told him that it was designated records protected by the |\n| 24 | NCS. |\n| 25 | Q.
What is the NCS? |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
That's the National Clandestine Service of the CIA. |\n| 2 | Q.
Now, did you independently know what that was? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
What is the National Clandestine Service of the CIA? |\n| 5 | A.
It used to be called Directorate of Operations.
That's the |\n| 6 | unit of the CIA that handles foreigners who have been recruited |\n| 7 | as human agents for the CIA. |\n| 8 | Q.
Did you tell Lianchao what the significance of records |\n| 9 | protected was? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
What did you tell him? |\n| 12 | A.
I told him that there's a classification called records |\n| 13 | protected to protect foreign subjects from these types of |\n| 14 | database searches for the purpose of protecting their records, |\n| 15 | their personal records, against intrusion, either because they |\n| 16 | were subjects of a criminal or a national security |\n| 17 | investigation, or because they were not subjects of a pending |\n| 18 | criminal or national security investigation, to make it so that |\n| 19 | no one would know whether or not they were, and also to protect |\n| 20 | foreigners who had agreed to cooperate covertly with the United |\n| 21 | States Government. |\n| 22 | Q.
What was Lianchao's response? |\n| 23 | A.
He understood immediately, said we'll have to come up with |\n| 24 | some new names, and then we discussed how we would do that. |\n| 25 | Q.
You say we discussed how we'd do that.
What did you |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | discuss? |\n| 2 | A.
Well, I said we can't search these names.
I don't know the |\n| 3 | legality of it at all.
This was this firm that had said it |\n| 4 | would be illegal for the firm to do.
I obviously wasn't going |\n| 5 | to anything to undermine the U.S. Government's interests, so we |\n| 6 | had to brainstorm to figure out let's pull these fish out and |\n| 7 | put more fish in, to use the metaphor from the contract. |\n| 8 | Q.
Did you tell Lianchao about the kind of information that |\n| 9 | ASOG had showed you, but not let you take with you? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And what was that information? |\n| 12 | A.
That consisted of flight records, of certain financial |\n| 13 | records, meaning not the bank account statements themselves, |\n| 14 | but the fact that there were accounts at certain banks and |\n| 15 | financial institutions around the world.
They included |\n| 16 | residences, properties.
There was one person who was on the |\n| 17 | list, but not one of the 15, someone related to Anita Suen, who |\n| 18 | had retained an attorney in, I believe, Nebraska, who had set |\n| 19 | up scores, if not hundreds, of Panamanian front companies. |\n| 20 | Q.
And so did you ask Lianchao whether you could follow up on |\n| 21 | that lead? |\n| 22 | A.
He was enthused.
He said this is exactly the kind of stuff |\n| 23 | we're looking for.
It looked -- it was obvious that somebody |\n| 24 | was setting up huge numbers of Panamanian front companies, |\n| 25 | Chinese nationals doing it through Nebraska.
That shows that |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | there's something wrong going on, and if it's against Communist |\n| 2 | Party rules, and we can expose it, let's do so. |\n| 3 | So Lianchao agreed there was a lot of potential |\n| 4 | information from this haul. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, did you understand that if you were able to get new |\n| 6 | names, that ASOG would continue to work or would work on the |\n| 7 | new names? |\n| 8 | A.
They were reluctant to continue work because they demanded |\n| 9 | to know who the client was. |\n| 10 | Q.
Did you tell them? |\n| 11 | A.
No, I was not allowed to, but they figured it out on their |\n| 12 | own. |\n| 13 | Q.
Well, we can't go into that. |\n| 14 | So, did Lianchao go back and get new names from Guo? |\n| 15 | A.
No. |\n| 16 | Pardon me.
He went back to Guo, but he did not come |\n| 17 | back to us with new names. |\n| 18 | Q.
When did he come back to you? |\n| 19 | A.
Well, we kept talking throughout this whole time. |\n| 20 | Q.
Do you recall, did you end up having an in-person meeting |\n| 21 | with Lianchao in February? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
When was it? |\n| 24 | A.
We met several times then, but we met with French Wallop at |\n| 25 | her home later, a couple of weeks later, to just go over where |\n| | |\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n| 1 | we stand and what we do.
He had told us, meanwhile, to stand | | | |\n| 2 | down activities until he could resolve things with Guo.
He was | | | |\n| 3 | still acting as Guo's agent with us, but he gave us no further | | | |\n| 4 | instructions. | | | |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, by February 16th, had you received the first \\$750,000 | | | |\n| 6 | payment? | | | |\n| 7 | A.
No. | | | |\n| 8 | Q.
Did you ever receive that? | | | |\n| 9 | A.
No. | | | |\n| 10 | Q.
What was -- how did that affect your investigative | | | |\n| 11 | operations? | | | |\n| 12 | A.
That prevented us from continuing with Team 1 because we | | | |\n| 13 | were paying them one month in advance, and so we had no way to | | | |\n| 14 | plan ahead for anything. | | | |\n| 15 | Q.
So, by this point, how much had you paid Team 1? | | | |\n| 16 | A.
We had paid them 200 -- it was discussed yesterday | | | |\n| 17 | specifically, but, roughly, between 200 and \\$250,000. | | | |\n| 18 | Q.
And -- | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, when you come to the end of | | | |\n| 20 | this line of examination, we'll take a break. | | | |\n| 21 | MR. GREIM:
Okay. | | | |\n| 22 | I'm sorry, I wanted to be done.
We're almost there. | | | |\n| 23 | BY MR. GREIM: | | | |\n| 24 | Q.
What was their monthly fee? | | | |\n| 25 | A.
\\$200,000. | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS2
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
So was their next 200,000 due in mid-February? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
Were you counting on the \\$750,000 to pay them? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did you ask Lianchao whether you should go forward and try |\n| 6 | to come up with the money? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
What did he say? |\n| 9 | A.
He said, just wait, let me try to work it out. |\n| 10 | Q.
And what's the next thing you heard from Guo's side? |\n| 11 | A.
Apart from through Lianchao? |\n| 12 | Q.
Well, let's say from Lianchao, what's the next thing you |\n| 13 | heard? |\n| 14 | A.
Lianchao was very upset.
He was upset that the project |\n| 15 | wasn't going ahead.
He seemed more upset for us than anything |\n| 16 | else because he himself was personally very enthused about the |\n| 17 | project, and he had no answers to give us of any kind. |\n| 18 | Q.
So, did you then recall receiving a termination letter? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
When was that? |\n| 21 | A.
That was on February 23rd, 2018. |\n| 22 | Q.
So just a week after this meeting with Lianchao? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I do just have a question for |\n| 25 | the witness about -- well, I actually -- it's kind of a new |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | area.
It might take ten or fifteen minutes. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Let's reconvene at 2:00 o'clock. |\n| 3 | We'll take a break at this time for lunch. |\n| 4 | Everybody, make sure to be back in your seats well |\n| 5 | before 2:00 o'clock, so we can get started on time. |\n| 6 | (Luncheon recess) |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\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| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Redirect | | | |\n| 1 | AFTERNOON SESSION | | | |\n| 2 | 2:01 PM | | | |\n| 3 | (Trial resumed) | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Dr. Waller, you're reminded that you're | | | |\n| 5 | under oath. | | | |\n| 6 | Mr. Greim, you may inquire. | | | |\n| 7 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION | | | |\n| 8 | BY MR. GREIM: | | | |\n| 9 | Q.
Dr. Waller, we just spent a good part of the day talking | | | |\n| 10 | about what you received and what you passed on to Yvette Wang | | | |\n| 11 | and Lianchao Han.
I now want to show you the final page of the | | | |\n| 12 | parties' stipulation.
These are our joint proposed findings. | | | |\n| 13 | I want to focus you on 54 through 57. | | | |\n| 14 | So, you'll see, 54 through 56 are all similar; they | | | |\n| 15 | relate to \"financial forensic historical research, current | | | |\n| 16 | tracking research,\" and then 56 is \"social media research.\" | | | |\n| 17 | Do you see that? | | | |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 19 | Q.
Each one of them says, \"Strategic never delivered to | | | |\n| 20 | Eastern any,\" then they name the research, \"called for under | | | |\n| 21 | the research agreement.\"
Do you see that? | | | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 23 | Q.
Do you agree with that statement? | | | |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 25 | Q.
Under the research agreement, we saw that -- we saw, in | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Redirect | | | |\n| 1 | fact, that research could only be delivered on a USB drive? | | | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 3 | Q.
And we saw some other requirements, including that there | | | |\n| 4 | was a tight time frame for the provision of the different kinds | | | |\n| 5 | of research, correct? | | | |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 7 | Q.
And we saw that, at least as it's called for under the | | | |\n| 8 | research agreement, Strategic wasn't able to deliver those | | | |\n| 9 | things to Eastern, right? | | | |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 11 | Q.
And Strategic was unable to prepare any detailed reports, | | | |\n| 12 | as we see in paragraph 57, right? | | | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 14 | Q.
What was Strategic able to give Eastern? | | | |\n| 15 | A.
We were able to give Eastern the very best information we | | | |\n| 16 | could under very extreme circumstances. | | | |\n| 17 | I want to move now, Dr. Waller, to damages.
Q. | | | |\n| 18 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up Exhibit 64, which you'll get | | | |\n| 19 | in the Waller set.
And if you could, go to page 2. | | | |\n| 20 | Q.
Dr. Waller, you sat here throughout yesterday as Ms. Wallop | | | |\n| 21 | testified to these funds coming out from the Strategic Vision | | | |\n| 22 | account? | | | |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 24 | Q.
And if you look at the right-hand column of her chart, you | | | |\n| 25 | see that 200 went to Cyber Sol? | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | A. | Yes. | | | |\n| 2 | Q. | And that came to Cyber Solutions, right? | | | |\n| 3 | A. | Yes. | | | |\n| 4 | Q. | That was your entity? | | | |\n| 5 | A. | Yes. | | | |\n| 6 | Q. | And then 25,000 to GRG? | | | |\n| 7 | A. | Yes. | | | |\n| 8 | Q. | And then 200,000 to GRG? | | | |\n| 9 | A. | Yes. | | | |\n| 10 | Q. | Now, which of those wires did you send along to Team 1? | | | |\n| 11 | A. | I sent the 25,000 to GRG and the 20,000 to GRG. | | | |\n| 12 | Q. | If we keep going -- | | | |\n| 13 | A. | Pardon me, the 200 to GRG. | | | |\n| 14 | Q. | The 200,000. | | | |\n| 15 | | If we go to the May -- | | | |\n| 16 | | THE COURT:
That's Team 1? | | | |\n| 17 | | THE WITNESS:
Yes. | | | |\n| 18 | | BY MR. GREIM: | | | |\n| 19 | Q. | And the Cyber Solutions -- | | | |\n| 20 | A. | GRG was the cutout to pay Team 1. | | | |\n| 21 | Q. | And the Cyber Solutions, you did not disburse to others, | | | |\n| 22 | | correct? | | | |\n| 23 | A. | Yes. | | | |\n| 24 | Q. | What was that to pay for? | | | |\n| 25 | A. | That was for my own time and effort in the program and | | | |\n| | | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | | | |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| risk. |\n| Q.
That was not just pure profit for you, was it? |\n| A.
No. |\n| Q.
And then if you go to June 2018 -- |\n| MR. GREIM:
Could you flip forward?
Actually, I went |\n| too far.
Go to May. |\n| Q.
Do you see 15,000 to GRG? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
Where did that money go? |\n| A.
That was to pay an outstanding bill. |\n| Q.
Was this the legal bill we talked about earlier? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
And now we can go to June. |\n| 50,000 to what Ms. Wallop wrote as OE.
Did you |\n| receive 50,000 for OA at that time? |\n| A.
Through an LLC I had at the time called Oceanic Advisors. |\n| What was that money spent for?
Q. |\n| A.
That was to wrap up Team 1, to satisfy them that that was |\n| the end of the contractual arrangement. |\n| Q.
I'm sorry, why did you have to pay Team 1 at that time? |\n| A.
Because we had an abrupt end -- there was going to be no |\n| payment, all of a sudden, for the second month.
They were very |\n| upset and disgruntled.
They felt they had been cheated.
So |\n| this was settling their claim, so that they would not expose |\n| the existence of the project. |\n| |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | Q.
Let me ask you now -- I'm going -- thank you, Dr. Waller. |\n| 2 | I just want to move very briefly to your testimony regarding |\n| 3 | the fraud claim that Mr. Chuff asked you about. |\n| 4 | Do you recall testifying yesterday that close ties |\n| 5 | between a person in the U.S. and China are not enough alone to |\n| 6 | raise concerns about their dissident status? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
Did I portray that accurately just now? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
You indicated there was something more needed.
Do you |\n| 11 | recall that? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
What is that something more? |\n| 14 | A.
That's the nature of the relations and the intent behind |\n| 15 | the relations. |\n| 16 | Q.
So, I don't want to go through all of our evidence, I just |\n| 17 | want to use one example, Dr. Waller. |\n| 18 | You recall being asked about the May 2017 meeting |\n| 19 | between Guo Wengui and some members of the CCP policy row and |\n| 20 | PRC? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
How did you know about that before the contract was |\n| 23 | executed? |\n| 24 | A.
Mr. Guo had told me about it. |\n| 25 | Q.
And had there been press written about it, too? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | A. | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q. | What did Mr. Guo tell you about that meeting? |\n| 3 | A. | He said that the senior party and secret police officials |\n| 4 | | came to him to threaten him with kidnapping. |\n| 5 | Q. | This is at his own apartment in New York City? |\n| 6 | A. | Yes. |\n| 7 | Q. | And have you seen that he's made that claim many, many |\n| 8 | times? | |\n| 9 | A. | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q. | Now, before you entered the contract, you had just heard |\n| 11 | | Guo's version of the story, correct? |\n| 12 | A. | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q. | Did you come to find out that -- and, by the way, do you |\n| 14 | | recall Guo saying he had some recordings of it? |\n| 15 | A. | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q. | Did you come to actually find some of the recordings and |\n| 17 | | view the transcriptions of them? |\n| 18 | A. | Yes. |\n| 19 | Q. | When you say something more was required, did you find the |\n| 20 | | something more in reviewing those recordings? |\n| 21 | A. | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q. | What was it? |\n| 23 | A. | That it wasn't a threat against Guo, that he had stated in |\n| 24 | | his own voice that he had cut a deal with the Communist Party, |\n| 25 | | and that he would limit his whistleblower campaign to certain |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | targets, and that he had not stepped beyond a certain |\n| 2 | agreed-upon line that he had previously made with the |\n| 3 | communists. |\n| 4 | Q.
And did you -- sticking with the theme of something more, |\n| 5 | did you see any other recording by Guo after May 2017 in which |\n| 6 | he said something similar? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes.
In late August of 2017, he had a written statement, |\n| 8 | and then a video that he made of himself, proclaiming his |\n| 9 | loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party and to Chairman Xi |\n| 10 | Jinping personally. |\n| 11 | MR. GREIM:
Thank you.
No further questions, |\n| 12 | Dr. Waller. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Any reexamination? |\n| 14 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
You may proceed. |\n| 16 | RECROSS EXAMINATION |\n| 17 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 18 | Q.
Good afternoon, Dr. Waller. |\n| 19 | Now, earlier today, you testified that you trusted |\n| 20 | Lianchao Han; is that correct? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
And that he was credible? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And you were at Lianchao's deposition; isn't that right, in |\n| 25 | this case? |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Pardon? |\n| 2 | Q.
You attended Lianchao Han's deposition in this case; isn't |\n| 3 | that right? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, a number of times earlier today, you characterized |\n| 6 | Lianchao Han as Guo's helper.
Do you remember that? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
And you called him his agent? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Now, do you remember that Lianchao actually testified that |\n| 11 | he was merely serving as an intermediary between the two |\n| 12 | parties, not Guo's agent? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes.
Well, let me correct that.
I would have to see the |\n| 14 | actual wording first. |\n| 15 | Q.
Well, do you remember that? |\n| 16 | A.
I can't recall specifically to give you a yes or no. |\n| 17 | Sure.
Q.
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. GREIM:
So let's pull up Lianchao Han's deposition |\n| 19 | transcript of August 28, 2019, and turn to page 160. |\n| 20 | Q.
So Lianchao Han was asked:
\"What was your role here?
Did |\n| 21 | you see yourself as an intermediary between the two sides or as |\n| 22 | a representative of Guo?\" |\n| 23 | Lianchao answered:
\"I think I'm a person to |\n| 24 | facilitate this project.
I'm a friend on both sides.
I have |\n| 25 | no financial interest in there.
My entire thing is driven by |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | political agenda.
So I just want to get the things done, you |\n| 2 | know, achieve what we said we're going to do.
That's it.\" |\n| 3 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Now, you also testified that Lianchao told you that the USB |\n| 6 | drives that Strategic delivered to Eastern were \"good leads\"; |\n| 7 | is that correct? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And, in fact, you testified that he said they were great; |\n| 10 | isn't that correct? |\n| 11 | A.
No.
He said that the information -- the leads that we were |\n| 12 | developing were great.
He wasn't specifically referring to |\n| 13 | information on a drive. |\n| 14 | Q.
I want to refer you back to Lianchao Han's deposition |\n| 15 | transcript, this time page 275.
I'm going to start with line |\n| 16 | 15.
Mr. Han was asked:
\"Let me try it again.
Looking at this |\n| 17 | first full paragraph on the second page, it says, 'The |\n| 18 | contractor will produce a progress report on the financial |\n| 19 | forensic research each week in the first month, one preliminary |\n| 20 | report in the first month, and one comprehensive historical |\n| 21 | research report within three months, and with update reports in |\n| 22 | each following month.
The client may require reports per |\n| 23 | individual subject to the client within a specified time frame |\n| 24 | as well as all relevant data.'
Do you see that?\" |\n| 25 | He responded:
\"Yes.\" |\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\nL4KKEAS3 Waller - Recross of 243\n\nThen he was asked: \"I'll ask you again. Did Strategic Vision deliver weekly reports within the first month of the agreement?\"\n\nHe responded: \"No.\"\n\nThen he was asked: \"If you look further down the page, it says, 'The contractor will produce social media research per individual subject to the client on a weekly basis for the first month and on a monthly basis except under circumstances that require more frequent reporting (weekly or fortnightly) as the client directs or irregular emergencies that the contractor may discover.' Do you see that?\"\n\nMr. Han responded: \"Uh-huh.\"\n\nThen he was asked: \"Did Strategic Vision deliver weekly reports during the first month of the agreement concerning social media research?\"\n\nAnd he responds: \"No.\"\n\nFurther down, he is asked: \"And if you look in the middle of the page there again, we're on page number 6, the middle paragraph says, 'The contractor will produce concurrent tracking research per individual subject to the client on a monthly basis except in the first month. That weekly report shall be delivered under circumstances that require more frequent reporting (weekly or fortnightly) as the client directs up to six-month period.' Do you see that?\"\n\nHe responds: \"Yes.\"\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Then he's asked:
\"Did Strategic Vision deliver weekly |\n| 2 | reports on tracking research per individual subject during the |\n| 3 | first month of the agreement?\" |\n| 4 | He responds:
\"No.\" |\n| 5 | Then he's asked:
\"Okay.
Did there come a time when |\n| 6 | Strategic Vision delivered a 60-gigabyte hard drive of data to |\n| 7 | Eastern Profit?\" |\n| 8 | He responds:
\"Yes.\" |\n| 9 | Now we're on page 278.
He's asked:
\"And what was on |\n| 10 | the hard drive?\" |\n| 11 | He responds:
\"It's lots of junk information.\" |\n| 12 | Then he's asked:
\"Was any of that information the |\n| 13 | kind of useful reporting that Eastern Profit would have |\n| 14 | expected under this agreement?\" |\n| 15 | He responds:
\"No.\" |\n| 16 | Dr. Waller, did I read all of that correctly? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Changing topics here a little bit: |\n| 19 | Earlier today, you testified that you told Lianchao |\n| 20 | Han that individuals on the subject list were not able to be |\n| 21 | investigated by Allied Special Operations Group, or ASOG, |\n| 22 | because they were so-called record protected status; is that |\n| 23 | right? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And if I refer just to Team 2, will you understand that I'm |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | referring to ASOG? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
Now, before Team 2 told you that the individuals on the |\n| 4 | subject list were records protected, you'd never heard of that |\n| 5 | term before; isn't that right? |\n| 6 | A.
Correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
And you don't know the legal source of the records |\n| 8 | protected status other than what ASOG, Team 2, told you; is |\n| 9 | that correct? |\n| 10 | A.
No. |\n| 11 | Q.
You didn't first learn of the records protected status and |\n| 12 | its legal origins from ASOG? |\n| 13 | A.
I first learned of it from ASOG. |\n| 14 | Q.
And you don't have any documentation evidencing the |\n| 15 | so-called records protected status of the subjects, right? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Yes, you don't have documentation?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 19 | Q.
Was that documentation produced in this litigation? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes, it was. |\n| 21 | Q.
What document is that? |\n| 22 | A.
It was on the ASOG invoice of February -- |\n| 23 | Q.
Okay.
I'm sorry, Dr. Waller, I jumped in. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
The witness was still giving an answer. |\n| 25 | Q.
You can finish.
I'm sorry. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
It was on the ASOG invoice, on page 2, of February 2018. |\n| 2 | Q.
So, other than what ASOG wrote in its invoice, do you have |\n| 3 | any other documentation of the records protected status |\n| 4 | designation? |\n| 5 | A.
Only what they told me, that I was directed not to repeat |\n| 6 | in court. |\n| 7 | Q.
Right. |\n| 8 | So we're just talking about documentation here.
So |\n| 9 | other than that invoice, any other documentation? |\n| 10 | A.
That's the sole documentation. |\n| 11 | Q.
But it's your contention that it was illegal to obtain this |\n| 12 | information, right? |\n| 13 | A.
That is what we were told. |\n| 14 | Q.
Yet, Team 2 somehow amassed a treasure trove of all of this |\n| 15 | actionable information; isn't that right? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | So, did ASOG violate the law?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
No. |\n| 19 | Q.
Well, you testified it was illegal to obtain this |\n| 20 | information, did you not? |\n| 21 | A.
It was illegal to -- it was illegal to pass it on.
They |\n| 22 | obviously obtained it legally; they just could not pass it on |\n| 23 | legally. |\n| 24 | Q.
Sir, you testified earlier that these individual subjects |\n| 25 | were records protected, and it was illegal to obtain |\n| | |\n\nL4KKEAS3 Waller - Recross information about them; isn't that right? A. It was illegal to obtain it if you knew they were RP. They obtained it, and then they were warned that the people were RP. So, as far as I'm concerned, I don't know of any illegality. It would have been illegal for them to pass it to me, and it would be illegal -- I don't know if it would have been illegal any further. So I went back to the client and said, it's illegal, please give me instructions on what to do. Q. So let's just break that apart. You just confirmed that it was illegal to obtain information on records protected parties; is that right? A. The way it was explained to me, it was illegal for them to pass me the RP designated material. Q. I know. And we went over this a few seconds ago. You testified that you confirmed that it was illegal -- to your understanding, that it's illegal to obtain information about records protected designated subjects? A. It is illegal for that firm to pass me, meaning to allow me to obtain, RP information. Q. Okay. Do you have a citation to this record protected status designation? A. No. Q. Do you know a statute that sets forth this records protected designation? A. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of 243\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Q.
Codified federal regulation? |\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
And despite the fact that ASOG, apparently, somehow |\n| 4 | obtained all this treasure trove of information and provided it |\n| 5 | to you, it didn't charge you for it? |\n| 6 | A.
It charged just a nominal fee for it. |\n| 7 | Q.
But despite having all of this information that it showed |\n| 8 | you? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
And it didn't charge you \\$200,000 of setup costs either, |\n| 11 | did it? |\n| 12 | A.
No.
It was a freestanding research organization that had |\n| 13 | already had its own team and its own methods. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, earlier today, you also testified that you told Yvette |\n| 15 | Wang that Team 1 told you of various problems that Team 1 had |\n| 16 | while investigating.
Do you recall testifying that? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
You spent a lot of time on that today, right? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
But at your deposition, you testified that Team 1 did not |\n| 21 | encounter any problems that were not standard.
Do you recall |\n| 22 | that? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes.
It's always standard to have irregularities. |\n| 24 | Q.
I'm sorry, there's no question pending. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Now, you can complete your answer, |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Dr. Waller. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 3 | The answer is that it is standard, it's to be |\n| 4 | expected, that you're going to -- you're likely to encounter |\n| 5 | substantial difficulties when initiating a complicated research |\n| 6 | project. |\n| 7 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 8 | Q.
Okay.
Standard is not irregular, is it? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes, it is.
It's an irregularity in terms of scheduling. |\n| 10 | Q.
Standard is the same thing as irregular? |\n| 11 | A.
It is considered normal to find difficulties when you're |\n| 12 | doing a complex research project, just as it would be if you're |\n| 13 | developing a legal case. |\n| 14 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 15 | A.
Okay.
So you -- however, it is irregular in terms of the |\n| 16 | schedule.
It will create irregularities in the schedule. |\n| 17 | Okay.
Q.
My question is:
Is standard the equivalent of |\n| 18 | irregular? |\n| 19 | A.
Not in the sense that you're trying to imply.
It is |\n| 20 | standard to expect irregularities. |\n| 21 | Q.
Also, earlier today, you testified that the deposit in the |\n| 22 | research agreement was nonrefundable; is that correct? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
But the research agreement does not say that anywhere, does |\n| 25 | it? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | A.
It says that the -- well, I'd have to see the research |\n| 2 | agreement in front of me. |\n| 3 | Q.
We can bring it up in a second, but do you recall -- |\n| 4 | A.
I don't want to rely on memory for the document.
I'd |\n| 5 | rather see the document. |\n| 6 | Q.
Sure.
We can bring it up. |\n| 7 | MR. CHUFF:
Can we please pull up PX 01. |\n| 8 | Q.
So, take as much time as you want.
Please point to the |\n| 9 | provision where it says the deposit is nonrefundable. |\n| 10 | A.
It says, \"The client will pay the contractor a deposit of |\n| 11 | U.S. \\$1 million upon signing of the contract.
The deposit will |\n| 12 | be credited on a prorated basis to the final one and one-third |\n| 13 | months of the contract.\" |\n| 14 | Q.
And credited for work done? |\n| 15 | A.
For the final one and one-third months of the contract. |\n| 16 | Q.
For work that's done? |\n| 17 | The sentence says what it's says.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Okay.
That doesn't say nonrefundable, does it? |\n| 19 | A.
It says it's going to be credited for the final one and |\n| 20 | one-third months of the contract. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You really need to be spending time |\n| 22 | cross-examining the witness on what a document says?
Why don't |\n| 23 | you move on. |\n| 24 | Q.
And the research agreement doesn't anywhere provide that |\n| 25 | for payment of startup costs? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I'm sorry, what do you mean by the question? |\n| 2 | Q.
Does the research agreement provide that startup costs are |\n| 3 | to be paid to Strategic? |\n| 4 | A.
That was our specific explicit understanding with Mr. Guo, |\n| 5 | which is why Strategic required the initial \\$1 million deposit. |\n| 6 | Q.
Just not explicit in this agreement? |\n| 7 | A.
Mr. Guo's name isn't even in the agreement. |\n| 8 | Q.
And you admitted yesterday that the deposit was not a |\n| 9 | signing bonus; isn't that correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Now, you also testified earlier today that the research |\n| 12 | agreement provided for a flat \\$750,000 fee regardless of |\n| 13 | performance; isn't that correct? |\n| 14 | A.
Let's see the document again. |\n| 15 | Q.
Well, isn't that what you testified today? |\n| 16 | A.
Let's see the document again. |\n| 17 | No.
Q.
I'm just asking, is that what you testified? |\n| 18 | A.
It's a flat \\$750,000 per month fee.
It's a flat rate to |\n| 19 | absorb any anomaly. |\n| 20 | Q.
Now, yesterday, you testified that the payment was tied to |\n| 21 | deliverables and that no payment would be due unless the |\n| 22 | deliverables were provided.
Do you recall testifying that way? |\n| 23 | A.
No, I don't recall testifying that. |\n| 24 | MR. CHUFF:
If we could turn to the trial transcript |\n| 25 | from yesterday, page 194. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Could you please try to make sure your |\n| 2 | mask is adjusted, so it stays on, counsel. |\n| 3 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes. |\n| 4 | 194. |\n| 5 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 6 | So, yesterday, I asked:
Q.
\"Now, if a deliverable was not |\n| 7 | provided to Strategic, no payment would be due under the |\n| 8 | research agreement\"; is that correct? |\n| 9 | A.
I believe I corrected that this morning in testimony.
I |\n| 10 | was saying this from faulty memory yesterday, not from reading |\n| 11 | directly from the agreement.
So my testimony from earlier this |\n| 12 | morning addresses this precisely. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
So let's put this down, and we'll go to another |\n| 14 | document. |\n| 15 | MR. CHUFF:
Let's take a look at PX 19.
Actually, |\n| 16 | PX 18, I'm sorry. |\n| 17 | Q.
Now, Dr. Waller, you testified earlier that these are your |\n| 18 | handwritten notes, correct? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
And they detail your experience with this research |\n| 21 | agreement; is that correct? |\n| 22 | A.
They detail the meetings that led to the development of the |\n| 23 | agreement and then later the execution. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 25 | MR. CHUFF:
If we could turn to page 9, please. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Q. | Now, Dr. Waller, I direct your attention just to the top |\n| 2 | | line there.
You see it says December 10th? |\n| 3 | A. | Yes. |\n| 4 | Q. | Is that December 10th, 2017? |\n| 5 | A. | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q. | Shortly before the research agreement was signed? |\n| 7 | A. | Yes. |\n| 8 | | MR. CHUFF:
If you can scroll down for me towards the |\n| 9 | | bottom of the page.
Right there, that's good. |\n| 10 | Q. | Now, on this page, you just generally describe certain of |\n| 11 | | the terms that are being negotiated; is that correct? |\n| 12 | A. | There are certain ideas that were being discussed.
I don't |\n| 13 | | recall that they were all terms being negotiated. |\n| 14 | Q. | Okay.
Do you see the fifth line up on this page? |\n| 15 | A. | Uh-huh. |\n| 16 | Q. | You wrote, \"Down payment one time.
Future is based on |\n| 17 | | deliverable.\"
Did I read that correctly? |\n| 18 | A. | Yes. |\n| 19 | | MR. CHUFF:
If we can go to the next page, page 10. |\n| 20 | | THE WITNESS:
That was December 10th?
Was that -- I |\n| 21 | | can't see the date of the document. |\n| 22 | Q. | Yes. |\n| 23 | A. | Okay. |\n| 24 | Q. | That's what it says at the heading.
On the top line, |\n| 25 | | rather. |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Do you see that? |\n| 2 | A.
Yeah. |\n| 3 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. CHUFF:
And then if we could go to page 10.
A |\n| 5 | little bit down.
Right there. |\n| 6 | Q.
So, up from the part that's been redacted, four lines up, |\n| 7 | you see the line that says, \"Will pay\"? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
So you wrote, \"Will pay down payment first.
Remainder upon |\n| 10 | delivery.
Give a line item for A, B, and C.\" |\n| 11 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
And that's exactly what happened in the contract, right? |\n| 14 | There was a line item, A, B, and C; isn't that correct? |\n| 15 | A.
Well, there are two different things in what you're -- in |\n| 16 | this section that you're asking me about. |\n| 17 | I'm just asking you right now:
Q.
In the research agreement, |\n| 18 | there were three lines, A, B, and C, for pricing? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes, three line items. |\n| 20 | MR. CHUFF:
Could we pull up PX 01, please. |\n| 21 | And could we go to page 4, the sixth paragraph. |\n| 22 | Q.
So here is the A, B, C line items, right?
And they say -- |\n| 23 | A.
I can't see the hole on the top. |\n| 24 | Q.
I'm sorry? |\n| 25 | A.
Where the cursor was or where the letters are? |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Q.
The three letters, they're highlighted. |\n| 2 | A.
Okay. |\n| 3 | Q.
Do you see that? |\n| 4 | And these are the three line items that were just |\n| 5 | referred to in the notes, right? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And they say, \"Comprehensive\" -- |\n| 8 | A.
Well, let me make a correction.
They might or might not be |\n| 9 | the three line items in the notes because we were just still |\n| 10 | talking about putting this together in the notes.
So I cannot |\n| 11 | say conclusively whether these correspond directly with the |\n| 12 | hypotheticals we were still discussing in the notes. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay.
The notes said have a line item for A, B, and C? |\n| 14 | A.
Correct.
But I don't know if A, B, and C in the notes |\n| 15 | correspond to A, B, and C here on this exhibit. |\n| 16 | Q.
And then the contract says A, B, and C? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
And the first one, it says, \"Comprehensive historical |\n| 19 | reports:
300,000 per report, tracking reports\"? |\n| 20 | A.
Or report equivalent per year.
Let's be complete about |\n| 21 | that. |\n| 22 | Q.
Sure. |\n| 23 | \"B.
Tracking reports:
\\$300,000 per report or report |\n| 24 | equivalent per year.\"
Did I read that correctly? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Q.
\"Social media reports:
\\$300,000 per report (or |\n| 2 | report-equivalent) per year.\"
Did I read that correctly? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
Now, if the financial arrangement was simply \\$750,000 per |\n| 5 | month, no matter what, for 30 units, why would this language be |\n| 6 | in the contract? |\n| 7 | A.
This was to give an idea of what the client was looking for |\n| 8 | in terms of the nature of the reporting to be done over a |\n| 9 | one-year period. |\n| 10 | Q.
The nature of the reporting? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
But it says \\$300,000 per report? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes, per report per -- as it's stipulated here elsewhere in |\n| 14 | the contract. |\n| 15 | MR. CHUFF:
Okay, we can depublish that. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
To be paid monthly on a flat rate. |\n| 17 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 18 | Q.
Now, you also testified this morning regarding the timing |\n| 19 | of the research results.
Do you recall that? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
And you testified that no one expected actionable research |\n| 22 | in the first month.
Do you recall that? |\n| 23 | A.
I'd like to see the words written rather than have you |\n| 24 | paraphrase what I said. |\n| 25 | Q.
Well, then you could use your own words.
What did you |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | testify about there wouldn't be in the first month? | |\n| 2 | A.
I testified what I testified about, but there would be -- | |\n| 3 | why don't you try rewording the question. | |\n| 4 | Q.
Sure. | |\n| 5 | So you testified that no one expected there to be | |\n| 6 | quality information in the first month? | |\n| 7 | A.
Complete quality information, correct. | |\n| 8 | Q.
But yesterday -- | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
What's the distinction you're drawing | |\n| 10 | between complete quality information and quality information? | |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:
It's quality versus quantity.
So if | |\n| 12 | we're finding that we hit, say, a vein of gold in the digital | |\n| 13 | space, that we know we've hit a quality target, but we haven't | |\n| 14 | been able to mine sufficient quantity that would constitute the | |\n| 15 | amount of quality material that we were wanting to bring out. | |\n| 16 | So it showed we developed promising leads that we could then | |\n| 17 | mine. | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. | |\n| 20 | BY MR. CHUFF: | |\n| 21 | Q.
But you understood that Mr. Guo wanted actionable | |\n| 22 | information in the first month; isn't that correct? | |\n| 23 | A.
No.
He wanted a three-year campaign that he could use the | |\n| 24 | information on, and it would take time to build up, but he | |\n| 25 | would have something within the first 90 days. | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | MR. CHUFF:
Okay.
Can we go back to PX 18. |\n| 2 | And just a matter of housekeeping, I offer PX 18 into |\n| 3 | evidence. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Any objection as to the authenticity of |\n| 5 | the notes? |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I'm sorry, I hate to say it, |\n| 7 | but I don't have it immediately at hand.
I usually see it |\n| 8 | published.
Is PX 18 the notes? |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I take it no objection? |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM:
No, no objection to authenticity or |\n| 11 | foundation. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Received subject to a motion to |\n| 13 | strike. |\n| 14 | (Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 received in evidence) |\n| 15 | MR. CHUFF:
Your Honor, I recall yesterday, I didn't |\n| 16 | formally offer DX 23.
It was a text message exchange between |\n| 17 | Dr. Waller and Yvette.
I just offer that now. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
That's, again, received subject to motion |\n| 19 | to strike. |\n| 20 | (Defendant's Exhibit 23 received in evidence) |\n| 21 | MR. CHUFF:
Now if we could turn to page 1 of PX 18, |\n| 22 | please. |\n| 23 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 24 | Q.
So, Dr. Waller, I direct your attention up top of the page |\n| 25 | there.
It says, \"11/21 [MG],\" Miles Guo.
Did I read that |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross | | |\n| 1 | correctly? | | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 3 | Q.
If you go down to point number 1, you write in quotes, \"I | | |\n| 4 | want now immediately information.\" | | |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 6 | Q.
Is that something that Mr. Guo told you, right? | | |\n| 7 | A.
That's a verbatim quote in quotation marks. | | |\n| 8 | MR. CHUFF:
Can we also turn to page 15 of this | | |\n| 9 | document, please.
And towards the bottom of the page. | | |\n| 10 | Q.
You wrote, \"First month is critical for quality of | | |\n| 11 | information\"; is that correct? | | |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 13 | MR. CHUFF:
We can depublish PX 18. | | |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
Quality.
Not quantity, but quality. | | |\n| 15 | BY MR. CHUFF: | | |\n| 16 | Q.
The contract itself contemplated reports in the weeks in | | |\n| 17 | the first month and also at the end of the month, did it not? | | |\n| 18 | A.
Yes.
Now, these were specifically raw data reports, in | | |\n| 19 | quotes, not analytical or narrative reports. | | |\n| 20 | Q.
But that met the terms of the contract? | | |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 22 | Q.
And they were to be delivered USB drive only, correct? | | |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 24 | MR. CHUFF:
Could we pull up DX 20, at page 1. | | |\n| 25 | Q.
Now, Dr. Waller, this is a document that you spent some | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | time with Mr. Greim earlier this morning.
Do you recall that? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
It's a text message between, I believe, you and Yvette |\n| 4 | Wang; is that correct? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes, it appears to be. |\n| 6 | Q.
We don't have to reference it specifically, but in here, |\n| 7 | you talk about sort of the delays that the research teams |\n| 8 | apparently experienced in this document, and you relay that to |\n| 9 | Yvette Wang; is that correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes.
We had already discussed it verbally, and then this |\n| 11 | was just written down after a different discussion. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
And this is dated January 30th, 2018? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
Now, by that time, you were already preparing for the |\n| 15 | termination of the contract by Eastern Profit, were you not? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | No?
Q. |\n| 18 | MR. CHUFF:
Could we turn to PX 18, please. |\n| 19 | Could we scroll to page 25.
And I think it's about in |\n| 20 | the middle of the page. |\n| 21 | Q.
So, Dr. Waller, I direct you to the underlined text there. |\n| 22 | You'll see, it says, \"1/26.\"
That's January 26th, 2018, |\n| 23 | correct? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And you say, \"Prep for termination on train\"; is that |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross | |\n| 1 | correct? | | |\n| 2 | A. | No. | |\n| 3 | Q. | What does that say? | |\n| 4 | A. | \"Prep for transcription on train.\" | |\n| 5 | Q. | Transcription?
That doesn't say termination? | |\n| 6 | A. | It says transcription. | |\n| 7 | Q. | Well, underneath that line -- | |\n| 8 | A. | T-r-a-n-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-o-n. | |\n| 9 | Q. | Okay.
Well, transcription of what? | |\n| 10 | A. | The transcription of whatever verbal material that we had. | |\n| 11 | Q. | Okay.
So, underneath that line, that apparently says | |\n| 12 | transcription, there's a list of all the problems that you | | |\n| 13 | contend occurred in this research investigation; isn't that | | |\n| 14 | correct? | | |\n| 15 | A. | Yes. | |\n| 16 | Q. | So, you are mapping out excuses for why Strategic didn't | |\n| 17 | | perform this agreement; isn't that correct? | |\n| 18 | A. | No. | |\n| 19 | Q. | Reasons? | |\n| 20 | A. | Reasons. | |\n| 21 | Q. | Okay.
And this is dated January 26th, before the text | |\n| 22 | | message to Yvette Wang that we just looked at a moment ago? | |\n| 23 | A. | Yes. | |\n| 24 | Q. | Now, yesterday, you admitted that the research agreement | |\n| 25 | | does not contain a representation that Mr. Guo is anti-CCP.
Do | |\n| | | | |\n\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | | you recall that? |\n| 2 | A. | It says nothing about China, the Communist Party, or |\n| 3 | | Mr. Guo. |\n| 4 | Q. | Okay.
And today, you testified that the reason for that |\n| 5 | | was confidentiality concerns, correct? |\n| 6 | A. | Yes. |\n| 7 | Q. | You didn't want the contract getting out? |\n| 8 | A. | Right. |\n| 9 | Q. | Right. |\n| 10 | | But the contract was not made public, right? |\n| 11 | A. | We did not make the contract public. |\n| 12 | Q. | You typed up the contract and then deleted the electronic |\n| 13 | | version, right? |\n| 14 | A. | I maintained an electronic version on an encrypted external |\n| 15 | drive. | |\n| 16 | Q. | An encrypted external drive? |\n| 17 | A. | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q. | And it was not sent over email? |\n| 19 | A. | No. |\n| 20 | Q. | And so there's no decrypted electronic copy anywhere? |\n| 21 | A. | Not that I know of. |\n| 22 | Q. | But the reason you didn't insist on a representation that |\n| 23 | | Mr. Guo was anti-CCP was because of confidentiality concerns, |\n| 24 | | that the contract was going to get out? |\n| 25 | A. | No, it was just second nature to what we both wanted.
We |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | both wanted to achieve the same objective. |\n| 2 | Q.
Second nature is to not insist on a rep that you deemed |\n| 3 | material to the agreement? |\n| 4 | Would you repeat the question?
A. |\n| 5 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes, I'm sorry, could you repeat |\n| 6 | Dr. Waller's previous answer? |\n| 7 | (Record read) |\n| 8 | Q.
So it was second nature to not insist upon a representation |\n| 9 | that you claim was material to the entire arrangement? |\n| 10 | A.
Right.
When you're sharing a common cause, you don't |\n| 11 | necessarily state the same common cause.
It's kind of silly. |\n| 12 | Q.
Now, Dr. Waller, do you recall earlier this morning that |\n| 13 | you and Mr. Greim were talking about Elliott Broidy? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
And Mr. Greim referenced the guilty plea, but did not show |\n| 16 | it to you? |\n| 17 | A.
Did not what? |\n| 18 | Q.
Show it to you? |\n| 19 | Yes.
A. |\n| 20 | Q.
Now, is it your sworn testimony that Elliott Broidy is not |\n| 21 | associated or affiliated with the CCP? |\n| 22 | A.
It's my sworn testimony that I know of no improper |\n| 23 | association of Elliott Broidy or affiliation with the CCP. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay.
I'm asking any association. |\n| 25 | I just told you.
A. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
No.
You said \"improper.\"
I'm asking, are you aware -- is |\n| 2 | it your sworn testimony that you're unaware of any -- strike |\n| 3 | that. |\n| 4 | Is it your sworn testimony that Elliott Broidy is not |\n| 5 | associated or affiliated in any way with the CCP? |\n| 6 | A.
It's my sworn testimony I have no knowledge of any of |\n| 7 | Elliott Broidy's associations with anyone from the CCP. |\n| 8 | Q.
And affiliation? |\n| 9 | A.
It's -- let me tell you why it's a tricky question to |\n| 10 | answer, because when you're in the international business or |\n| 11 | political spheres, you meet lots and lots of people, and it's |\n| 12 | like saying I must be in league with Guo Wengui because I'm |\n| 13 | talking to his attorney.
It's just a matter of the nature of |\n| 14 | the relationship.
So I really can't honestly comment on what |\n| 15 | you're trying to get to.
I can't straightforwardly do it in |\n| 16 | the way that you're asking. |\n| 17 | I'm asking you on the record, under oath, whether you know
Q. |\n| 18 | whether Elliott Broidy is in any way associated or affiliated |\n| 19 | with the CCP? |\n| 20 | A.
Correct, I do not know. |\n| 21 | Q.
And the same question, but this time with the People's |\n| 22 | Republic of China, PRC? |\n| 23 | A.
Correct. |\n| 24 | Q.
The same answer? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Q.
Now, yesterday, you testified that you were aware that |\n| 2 | \"Elliott Broidy\" — and I'm quoting — \"pled guilty to working |\n| 3 | with China to have Guo Wengui deported,\" closed quote.
Do you |\n| 4 | remember that? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
But you said that you didn't know of the nature of the |\n| 7 | CCP's involvement.
Do you recall saying that? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes, I did not have any of the documentation in front of |\n| 9 | me, and I was just relying on my memory from press reports that |\n| 10 | might have varied with one another.
So I didn't have the |\n| 11 | documentation to view. |\n| 12 | Okay.
Q.
But you remember testifying to that? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes, I remember saying that, but I would correct my |\n| 14 | comments today. |\n| 15 | Q.
Understood. |\n| 16 | MR. CHUFF:
Could we please pull up DX 71.
Actually, |\n| 17 | I'm sorry, I think it's PX 71. |\n| 18 | Now, Dr. Waller, this is Elliott Broidy's guilty plea.
Q.
If |\n| 19 | you could go to page 1, and I believe you testified to this |\n| 20 | today, but under heading 1 -- actually, you know, I'm sorry, |\n| 21 | let's go up to the top. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Counsel, it looks like this is a plea |\n| 23 | agreement signed by Mr. Broidy, not his actual guilty plea |\n| 24 | transcript; am I correct? |\n| 25 | MR. CHUFF:
Let me just confirm, your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I think you should identify the document |\n| 2 | correctly for the record and for the witness. |\n| 3 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes.
Sorry, your Honor. |\n| 4 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 5 | Q.
This is Elliott Broidy's plea agreement; is that correct? |\n| 6 | A.
You're asking me? |\n| 7 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 8 | A.
I don't know.
I've never seen this document before. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay.
Well, if we can go to page 1, do you see the first |\n| 10 | line, it says, \"This letter sets forth the full and complete |\n| 11 | plea offer to your client, Elliott Broidy (hereinafter referred |\n| 12 | to as your client or defendant)\"? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
So you'll understand that if this letter refers to your |\n| 15 | client or defendant, it will be to Elliott Broidy? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | If you go to heading 1, it says, \"Your client agrees to
Q. |\n| 18 | plead guilty to an information charging your client with |\n| 19 | conspiracy to serve as an unregistered agent of a foreign |\n| 20 | principal, in violation of 18, U.S.C., Section 371.\" |\n| 21 | Do you see that? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
This is what you were testifying about this morning, |\n| 24 | correct? |\n| 25 | A.
Well, I have not seen this document, so I was not |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | testifying about this document. |\n| 2 | Q.
You were testifying about his guilty plea? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
And that it was a plea guilty of this statutory section, |\n| 5 | correct? |\n| 6 | A.
I didn't know the name of the statutory section. |\n| 7 | Q.
That he violated FARA? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes, I knew that, but I didn't know the number of the |\n| 9 | section. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
And then if we can turn to page 2, under heading 2, |\n| 11 | \"Factual Stipulations,\" it says, \"Your client agrees that the |\n| 12 | attached statement of offense fairly and accurately describes |\n| 13 | your client's actions and involvement in the offense to which |\n| 14 | your client is pleading guilty.\" |\n| 15 | Do you see that? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | And if we could turn to page 12, you see there Elliott
Q. |\n| 18 | Broidy signed this and he accepted this plea offer? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
And then if we can just go to page 13, paragraph 2 -- |\n| 21 | actually, before we get there, let me ask you:
The CCP is the |\n| 22 | political party that's in charge of the PRC right now, right? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And it has been since before the research agreement was |\n| 25 | signed? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
So government ministers, during this time period, are |\n| 3 | necessarily CCP members; isn't that correct? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. CHUFF:
If we could turn to page 13, please.
Yes, |\n| 6 | that's right. |\n| 7 | Q.
And at paragraph 2, I'm just going to read it into the |\n| 8 | record:
\"During the same approximate period\" -- |\n| 9 | MR. CHUFF:
And I guess we should go up to |\n| 10 | paragraph 1. |\n| 11 | Q.
So paragraph 1 says, \"From no later than March 2017 to at |\n| 12 | least in or about January 2018.\"
Did I read that correctly? |\n| 13 | A.
It was scrolling too fast. |\n| 14 | MS. CLINE:
Sorry. |\n| 15 | Q.
I'll read it again.
\"From no later than March 2017 to at |\n| 16 | least in or about January 2018.\"
Did I read that time period |\n| 17 | right? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Okay.
If we scroll down to paragraph 2, it says, \"During |\n| 20 | the same approximate period, Broidy, Davis, and Person A also |\n| 21 | agreed to lobby the administration and the DOJ to arrange for |\n| 22 | the removal and return of People's Republic of China (PRC) |\n| 23 | National A, a citizen of the PRC living in the United States, |\n| 24 | on behalf of Foreign National A.\" |\n| 25 | Do you see there -- first, did I read that correctly? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Basically, yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did I get something wrong? |\n| 3 | A.
There might have been a word or two, but I don't object to |\n| 4 | the way you read it. |\n| 5 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 6 | Do you see that People's Republic of China is defined |\n| 7 | as PRC? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
The next sentence, it says, \"This involved, among other |\n| 10 | things, advocating for meetings between PRC Minister A and |\n| 11 | United States Government officials\"? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | MR. CHUFF:
And then if we could go down to |\n| 14 | paragraph 20 -- 28, I'm sorry, two-eight. |\n| 15 | Q.
The paragraph reads, \"On or about May 18, 2017, Broidy, |\n| 16 | Davis, and Person A traveled to the PRC where they met with |\n| 17 | Foreign National A and PRC Minister A.
PRC Minister A asked |\n| 18 | Broidy to use his influence with high-ranking United States |\n| 19 | Government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal |\n| 20 | and return to the PRC.
PRC Minister A also stated that he |\n| 21 | would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble |\n| 22 | scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States |\n| 23 | Government officials.\" |\n| 24 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Q.
Now, it refers to multiple times PRC Minister A; is that |\n| 2 | correct? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
And it refers to Broidy's traveling to meet PRC Minister A, |\n| 5 | correct? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And you just admitted a moment ago that to be a government |\n| 8 | minister of the PRC, you necessarily are a member of the CCP; |\n| 9 | is that correct? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And this doesn't say -- I think you testified earlier |\n| 12 | before that he was only meeting with someone from Malaysia. |\n| 13 | PRC -- |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, your Honor.
The counsel is |\n| 15 | misstating the witness' prior testimony. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Why don't you just ask the questions |\n| 17 | without referencing the prior testimony. |\n| 18 | MR. CHUFF:
May I inquire of counsel to what I |\n| 19 | misstated? |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
No, you may not.
Just ask questions. |\n| 21 | MR. CHUFF:
Okay. |\n| 22 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 23 | Q.
PRC Minister A -- actually, to be a government minister, |\n| 24 | given that the CCP has control of the PRC, to be a government |\n| 25 | minister, that person has to be a CCP member, correct? |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
Now, is it your understanding that in paragraph 8, the PRC |\n| 3 | Minister A that's referred to is Yanping Liu? |\n| 4 | A.
I have no idea.
I've never seen this document before. |\n| 5 | MR. CHUFF:
Let's pull up the stipulation of fees in |\n| 6 | this case, dated -- Actually, before I do that, can I offer |\n| 7 | DX 71, please? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Any objection as to authenticity? |\n| 9 | MR. GREIM:
Not as to authenticity, but as to |\n| 10 | foundation, your Honor, we do. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Do you want to do more to try to lay a |\n| 12 | foundation?
Otherwise, I'll receive it subject to motion to |\n| 13 | strike. |\n| 14 | MR. CHUFF:
May I confer with my colleague? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes.
You're on the clock.
Go ahead. |\n| 16 | (Pause) |\n| 17 | MR. CHUFF:
No, we'll rest on the record. |\n| 18 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 19 | Q.
So, Dr. Waller, we've put up a stipulation that the |\n| 20 | parties, Eastern Profit and Strategic Vision, reached in this |\n| 21 | case.
I will direct your attention to paragraph 2. |\n| 22 | Paragraph 2 says, \"Strategic Vision U.S., LLC's legal fees in |\n| 23 | this action are not being paid by any person or entity that is |\n| 24 | or ever was a member of, associated with, or affiliated with |\n| 25 | the Chinese Communist Party or the People's Republic of China.\" |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | Did I read that correctly up until the comma? |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
I'm sorry, did you say yes? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes.
This gets back to what I was referring to before by |\n| 5 | association and intent.
So you just can't have guilt by |\n| 6 | association just because someone met with someone else. |\n| 7 | Q.
Well, he pled guilty to a federal offense for meeting with |\n| 8 | that person? |\n| 9 | A.
I don't believe that to be the case. |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, your Honor.
I object to the |\n| 11 | improper -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
The objection is sustained. |\n| 13 | Q.
Now, Strategic calls itself out as a company specializing |\n| 14 | in due diligence; isn't that correct? |\n| 15 | A.
That's one of the things it does, yeah. |\n| 16 | Q.
And you had a lot of experience doing research? |\n| 17 | Yes.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Are you aware that Circinus is not a litigation funder? |\n| 19 | A.
Is not a what? |\n| 20 | Q.
Litigation funder? |\n| 21 | A.
No. |\n| 22 | Q.
You're not aware of that? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I'm sorry, I was slow on the |\n| 25 | uptake there.
I object as vague — litigation funder. |\n\nL4KKEAS3 Waller - Recross of 243\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
The objection is overruled, but I would |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | suggest that you move off from this line of examination pretty |\n| 3 | quickly, because as the fact finder, unless you're coming up |\n| 4 | with something great, I don't think that this is your most |\n| 5 | powerful line of examination. |\n| 6 | MR. CHUFF:
Okay.
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 7 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 8 | Q.
So I would just ask:
What diligence did you do to verify |\n| 9 | whether Elliott Broidy was or was not associated or affiliated |\n| 10 | with the CCP or the PRC? |\n| 11 | A.
Well, first, I asked Mr. Broidy myself what the nature of |\n| 12 | his work was, and he said that in the context of meeting with |\n| 13 | the Malaysian individual, whose name I saw during the scrolling |\n| 14 | of that previous exhibit, he was trying to free three American |\n| 15 | captives inside China, including a pregnant woman.
And in the |\n| 16 | course of trying to free those three American captives, he met |\n| 17 | that official, who I believe was the one mentioned in that |\n| 18 | document. |\n| 19 | So, as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't show |\n| 20 | association with the Communist Party, it shows he's trying to |\n| 21 | bring American citizens home. |\n| 22 | Q.
Yes.
Dr. Waller, I'm just asking, what diligence did you |\n\nQ. Yes. Dr. Waller, I'm just asking, what diligence did you do to make sure that there was no association? A. First thing was I asked him to his face. The second thing was I researched his background and his company's background, 23 24 25\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Recross |\n| 1 | and I found a number of people who know him personally. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
And -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Dr. Waller, just one question for you: |\n| 4 | When you were describing the conversation with Mr. Broidy, did |\n| 5 | he tell you that in the course of trying to free the three |\n| 6 | American captives, he met with the individual who was mentioned |\n| 7 | in the -- whom you now see as being mentioned in the plea |\n| 8 | agreement? |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
He did not. |\n| 10 | MR. CHUFF:
And just last on this line. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 12 | MR. CHUFF:
PX 67, if we could pull that up very |\n| 13 | quickly. |\n| 14 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 15 | Q.
I don't want to belabor the point here.
This is a New York |\n| 16 | Times Article entitled, \"Seeking Foreign Money, GOP Donor |\n| 17 | Pushed for Trump To Golf with Malaysian Premier.\"
Do you see |\n| 18 | that? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
Do you see the fourth paragraph, it says, \"Mr. Broidy also |\n| 21 | explored separate plans to force the exit from the United |\n| 22 | States of a Chinese billionaire and dissident, Guo Wengui, |\n| 23 | evidently to please Chinese allies in Malaysia\"? |\n| 24 | Do you see that? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And Chinese is -- \"Chinese allies\" is referring to people |\n| 2 | within the PRC? |\n| 3 | A.
It doesn't say -- |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Objection, your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
The objection is sustained. |\n| 6 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 7 | Q.
Dr. Waller, did you read this document before that |\n| 8 | January 1st, 2018 stipulation was signed? |\n| 9 | A.
No, because this is from June 2018 -- April 2018. |\n| 10 | Q.
I'm sorry, the stipulation was January 31st, 2020. |\n| 11 | Did you read that article before -- this article, |\n| 12 | PX 67, before January 31st, 2020? |\n| 13 | A.
I believe I read this article at the time it was published. |\n| 14 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 15 | MR. CHUFF:
May I just confer with my colleagues and |\n| 16 | see that there's nothing else? |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | BY MR. CHUFF: |\n| 19 | Q.
Just one more question on this, and we'll change gears. |\n| 20 | Did you ever read the criminal indictment of Elliott |\n| 21 | Broidy? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
Now, earlier, you testified that you incurred \\$15,000 in |\n| 24 | expenses for legal bills in May 2018; is that correct? |\n| 25 | A.
I paid the bills then.
They were overdue. |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
When was the legal advice obtained, without disclosing -- |\n| 2 | A.
It was sought in very late January or very early February. |\n| 3 | Q.
Who was the law firm that -- |\n| 4 | A.
It was a law firm in the country where Team 1 was based. |\n| 5 | Q.
Do you have the name of the law firm? |\n| 6 | A.
I don't know it off the top of my head. |\n| 7 | Q.
You incurred \\$15,000 to the law firm, but you don't know |\n| 8 | its name? |\n| 9 | A.
That's right. |\n| 10 | Q.
Do you have an invoice for that legal bill? |\n| 11 | A.
I do. |\n| 12 | Q.
Did you introduce it in this litigation? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | MR. CHUFF:
Nothing further, your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Mr. Chuff, would you please wipe down the |\n| 16 | podium and replace the microphone cover. |\n| 17 | MR. CHUFF:
Yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
And, Mr. Greim, any further examination? |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I have one. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Why don't you wait until the podium |\n| 21 | is wiped off, unless you want to do it from counsel table. |\n| 22 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I can do it right from this |\n| 23 | microphone. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Why don't you wait for a moment for |\n| 25 | Mr. Chuff. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Waller - Redirect |\n| 1 | And let me give the instruction that going forward, |\n| 2 | it's a reminder, each counsel, when they leave the podium, |\n| 3 | needs to wipe it down. |\n| 4 | You may inquire. |\n| 5 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) |\n| 6 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 7 | Q.
Just one question, Mr. Waller. |\n| 8 | We won't pull it up again, but you saw the very first |\n| 9 | page of your notes from November 1, 2017.
And do you recall |\n| 10 | there were statements on there about wanting immediate |\n| 11 | information? |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q.
Now, this was from your very first meeting with Mr. Guo, |\n| 14 | correct? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And was Mr. Guo telling you at that meeting about |\n| 17 | information he wanted you to find? |\n| 18 | A.
He just wanted it found in general. |\n| 19 | MR. GREIM:
No further questions. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Next witness. |\n| 21 | Dr. Waller, you're excused.
Thank you very much. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 23 | (Witness excused) |\n| 24 | MS. CLINE:
Plaintiffs call Yvette Wang. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wang may take the stand. |\n| | |\n\nI have in front of me defendant's trial exhibits for Ms. Wang. I also have a binder that says \"Y. Wang Outline and Exhibits.\" I haven't looked at the binder, but it doesn't look like it is intended for me. I also don't have plaintiff's trial exhibits for Ms. Wang. MS. CLINE: So, your Honor, the only exhibit we intend to use with Ms. Wang is Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. THE COURT: Okay. Very well. Is this your binder, Mr. Greim? MR. GREIM: It probably is because I have the same label on one of my binders. THE COURT: Okay. We'll hand it back to you. Ms. Wang, you may take a seat in the jury box. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: The witness stand in the jury box. And I am going to ask you to remain standing and raise your right hand. Mr. Fishman, would you please swear the witness. YAN PING WANG, called as a witness by the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: THE DEPUTY CLERK: Please state your full name for the record. THE WITNESS: Yan Ping Wang, Y-a-n P-i-n-g W-a-n-g. THE COURT: Ms. Wang, you may be seated. You may be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | seated.
Sit down. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Let me ask you to try to please keep your |\n| 4 | voice up because it's sometimes difficult to hear witnesses |\n| 5 | through the mask.
Also, try to speak slowly and clearly for my |\n| 6 | benefit and for the benefit of the court reporter. |\n| 7 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Just give us one moment. |\n| 9 | Is that white binder in front of the witness something |\n| 10 | that is needed? |\n| 11 | MS. CLINE:
It's not ours. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
You can step away, Ms. Cline.
I'm going |\n| 13 | to ask my courtroom deputy to remove the white binder. |\n| 14 | MR. GREIM:
I'll take that white binder. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Which goes back to defense counsel. |\n| 16 | Ms. Cline, you may inquire. |\n| 17 | MS. CLINE:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 18 | DIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 19 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 20 | Q.
Ms. Wang, were you born here in the United States? |\n| 21 | A.
No. |\n| 22 | Q.
When did you leave China to come to the United States? |\n| 23 | A.
In April 2015. |\n| 24 | Q.
Are you a citizen of the United States? |\n| 25 | A.
No, I'm not. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | of 243
L4KKEAS3
Wang - Direct |\n| 1 | Q. | Have you applied for asylum in the United States? |\n| 2 | A. | Yes, I did. |\n| 3 | Q. | When did you apply? |\n| 4 | A. | In late 2017. |\n| 5 | Q. | And what's the current status of your asylum application? |\n| 6 | A. | It's pending approval. |\n| 7 | Q. | Tell us a little bit about your educational background. |\n| 8 | A. | I graduated in France with two Master degrees. |\n| 9 | Q. | And in what subjects were your Master degrees? |\n| 10 | A. | One is for the American culture and civilization; another |\n| 11 | | one is China-U.S. relationship. |\n| 12 | Q. | Do you know a man by the name of Guo Wengui? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes, I do. |\n| 14 | Q. | When did you first meet Mr. Guo? |\n| 15 | A. | In 2008. |\n| 16 | Q. | How did you meet him? |\n| 17 | A. | I met him in the company for business. |\n| 18 | Q. | In whose company? |\n| 19 | A. | In his family's company. |\n| 20 | Q. | Did you work for him? |\n| 21 | A. | I worked for the family. |\n| 22 | Q. | Have you been working for his family since then? |\n| 23 | A. | Yes. |\n| 24 | Q. | Currently, how frequently would you say you interact with |\n| 25 | | Mr. Guo? |\n| | | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
I met him or talk with him as needed, yeah. |\n| 2 | Q.
Like ten times a day, once a year, about how often? |\n| 3 | A.
Like several times per week, yeah. |\n| 4 | Q.
How would you describe the -- sorry.
Are you familiar with |\n| 5 | the nature of the work Mr. Guo does? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes, I am. |\n| 7 | Q.
How would you describe Mr. Guo's work to someone who didn't |\n| 8 | know him? |\n| 9 | A.
Can you repeat your question? |\n| 10 | Q.
Sure. |\n| 11 | How would you describe what Mr. Guo does every day to |\n| 12 | someone who doesn't know him? |\n| 13 | A.
Oh, yes.
He is the leading -- he is leading the entire |\n| 14 | anti-Chinese Communist Party whistleblowing movement.
Since |\n| 15 | the beginning of 2017, he's pretty much doing that every day, |\n| 16 | every day. |\n| 17 | When you say \"whistleblower movement,\" tell us what you
Q. |\n| 18 | mean by that. |\n| 19 | A.
This is a movement which was initiated by Mr. Guo in |\n| 20 | January of 2017.
He started to expose and whistleblowing the |\n| 21 | Chinese high-level governmental official, their corruption, and |\n| 22 | their illegal assets in the overseas.
So he try to |\n| 23 | whistleblowing their corruption and wake up the Chinese regime, |\n| 24 | including wake up the Western world.
It has been continuing |\n| 25 | until now for four years. |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Wang - Direct |\n| 1 | Q.
Have you personally witnessed Mr. Guo's efforts to expose |\n| 2 | corruption within the CCP? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 4 | Q.
Can you describe those efforts a little more -- in a little |\n| 5 | more detail, starting from 2017? |\n| 6 | A.
Yeah.
Starting from January 2017, Mr. Guo, for his entire |\n| 7 | life, first time he started to stand in front of a camera and |\n| 8 | then to take interview, Livestream interview broadcast.
And |\n| 9 | then he has been doing all of this radio, broadcasting, |\n| 10 | Livestream for four years, pretty much more than 10,000 hours |\n| 11 | on his social media.
Like before it was on Twitter, on |\n| 12 | YouTube, then Twitter and YouTube shut him down, and then he |\n| 13 | started -- his family started a second social media platform, |\n| 14 | and then he's broadcasting on that pretty much like every week. |\n| 15 | Before it was every day, now it's every week, yeah, like two, |\n| 16 | three times every week. |\n| 17 | And what is it that he's broadcasting?
Q. |\n| 18 | A.
He's merely talking about translate or interpret, expose, |\n| 19 | the inside Information about Chinese regime, the high-level |\n| 20 | governmental Communist Party corruption, their deals, their |\n| 21 | tricks, and then to explain how they play around the world, and |\n| 22 | then the corruption governmental official, how they corrupted |\n| 23 | the entire West world, also. |\n| 24 | Q.
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Guo actually |\n| 25 | supports the CCP? |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
No.
It's already -- |\n| 2 | MR. GREIM:
Your Honor, I object asking this witness' |\n| 3 | opinion. |\n| | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 5 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 6 | Q.
Let me try it again.
Do you have any reason to believe |\n| 7 | that Mr. Guo actually supports the CCP? |\n| 8 | A.
No, I never believe.
This is ridiculous. |\n| 9 | Q.
Why do you say that? |\n| 10 | A.
Because Mr. Guo had been the biggest dissident of the |\n| 11 | Chinese regime, and he is leading the entire whistleblowing |\n| 12 | moment.
He literally is sacrificing -- his family sacrifice |\n| 13 | more than -- his family has been sacrificing more than a |\n| 14 | billion of assets in Mainland China.
His family had been in |\n| 15 | jail, and then his colleague, his family's colleague, employee |\n| 16 | have been in jail. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wang, let me caution you to please |\n| 18 | speak slowly, okay? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I am admitting that line of testimony |\n| 21 | about the opinion as lay opinion testimony because I think an |\n| 22 | adequate foundation has been laid to provide lay opinion |\n| 23 | testimony, but keep within the confines on it, and, obviously, |\n| 24 | I'm going to permit cross-examination with respect to the |\n| 25 | foundation for that opinion. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Go ahead, Ms. Cline. |\n| 2 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 3 | Q.
What are your own views on the CCP? |\n| 4 | A.
They are evil. |\n| 5 | Q.
Why do you say that? |\n| 6 | A.
They block entire rule of law, democracy, and the freedom |\n| 7 | of speech to the 1.4 billion people of Mainland China. |\n| 8 | Q.
Were you yourself ever affiliated with the CCP? |\n| 9 | A.
I was before, but I cut off from them completely. |\n| 10 | Q.
Why? |\n| 11 | A.
There are more than 90 million Chinese -- Mainland Chinese |\n| 12 | people.
They are the Chinese Communist Party members, 90 |\n| 13 | million, nine-zero.
And then most of the great students in |\n| 14 | college, in university, and then they are encouraged or even |\n| 15 | requested to join the party without knowing too much about |\n| 16 | Chinese Communist Party.
So 90 million of Chinese Communist |\n| 17 | Party member, 99.9 percent of them, they are good people, they |\n| 18 | are common workers, they are average people.
They are just the |\n| 19 | workers, just the workers, yeah.
They are salary people, and |\n| 20 | only very tiny small group of Chinese high-level governmental |\n| 21 | official, they are very corrupted, and then they are kidnapping |\n| 22 | entire Chinese people and China, this country, to damage them |\n| 23 | and that hurt the entire world. |\n| 24 | So, as long as I was outside of this regime, and I |\n| 25 | start to realize that, and I got a wake up, so I cut off with |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Wang - Direct |\n| 1 | them completely. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wang, once again, please try to speak |\n| 3 | slowly. |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I realize that it's a little bit of an |\n| 6 | alien environment to be in a courtroom.
Just take your time. |\n| 7 | We've got the time.
Just take your time and answer the |\n| 8 | questions slowly. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, your Honor, yes. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Now, did you say 90 million or 19 million? |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:
90, nine-zero, million, your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 14 | Q.
Did there come a time when you were introduced to French |\n| 15 | Wallop and Michael Waller? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes.
That should be in the Autumn of 2017. |\n| 17 | Q.
And what were the circumstances under which you were |\n| 18 | introduced to them? |\n| 19 | A.
The first time I was introduced to Ms. Wallop and |\n| 20 | Mr. Waller in a meeting, which they were trying to introduce |\n| 21 | and sell a real estate property to Mr. Guo.
That was the first |\n| 22 | meeting. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did you say a real estate property? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes, a house. |\n| 25 | Q.
Were you present at a meeting with them? |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes, I was present in that meeting. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
Were there any meetings subsequent to that in which |\n| 3 | you participated? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes, there were several other meetings after, yeah. |\n| 5 | Q.
Could you sort of describe, as best you can remember, what |\n| 6 | happened at the next meeting after that first one about the |\n| 7 | real estate? |\n| 8 | A.
After the first meeting, I remember I traveled to D.C. and |\n| 9 | Virginia.
Ms. Wallop, she drove me around Virginia to show me |\n| 10 | some house, some real estate property, and now we spent at |\n| 11 | least more than half of a day to do the house tour. |\n| 12 | And after that, I remember from certain point in time, |\n| 13 | and then she start with Mr. Waller together to introduce their |\n| 14 | investigation firm and their capabilities to Mr. Guo and me. |\n| 15 | There were several other meetings about this, also. |\n| 16 | Q.
What did Mr. Waller and Ms. Wallop say about their |\n| 17 | investigation services business? |\n| 18 | A.
They introduced themselves to Mr. Guo and me as one of the |\n| 19 | best, most professional, qualified investigation firm in the |\n| 20 | country.
They even referred they worked for the governmental |\n| 21 | agencies, like CIA or other agency.
And then Ms. Wallop even |\n| 22 | handwrote some names of their clients.
As far as what they |\n| 23 | said, they are the royal family from Middle East or from |\n| 24 | Russia, some big clients, as their reference to Mr. Guo and me. |\n| 25 | So, long story short, they came to us and then |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | introduced themselves as the best -- one of the best |\n| 2 | investigation firm in the country. |\n| 3 | Q.
Why did you understand that they were discussing their |\n| 4 | investigation capabilities? |\n| 5 | A.
I understood they will like Mr. Guo or some other clients |\n| 6 | from Mr. Guo to hire them.
They want to get the business. |\n| 7 | That's my understanding. |\n| 8 | Q.
For what purpose, though?
Did you have an understanding as |\n| 9 | to why Mr. Guo might be interested in their services? |\n| 10 | A.
I know for a long time, Mr. Guo tried very hard to |\n| 11 | investigate the Chinese high-level governmental corrupted |\n| 12 | officials and their assets.
So, in my understanding, |\n| 13 | Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller, they came to Mr. Guo trying to have |\n| 14 | their firm retained by Mr. Guo or the clients related to |\n| 15 | investigate the corruption of Chinese regime. |\n| 16 | Q.
For what purpose?
What was the point of investigating the |\n| 17 | corruption within the Chinese regime? |\n| 18 | A.
The purpose is to investigate the Chinese high-level |\n| 19 | governmental corrupted official and their illegal corrupted |\n| 20 | assets, which they hide in the U.S. and worldwide, in order to |\n| 21 | investigate them, found them, and then to report to authority, |\n| 22 | and then to encourage or request the government, if they can, |\n| 23 | take investigation official, or even indict them, or put them |\n| 24 | in jail.
So that's the main target, to get them punished. |\n| 25 | Q.
To get them punished? |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
That's right. |\n| 2 | Q.
Have you ever heard of a company called Eastern Profit |\n| 3 | Corporation Limited? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 5 | Q.
Does Eastern Profit have anything to do with the |\n| 6 | investigation that you and Mr. Guo were discussing with |\n| 7 | Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller? |\n| 8 | A.
Eastern Profit, this company, entered into this |\n| 9 | investigation agreement at the end as the client. |\n| 10 | Q.
Well, how did Eastern Profit become involved? |\n| 11 | A.
Eastern Profit was produced as one of the company and their |\n| 12 | principal, they were persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party, |\n| 13 | also.
Their bank account and assets were frozen by Chinese |\n| 14 | regime, also. |\n| 15 | Q.
Was it you who reached out to Eastern Profit in connection |\n| 16 | with this research -- contemplated research? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, that was me. |\n| 18 | Q.
What did you do to contact Eastern Profit? |\n| 19 | A.
I was introduced by Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller with this |\n| 20 | company, like investigation company, and then both me and |\n| 21 | Mr. Guo, we felt this is a great company, right, and from very |\n| 22 | reputable person and very presentable gentleman and lady from |\n| 23 | Washington, right, and we feel we finally got the right |\n| 24 | qualified investigation firm who is able to help us in our |\n| 25 | movement. |\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang - Direct of 243\n\n| 1 | So I start to look around, and then I looked for some |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | party, or some company, or some individual who is willing to |\n| 3 | join this investigation project, to be a part of that.
Then |\n| 4 | Eastern Profit came into our world. |\n| 5 | Q.
With whom at Eastern Profit did you communicate? |\n| 6 | A.
Mr. Hank Han. |\n| 7 | Q.
And what was your understanding of his connection to |\n| 8 | Eastern Profit? |\n| 9 | A.
In my understanding, Mr. Han is the principal and agent of |\n| 10 | Eastern Profit. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Can you spell his name for the record? |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, your Honor.
Mr. Hank, H-a-n-k, |\n| 13 | Han, H-a-n.
H-a-n is the family name, last name. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 16 | Q.
Ms. Wang, does he have a Chinese name as well rather than |\n| 17 | Hank? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, he has. |\n| 19 | Q.
Can you spell that as well for us? |\n| 20 | A.
Sure.
Of course. |\n| 21 | His Chinese name is Chunguang Han, spelled |\n| 22 | C-h-u-n-g-u-a-n-g, last name H-a-n. |\n| 23 | Q.
What was the first communication you had with Mr. Han about |\n| 24 | the research proposal? |\n| 25 | A.
I called him and briefly I told him we possibly got a great |\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n12\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang - Direct of 243\n\nfirm, great investigation firm, and then they're very capable, and they may be able to help us to investigate the Chinese corrupted governmental official, and then do you have interest to be part of that? 1 2 3 4\n\nAnd Mr. Han, kind of he said, sounds like great, right, you guys finally got someone who can help. And then we didn't share too many details on the phone call, and then we decide to say let's meet in person to talk the details because it's supposed to be confidential.\n\nQ. And did you and Mr. Han meet in person to discuss the investigation? 10 11\n\nA. Yes, we did.\n\nQ. Can you describe that meeting for us, please? A. The meeting was in the lobby of my office building. Mr. Han came, and we briefly chat in Mandarin, of course, because he doesn't speak English. So I introduce him, I mentioned the two principal of this investigation firm, they are from D.C., introduce by very reliable and trustful friend of Mr. Guo, and we met them, these two principal, for several times, and we believe this investigation firm, they are very good, and then they can help us to investigate the Chinese high-level governmental official, their corruption and their corrupted assets. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nAnd then Mr. Han, he trust us, of course, and he said, let me figure out. You go to continue, right, talk with, 24 25\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang - Direct of 243\n\nnegotiate about a contract and a project, how you got proceed, and I need to figure out to get a party or a company, of course, including the fund deposit, because I did mention to him, say that the contract requests 1 million U.S. dollars as a deposit. 1 2 3 4 5\n\nSo, Mr. Han, he said, no, let me figure out how to get the money for this project, and then you go ahead and get more details. So that was the first conversation.\n\nQ. Okay. And then after that conversation, did he eventually come back to you to discuss the research project again?\n\nA. Yes, he did.\n\nQ. And describe that conversation for us. 12\n\nA. He called me, and I forgot which day. You know, like he call me and pretty much said that they are onboard, so he told me, say Yvette, you know, you're handling this along the way, and you speak good English, right, you understand that, and then you are authorized to proceed this contract, and then this project, and I will take care of the payment, and then we're onboard. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19\n\nQ. Okay. So just so we're all clear, was it your understanding that Mr. Han authorized you, on behalf of Eastern Profit, to negotiate the agreement with Mr. Waller and Ms. Wallop? 20 21 22 23\n\nA. Correct.\n\n24\n\nQ. And so did you, in fact, do that? 25\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS3
Wang - Direct |\n| 1 | A.
Yes, I did that. |\n| 2 | Q.
Did Eastern Profit and Strategic Vision ultimately enter |\n| 3 | into a contract? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes, they did. |\n| 5 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, can we pull up PX 1, please. |\n| 6 | Q.
Ms. Wang, the exhibit should appear on the screen in front |\n| 7 | of you. |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, can we just scroll through the |\n| 9 | agreement just to the end, so Ms. Wang can see it. |\n| 10 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 11 | Q.
And so, Ms. Wang, my first question for you is just:
Do |\n| 12 | you recognize this to be the contract between Strategic Vision |\n| 13 | and Eastern Profit? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes, it is. |\n| 15 | MS. CLINE:
Mr. Chuff, can we go back to page 1, |\n| 16 | please.
And scroll down to the fourth paragraph. |\n| 17 | So here, in the fourth paragraph, the contract says the
Q. |\n| 18 | following:
\"The contractor will conduct high quality original |\n| 19 | research and prepare reports on subjects chosen at the client's |\n| 20 | discretion for the purpose of detecting, stopping, and |\n| 21 | preventing crime or other harm to innocent people.\" |\n| 22 | Do you see where I read that? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 24 | Q.
And what was your understanding of detecting, stopping, and |\n| 25 | preventing crime or other harm to innocent people?
What was |\n| | |\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang - Direct of 243\n\n| 1 | that talking about, in your understanding? |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
The purpose is to investigate and find out as much as we |\n| 3 | can the evidence, the proof, and original investigation — high |\n| 4 | quality, of course — information which related to the Chinese |\n| 5 | high-level governmental official, their corrupted assets.
And |\n| 6 | those assets, they hide them in the international, in U.S. and |\n| 7 | in the rest of the world.
We want to find those information, |\n| 8 | to report them, investigate them, request the government to |\n| 9 | investigate and put them in jail, to save the Chinese people, |\n| 10 | which is innocent people in here, we refer. |\n| 11 | MS. CLINE:
Let's scroll to page 5, please. |\n| 12 | Q.
Ms. Wang, in the second paragraph there, the contract |\n| 13 | refers to a deposit of \\$1 million.
Do you see that? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 15 | Q.
Was it your understanding that Eastern Profit had to pay a |\n| 16 | deposit in connection with the agreement? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes, it is. |\n| 18 | MS. CLINE:
If we could scroll down to the third |\n| 19 | paragraph. |\n| 20 | Q.
So there's a paragraph that starts with the word |\n| 21 | \"subsequent.\"
Do you see that paragraph? |\n| 22 | Yes, I do.
A. |\n| 23 | Q.
And the second sentence says, \"It is understood that the |\n| 24 | client may direct other entities to pay the contractor, and |\n| 25 | that such payments will be deemed satisfactory compensation by |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the contractor.\" |\n| 2 | Do you see that? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, I do. |\n| 4 | Q.
Did that, in fact, happen?
Did another entity pay the |\n| 5 | contractor on behalf of Eastern Profit? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes, correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
And do you know the name of the entity that paid the |\n| 8 | deposit on behalf of Eastern Profit? |\n| 9 | A.
It's a company called ACA. |\n| 10 | Q.
Did you have anything to do with communicating with ACA |\n| 11 | about securing the money from them? |\n| 12 | A.
I was not involved in that part. |\n| 13 | Q.
Do you know whether Strategic, in fact, received the |\n| 14 | million dollars from ACA? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes, I believe so. |\n| 16 | Q.
Did Ms. Wallop or Mr. Waller ever ask you why the |\n| 17 | \\$1 million was deposited by ACA rather than Eastern? |\n| 18 | A.
No, they didn't ask. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did they refuse to accept the payment when they saw it |\n| 20 | didn't come from Eastern? |\n| 21 | A.
No, they didn't refuse. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did they ever tell you that Strategic wasn't going to |\n| 23 | perform the contract because the deposit came from ACA? |\n| 24 | A.
They didn't mention that. |\n| 25 | Q.
Now, let's talk about the parties' performance under the |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | agreement.
Was it the case that there were certain people who |\n| 2 | were to be the subjects of the investigation under the |\n| 3 | agreement? |\n| 4 | A.
I beg your pardon? |\n| 5 | Q.
Yes, sorry, that was awful. |\n| 6 | Was part of the point of the contract that |\n| 7 | Strategic Vision would investigate particular people? |\n| 8 | Correct.
A. |\n| 9 | Q.
And did Eastern decide on the names of the people it wanted |\n| 10 | to be investigated? |\n| 11 | A.
No, it's not decided by Eastern Profit. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
Who decided that? |\n| 13 | A.
Mr. Guo introduce some name, and I researched some name, we |\n| 14 | put together the list. |\n| 15 | Q.
And do you know whether a list of names was provided to |\n| 16 | Strategic? |\n| 17 | A.
Sorry, I beg your pardon again? |\n| 18 | Q.
Yes.
The list -- the names that you and Mr. Guo put |\n| 19 | together, was that list provided to Strategic? |\n| 20 | A.
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
And then what happened after the names were provided to |\n| 22 | Strategic? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Excuse me.
Were the names provided to |\n| 24 | Eastern Profit? |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
Sorry, your Honor, I beg your pardon. |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | What's your question? |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Was the list of names provided to Eastern |\n| 3 | Profit? |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
No.
The name of the list was only |\n| 5 | provided to Strategic Vision, your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | BY MS. CLINE: |\n| 8 | Q.
So, after the names were provided to Strategic Vision, what |\n| 9 | happened next? |\n| 10 | A.
Strategic Vision was supposed to start to investigate those |\n| 11 | names. |\n| 12 | Q.
And did they start to investigate? |\n| 13 | A.
No, they didn't.
Ms. Wallop, the second day, after me and |\n| 14 | her, we sit down, I presented her the list of name.
She opened |\n| 15 | that successfully on her laptop with the name list.
Me and her |\n| 16 | we went through each of the name in her house in Virginia.
She |\n| 17 | took over the name of the list, list of the name, and then |\n| 18 | supposed to start to investigate it right away. |\n| 19 | But, unfortunately, the second day, she called me, |\n| 20 | told me that she was not able to open the file.
So she |\n| 21 | requested a second copy of the name list. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did you give her a second copy of the name list? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes, I did. |\n| 24 | Q.
Can you describe who — just generally, not necessarily by |\n| 25 | name — but who were the types of people who were on the name |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | list? |\n| 2 | A.
The name list including the vice president of Chinese |\n| 3 | Government, the minister of national security of Chinese |\n| 4 | ministry, and their family, including their wife, their kids, |\n| 5 | and some of their mistress, and their illegal kids. |\n| 6 | Q.
Now, after you provided the second list of names, was |\n| 7 | Strategic ever able to provide a written report showing its |\n| 8 | results of its investigation? |\n| 9 | A.
No, they did not. |\n| 10 | Q.
What did they provide? |\n| 11 | A.
After me and Mr. Guo, we did several kind of, like, chase |\n| 12 | follow-up and request, they finally came, Mr. Waller and |\n| 13 | Ms. Wallop, they finally came to meet me and Mr. Guo and |\n| 14 | presented with a folder, which is in another USB flash drive, |\n| 15 | without the valuable high quality of content of reports in |\n| 16 | there at all.
Basically it's nonsense in the first flash |\n| 17 | drive. |\n| 18 | Q.
How did you and Mr. Guo react when you saw the contents of |\n| 19 | the first flash drive? |\n| 20 | A.
The meeting happened in New York.
Ms. Wallop and |\n| 21 | Mr. Waller, they came to visit me and Mr. Guo.
They brought a |\n| 22 | laptop they called virgin laptop.
They told us this laptop was |\n| 23 | never connect with any internet, which we never use internet, |\n| 24 | and they used that laptop, open their flash drive, and they |\n| 25 | start to open their -- I believe it's a PDF file, and Mr. Guo |\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\n18\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang - Direct of 243\n\nwas very disappointed, and even very shocked, because both me and him, we found there is no investigation deliverable content in there at all. It's basically some structure how they plan to build the work, with very limited words in there.\n\nSo Mr. Guo was very, very shocked and very, very disappointed. And Mr. Waller, literally he started to sweat, he was sweating, and his face is turned to be very red, and then he apologized, including Ms. Wallop apologized, also. They apologized, they said they had miscommunication, communication problem, with their team lead in Europe, and they figured out this is not the report they should bring to us. So that was a lunch meeting. Basically, both of them, they apologized again, again sweating, and then they admitted they made mistake with the investigation report.\n\nQ. Did they leave a copy of that first flash drive with you? A. No. They just left the virgin laptop with us, and then they took the first flash drive away. 15 16 17\n\nQ. What happened next?\n\nA. In that meeting, obviously, Mr. Guo and me, we were super, super disappointed. We were not expected this is a kind of, like, deliverable which come from such a great, right, professional investigation firm. So, Mr. Waller and Ms. Wallop, they apologized again, again. They said they have more data in their team's hands, and then Mr. Waller is planning to fly in Europe to pick up the data, which is, he 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | said, 60 gigabyte, something like that way, and then bringing |\n| 2 | that data back to us as soon as possible.
So, obviously, |\n| 3 | Mr. Guo and me, we could not wait any more.
We ask him right |\n| 4 | away, can we have that.
So, Mr. Waller flew to Europe, as he |\n| 5 | said, and then bringing a second flash drive back to New York. |\n| 6 | Q.
And did he deliver the second flash drive to you? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes, he did. |\n| 8 | Q.
And where did that take place? |\n| 9 | A.
That took place in the Penn Station.
That was three, four |\n| 10 | days after our first meeting, the first disappointing meeting, |\n| 11 | because he promised that he will fly to Europe right away and |\n| 12 | then to pick up the data.
So, after three, four days, and then |\n| 13 | he said he came back, he requested to meet me in person, |\n| 14 | deliver the data in Penn Station.
He gave me a name called |\n| 15 | Chuck Bar.
I believe there's a bar in Penn Station.
So I went |\n| 16 | there and met him.
He gave me the second flash drive. |\n| 17 | And did you and Mr. Waller look at the second flash drive
Q. |\n| 18 | right there at the bar in Penn Station? |\n| 19 | A.
We tried to open the second flash drive in the bar, but I |\n| 20 | didn't remember we successfully open that because the format is |\n| 21 | somehow, we couldn't open with the laptop we have in the Penn |\n| 22 | Station in there. |\n| 23 | Q.
Well, did there come a point in time in which you actually |\n| 24 | were able to review the contents of the second flash drive? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And where did that happen? |\n| 2 | A.
Obviously, I came back to meet with Mr. Guo right after I |\n| 3 | got the second flash drive from Mr. Waller, and then Mr. Guo |\n| 4 | couldn't wait anymore, so we use their virgin laptop, and that |\n| 5 | opened the second flash drive. |\n| 6 | Q.
Was there anything on the second flash drive? |\n| 7 | A.
The second flash drive, we went through all the folders, |\n| 8 | and some of them, they're empty.
Some of them, they do have |\n| 9 | some content, but we went through each of them, they are either |\n| 10 | the advertisement, or some Wikipedia, or some Google, some |\n| 11 | public information, which anybody, anybody, they can research |\n| 12 | from the internet.
Even some of them was, like, Russia |\n| 13 | language or some language, which doesn't even related to the |\n| 14 | people we want to investigate. |\n| 15 | So, long story short, it's garbage, period. |\n| 16 | Q.
Were there any financial forensic reports that were called |\n| 17 | for under the contract on the drive? |\n| 18 | A.
Nothing. |\n| 19 | Q.
Were there any current tracking reports on the drive? |\n| 20 | A.
Nothing. |\n| 21 | Q.
Were there any social media reports on the drive? |\n| 22 | A.
Nothing. |\n| 23 | Q.
What, if anything, did you tell Strategic when you saw what |\n| 24 | was on this second flash drive? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes, I remember I Signal text Ms. Wallop right away with a |\n| | |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | very long text message, and we told them this is garbage, this |\n| 2 | is far away from what you promised to deliver as high quality |\n| 3 | original investigation deliverable reports, which defined in |\n| 4 | the contract.
It's nothing to do with that.
You didn't do |\n| 5 | your job.
We told them right away. |\n| 6 | Q.
And how did they respond? |\n| 7 | A.
They responded with many different text message by Signal, |\n| 8 | and I believe you have that.
Mainly they made a lot of excuse, |\n| 9 | and gave different reason, and then tried to go through with |\n| 10 | this, which we don't buy anymore. |\n| 11 | Q.
And then what happened next with the contract? |\n| 12 | A.
The contract was terminated. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did Strategic ever provide Eastern Profit or you and |\n| 14 | Mr. Guo with any of the deliverables called for under the |\n| 15 | agreement? |\n| 16 | A.
Nothing, never. |\n| 17 | Q.
And did Strategic ever return the deposit to Eastern Profit |\n| 18 | or to ACA? |\n| 19 | A.
No, they never did that either. |\n| 20 | MS. CLINE:
I have no further questions. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
Why don't we take our |\n| 22 | midafternoon break now for ten minutes, and then we will resume |\n| 23 | with Ms. Wang on cross-examination.
So be back at 3:55.
Let's |\n| 24 | expect to go until 5:00 o'clock today. |\n| 25 | (Recess) |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Be seated. |\n| 2 | I had neglected to ask you, Ms. Cline, to make sure |\n| 3 | you cleaned off the podium.
I assume that that has been done. |\n| 4 | MS. CLINE:
I forgot, your Honor, I confess. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
But I do want that to be done. |\n| 6 | (Pause) |\n| 7 | MS. CLINE:
I apologize. |\n| 8 | MR. GREIM:
I hadn't done it either, but I will. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wang, you are reminded that you are |\n| 10 | still under oath, and I am also going to give you the |\n| 11 | instruction to keep talking slowly, please. |\n| 12 | Mr. Greim, you may inquire. |\n| 13 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 14 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 15 | Q.
Ms. Wang, good afternoon. |\n| 16 | You testified on direct that you are now no longer a |\n| 17 | CCP member, correct? |\n| 18 | A.
Correct. |\n| 19 | Q.
Do you have a letter of resignation or a notice of |\n| 20 | expulsion from the CCP? |\n| 21 | A.
There is no this kind of procedure in the Chinese Communist |\n| 22 | Party. |\n| 23 | Q.
When did you stop being a member of the CCP? |\n| 24 | A.
From 2017. |\n| 25 | Q.
When in 2017? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
From January. |\n| 2 | Q.
Have you told anyone else that you were a member of the CCP |\n| 3 | after January 2017? |\n| 4 | A.
Nobody ask me. |\n| 5 | Q.
Ms. Wang, what is your employment?
Where do you work? |\n| 6 | A.
I work in New York. |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
At what company do you work? |\n| 8 | A.
I work for Mr. Guo's family office. |\n| 9 | Q.
And that is what? |\n| 10 | A.
Golden Spring New York Ltd. |\n| 11 | Q.
What is your position within Golden Spring New York Ltd.? |\n| 12 | A.
I am the president and the director of the company. |\n| 13 | Q.
And, in this case, you have signed the interrogatory |\n| 14 | responses for Eastern Profit as the president of Golden Spring, |\n| 15 | correct? |\n| 16 | A.
Correct. |\n| 17 | And when we took the depositions of Eastern Profit in this
Q. |\n| 18 | case in January 2019 and in October 2019, you were the witness |\n| 19 | for Eastern Profit, correct? |\n| 20 | A.
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
Now, has Eastern Profit ever paid Golden Spring for its |\n| 22 | services in this case? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
Has it ever paid Golden Spring for its services in dealing |\n| 25 | with the research agreement? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | of 243
L4KKEAS4
Wang - Cross |\n| 1 | A. | No. |\n| 2 | Q. | Why is that? |\n| 3 | A. | Eastern Profit's bank account were frozen. |\n| 4 | Q. | This is the Hong Kong bank account? |\n| 5 | A. | Correct. |\n| 6 | Q. | Is there a document that gives you authority as president |\n| 7 | | of Golden Spring New York to act for Eastern Profit? |\n| 8 | A. | I believe there was a power of attorney. |\n| 9 | Q. | We'll put that up for you. |\n| 10 | A. | Thank you. |\n| 11 | Q. | That's DX 24. |\n| 12 | | MR. GREIM:
If we could scroll through.
I think it's |\n| 13 | | only a few-page document.
There we go.
We don't need the |\n| 14 | | translation. |\n| 15 | Q. | Is this the power of attorney? |\n| 16 | A. | Correct. |\n| 17 | Q. | All right.
And whose signature appears on that document? |\n| 18 | A. | Mr. Chunguang Han. |\n| 19 | Q. | Is this the same man you called Hank Han before? |\n| 20 | A. | Correct. |\n| 21 | Q. | He signed that on August 30th, 2018, right? |\n| 22 | A. | Correct. |\n| 23 | Q. | And that was about, oh, what, maybe five months into this |\n| 24 | | lawsuit? |\n| 25 | A. | Yes. |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
Let's go back -- I don't want you to guess on this.
Let's |\n| 2 | go back to page 1. |\n| 3 | Is there a section of this -- let me just ask you:
Do |\n| 4 | you see in the middle of this agreement where it lays out what |\n| 5 | the power of attorney will cover? |\n| 6 | A.
You mean from the second paragraph? |\n| 7 | Q.
Yes, ma'am. |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
So it's negotiating a contract between Eastern and SV, |\n| 10 | right? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
Executing that contract? |\n| 13 | A.
Correct. |\n| 14 | Q.
And then the full enforcement and preservation of Eastern's |\n| 15 | rights under any contract between Eastern and SV, right? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Is there any reference in here to any kind of a loan
Q. |\n| 18 | agreement between ACA and Eastern Profit? |\n| 19 | A.
I didn't see that. |\n| 20 | Q.
That's not listed in 1, 2, or 3, is it? |\n| 21 | A.
Correct. |\n| 22 | Q.
And you testified that you had nothing to do with the ACA |\n| 23 | payment to Eastern Profit? |\n| 24 | A.
I was not involved in the beginning of about this loan. |\n| 25 | Q.
Okay.
We'll come back to that topic in a little bit. |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Now, in your first deposition, you testified that you |\n| 2 | had met Han Chunguang before that deposition, right?
You |\n| 3 | recall that? |\n| 4 | Yes.
A. |\n| 5 | Q.
And you had met him in New York? |\n| 6 | A.
Correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
You said that he didn't explain to you what his |\n| 8 | relationship to Eastern Profit was.
Do you recall that? |\n| 9 | A.
Correct. |\n| 10 | Q.
And you didn't know what his official title was or what his |\n| 11 | duties were, did you? |\n| 12 | A.
I did not know by then. |\n| 13 | Q.
And that deposition was in January 2019, right? |\n| 14 | A.
Correct. |\n| 15 | Q.
And the contract here was negotiated at the end of 2017 and |\n| 16 | signed in the beginning of 2018, right? |\n| 17 | A.
Correct. |\n| 18 | Q.
You said that you didn't talk to him for information about |\n| 19 | Eastern to prepare for your first deposition, right? |\n| 20 | A.
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
And you said Mr. Guo is the one who told you Chunguang Han |\n| 22 | was the principal of Eastern Profit? |\n| 23 | A.
I believe that I said that in the first deposition. |\n| 24 | Q.
Was that true? |\n| 25 | I misspoke.
A.
By then is that I was not well prepared for my |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS4
Wang - Cross |\n| 1 | first deposition.
My second deposition was by the end of |\n| 2 | October of the same year, after ten years.
So, if I misspoke |\n| 3 | anything, I apologize, with the chronology and the description |\n| 4 | of details. |\n| 5 | Q.
Well, your deposition in January 2019 was given under oath, |\n| 6 | right? |\n| 7 | A.
Correct. |\n| 8 | Q.
And you were asked several questions about your own |\n| 9 | personal knowledge, weren't you? |\n| 10 | A.
Correct, Mr. Greim. |\n| 11 | Q.
And did you make every effort to answer truthfully in that |\n| 12 | first deposition? |\n| 13 | A.
Mr. Greim, English is not my native language.
So my |\n| 14 | English level by then, and compare with by the end of 2019 and |\n| 15 | compare now, I can say I'm improving and growing. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Ms. Wang, would you please answer the |\n| 17 | question that you were asked.
The court reporter can read it |\n| 18 | back. |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 20 | (Record read) |\n| 21 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, I did. |\n| 22 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 23 | Q.
And, in fact, in your first deposition, weren't you asked |\n| 24 | how it was that you came to get the information from Mr. Guo |\n| 25 | about Chunguang Han being the principal of Eastern Profit? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | MR. GREIM:
Why don't we go ahead and pull that up. |\n| 3 | This is R5(a). |\n| 4 | Okay.
Let's go up to page 97.
Just scroll up a |\n| 5 | little bit. |\n| 6 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 7 | Q.
We're talking about Han Chunguang here, and you see you |\n| 8 | were asked — and I know only part is highlighted, I want you to |\n| 9 | start at 5 — you see you were asked a question: |\n| 10 | \"Q.
Is he an officer, director? |\n| 11 | \"A.
I don't know. |\n| 12 | \"Q.
Do you know what his duties and responsibilities are? |\n| 13 | \"A.
I don't know. |\n| 14 | \"Q.
How did you know he was a principal? |\n| 15 | \"A.
Mr. Guo told me.\" |\n| 16 | Q.
And then the question is: |\n| 17 | \"Q.
If you look at Exhibit 3, and we can pull that up, would |\n| 18 | you have personal knowledge of any of these answers?
Maybe you |\n| 19 | can just point out the ones to which you would have personal |\n| 20 | knowledge.\" |\n| 21 | \"A.
Personal knowledge about what?\" |\n| 22 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And that was your true and correct testimony in |\n| 25 | January 2019? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
That's my best knowledge by then. |\n| 2 | Q.
And you were asked again, on page 99, at line 20: |\n| 3 | \"Q.
So you knew that Mr. Han, prior to seeing these |\n| 4 | interrogatories, was a principal of Eastern Profit? |\n| 5 | \"A.
Which question? |\n| 6 | \"Q.
Number two. |\n| 7 | \"A.
Again, correct.
Here, yes, I was told he was a |\n| 8 | principal.\" |\n| 9 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And then you go on: |\n| 12 | \"A.
They explored this in some more detail. |\n| 13 | \"Q.
So you had to be told that when you saw the question, when |\n| 14 | you verified it?
Somebody told you that information, right? |\n| 15 | \"A.
That's right. |\n| 16 | \"Q.
So you were educated on it.
Is that true with each of |\n| 17 | these answers?
That's what I'm trying to get at. |\n| 18 | \"A.
Correct.\" |\n| 19 | Did I read that right as well? |\n| 20 | And then they pursue it further: |\n| 21 | \"Q.
So with each of these answers, somebody had to tell you -- |\n| 22 | with each of these questions, somebody had to tell you what the |\n| 23 | answers were before you could verify it, right? |\n| 24 | \"A.
Yes.\" |\n| 25 | Did I read that correctly still? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q.
And then the question: |\n| 3 | \"Q.
Now, for example, who told you the answer to number 2?\" |\n| 4 | 23, Answer: |\n| 5 | \"A.
Mr. Guo.\" |\n| 6 | Did I read that right? |\n| 7 | A.
You read it correctly. |\n| 8 | Q.
So you answered several times in this deposition that it |\n| 9 | was Mr. Guo who told you that Han was the principal of Eastern, |\n| 10 | right? |\n| 11 | A.
Correct. |\n| 12 | Q.
Now, as of January 29, when you gave that deposition, you |\n| 13 | had not met with or spoken with any employee, officer, or |\n| 14 | director of Eastern Profit, had you? |\n| 15 | A.
Correct. |\n| 16 | Q.
And you didn't know whether Eastern Profit had an office, |\n| 17 | correct? |\n| 18 | A.
Correct. |\n| 19 | Q.
And you didn't know whether Eastern Profit had any |\n| 20 | employees, correct? |\n| 21 | A.
Correct. |\n| 22 | Q.
You did not know Eastern Profit at all before this project; |\n| 23 | isn't that right? |\n| 24 | A.
Correct. |\n| 25 | Q.
Guo is the person who told you about Eastern, right? |\n| | SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
I couldn't remember by then.
If I testified Mr. Guo, |\n| 2 | that's Mr. Guo.
I will stay with my testify. |\n| 3 | Q.
And the first time you heard the name Eastern Profit was |\n| 4 | from Mr. Guo, correct? |\n| 5 | A.
I couldn't remember clearly.
If I testify and say Mr. Guo, |\n| 6 | I will stay with that. |\n| 7 | Q.
And Guo told you the name Eastern Profit before you went |\n| 8 | down to Virginia to negotiate with French Wallop; is that |\n| 9 | right? |\n| 10 | A.
I couldn't remember that clearly.
If I testify Mr. Guo, I |\n| 11 | will stay with that. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
No, Ms. Wang, what we're asking for, what |\n| 13 | counsel is asking for, is your best recollection today, your |\n| 14 | truthful answers today, not what you will stick with, but what |\n| 15 | the truth is to your knowledge today. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
Understood, your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 18 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 19 | Q.
So, let me ask you:
Is your best recollection today that |\n| 20 | the first time you heard the name Eastern Profit was from Guo |\n| 21 | Wengui? |\n| 22 | A.
No.
My best memory, as my best knowledge today, right now, |\n| 23 | first time I heard about Eastern Profit is from Mr. Han. |\n| 24 | Q.
Now, again, you testified on January 31, 2019, as the |\n| 25 | Eastern Profit corporate representative, correct? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n| 2 | Q.
And you swore to your testimony under oath, correct? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up R12.
And let's go up, |\n| 5 | actually, to page 14.
We're going to have to use a couple of |\n| 6 | pages here. |\n| 7 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 8 | Q.
So, on page 14, line 15, you were asked: |\n| 9 | \"Q.
What information did you request of Mr. Guo in order to |\n| 10 | finish this project? |\n| 11 | \"A.
At least who is the client or who is the vendor.\" |\n| 12 | Did I read that right so far? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes, sir. |\n| 14 | \"Q.
So when you asked him who the client or the vendor was, he |\n| 15 | said Eastern Profit; is that fair? |\n| 16 | \"A.
Correct.\" |\n| 17 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes, sir. |\n| 19 | \"Q.
When did he tell you about Eastern Profit -- or what did |\n| 20 | he tell you about Eastern Profit at that time? |\n| 21 | \"A.
I don't remember.\" |\n| 22 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 23 | A.
Correct. |\n| 24 | Q.
Then let's skip down to page 16.
I'm sorry, page 15, |\n| 25 | line 4: |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | \"Q.
Up until that time, had you ever heard of Eastern Profit |\n| 2 | before? |\n| 3 | \"A.
I don't remember I heard about that.\" |\n| 4 | Line 7: |\n| 5 | \"Q.
Sitting here today, you think that may have been the first |\n| 6 | time you ever heard of Eastern Profit? |\n| 7 | \"A.
You mean by then?
You mean by this time, December 2017? |\n| 8 | \"Q.
Yes. |\n| 9 | \"A.
Yes.\" |\n| 10 | Did I read that correct so far? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, sir. |\n| 12 | Q.
And, then, just to clear it up, line 18: |\n| 13 | \"Q.
So as far as you can recall, that's the first time you |\n| 14 | ever heard of Eastern Profit? |\n| 15 | \"A.
Correct.\" |\n| 16 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 17 | Yes, sir.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Now, Guo told you this just before you went down to |\n| 19 | Virginia, correct? |\n| 20 | A.
Again, I don't remember clearly, as Mr. Guo and Mr. Han |\n| 21 | told me, but as my best memory of today, right now, I did my |\n| 22 | research, and my recollection, that was Mr. Han. |\n| 23 | MR. GREIM:
Okay, let's put up C1.
Let's play that |\n| 24 | before you click play. |\n| 25 | Q.
Do you recall you were deposed, that we finished up the |\n| | |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | L4KKEAS4
Wang - Cross |\n| 1 | Eastern Profit corporate representative deposition in October |\n| 2 | of 2019? |\n| 3 | A.
Correct. |\n| 4 | Q.
And did you testify truthfully and under oath at that time |\n| 5 | as well? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And do you recall we videotaped that deposition? |\n| 8 | A.
I believe so. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay.
We're going to play you a clip now. |\n| 10 | \"Q.
You first learned of Eastern Profit's existence just |\n| 11 | before going down to Virginia to sign the contract with |\n| 12 | Ms. Wallop; isn't that right? |\n| 13 | \"A.
That's correct.\" |\n| 14 | That was your testimony in October 2019, right? |\n| 15 | A.
Correct. |\n| 16 | Q.
You told us earlier that you thought you remembered many |\n| 17 | things between January and October 2019, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
And your English was much better in October than from |\n| 20 | January 2019? |\n| 21 | A.
I believe so. |\n| 22 | Q.
By the way, when did you first begin to learn English? |\n| 23 | A.
When I was back to my college. |\n| 24 | Q.
And when was that? |\n| 25 | A.
That was in France.
My first foreign language is French, |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and the second language is English, mainly. |\n| 2 | Q.
And how long have you been living in the United States? |\n| 3 | A.
From 2015 until now. |\n| 4 | Q.
Do you deal with English-speaking employees every day at |\n| 5 | your office? |\n| 6 | A.
Correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
Ms. Wang, you've testified that you have no idea -- let me |\n| 8 | just ask you. |\n| 9 | Ms. Wang, you have no idea if Eastern Profit has |\n| 10 | investors, assets, clients, investments, business activities, |\n| 11 | or a bank account; isn't that right? |\n| 12 | MS. CLINE:
Objection; relevance. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
I did my research, and Eastern Profit |\n| 15 | does have bank account and assets. |\n| 16 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 17 | So, you did not know that they had a bank account on
Q. |\n| 18 | January 29 at your deposition? |\n| 19 | A.
By then, I didn't know. |\n| 20 | Q.
And that was eight months into this lawsuit.
You still |\n| 21 | didn't know that they had a bank account? |\n| 22 | A.
I didn't know by then. |\n| 23 | Q.
Didn't you just testify about an hour ago that Han |\n| 24 | Chunguang told you that Eastern Profit wanted to unfreeze its |\n| 25 | assets? |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Correct. |\n| 2 | Q.
He would have told you that back in 2017, correct? |\n| 3 | A.
Back to 2017?
I don't remember that. |\n| 4 | Q.
Well, let me just ask you:
What did Han Chunguang tell you |\n| 5 | in December of 2017 that Eastern Profit wanted from this |\n| 6 | agreement? |\n| 7 | A.
By then, Mr. Han told me Eastern Profit could potentially |\n| 8 | be the party of this investigation project because Eastern |\n| 9 | Profit got their assets frozen by Chinese Government, also. |\n| 10 | Q.
So you knew back in -- this conversation really occurred, |\n| 11 | you knew back in December 2017 that Eastern Profit had assets, |\n| 12 | right? |\n| 13 | MS. CLINE:
Objection to form. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
By the end of 2017, I was told Eastern |\n| 16 | Profit had assets, but in my understanding, I'm not sure that |\n| 17 | referred to bank accounts or some other assets. |\n| 18 | Q.
Well, you were asked about all those things in |\n| 19 | January 2019, weren't you? |\n| 20 | A.
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q.
And your answer was you didn't know at that time? |\n| 22 | A.
I was not sure by then. |\n| 23 | Q.
How are you confident that Han Chunguang had anything to do |\n| 24 | with Eastern Profit when you spoke with him in December 2017? |\n| 25 | A.
I'm pretty confident. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q. | Okay.
My question is:
How why were you confident? |\n| 2 | A. | Because he introduce me as he is represent -- |\n| 3 | | representative of Eastern Profit.
So I trust him. |\n| 4 | Q. | So the basis for your information was that he told you he |\n| 5 | | was a representative of Eastern Profit? |\n| 6 | A. | Correct. |\n| 7 | Q. | Did anybody else tell you he was a representative of |\n| 8 | | Eastern Profit -- |\n| 9 | A. | I believe -- |\n| 10 | Q. | -- at that time? |\n| 11 | A. | Only Mr. Han. |\n| 12 | Q. | Did you know Mr. Han Chunguang before then? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q. | How did you know him? |\n| 15 | A. | I know him back to Mainland China. |\n| 16 | Q. | Do you know when he came to the United States? |\n| 17 | A. | I beg your pardon? |\n| 18 | Q. | Do you know when he came to the United States? |\n| 19 | A. | You mean when, right? |\n| 20 | Q. | Immigrated, do you know when he immigrated to the United |\n| 21 | | States? |\n| 22 | A. | I know he came to the U.S. in 2015, also. |\n| 23 | Q. | Did he come at the same time as you? |\n| 24 | A. | Similar. |\n| 25 | Q. | Eastern Profit was not assigned any of its claims in this |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | case, correct? |\n| 2 | A.
What's your question?
Sorry. |\n| 3 | Q.
Was Eastern Profit assigned any of the claims it is |\n| 4 | asserting in this case? |\n| 5 | MS. CLINE:
Objection to form. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
You mean signature, right? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
You mean signature; am I correct? |\n| 9 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 10 | Q.
My question was:
Did anyone else assign the claims to |\n| 11 | Eastern Profit that it is asserting in this case? |\n| 12 | A.
I still don't understand your question. |\n| 13 | Q.
That's okay.
Here's what we'll do.
Let's put up DX 68. |\n| 14 | Okay. |\n| 15 | First of all, do you recognize this document? |\n| 16 | MR. GREIM:
Why don't you scroll through it, Rebecca, |\n| 17 | just go slowly through. |\n| 18 | Q.
You see it has several questions and answers, an attorney |\n| 19 | named Zachary Grendi has an electronic signature — keep going — |\n| 20 | and then there's a signature at the bottom. |\n| 21 | MR. GREIM:
Is there another page? |\n| 22 | Q.
Now, is that your signature? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
That signature is Yvette Wang, correct? |\n| 25 | A.
Correct. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And somebody else notarized it. |\n| 2 | Did you sign this before a notary? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
On August 20, 2019? |\n| 5 | A.
Correct. |\n| 6 | Q.
And then in the verification, you say, \"I, Yvette Wang, |\n| 7 | state that I have read the foregoing responses, that they were |\n| 8 | prepared with the assistance of counsel, that the responses |\n| 9 | are, subject to inadvertent and undiscovered errors, based on, |\n| 10 | and therefore necessarily limited by, the records and |\n| 11 | information I have reviewed, or by my knowledge of certain |\n| 12 | facts, were so stated and by information thus far discovered in |\n| 13 | preparing these responses.\" |\n| 14 | You reserve the right to make changes. |\n| 15 | And then, finally, you say, \"Subject to these |\n| 16 | limitations, I state, under the pains and penalties of perjury, |\n| 17 | the responses are true to the best of my knowledge, information |\n| 18 | and belief.\" |\n| 19 | Did I read that right? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 22 | MR. GREIM:
And let's go up to page 3.
Go up a little |\n| 23 | higher.
It's page 2.
I'm sorry, you have to go down.
I guess |\n| 24 | I was wrong.
Oh, there it is, the last one. |\n| 25 | Q.
You see it says, \"If one or more of Eastern Profit's claims |\n| | |\n\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| in the second amended complaint has been assigned, identify |\n| each original owner of each claim and identify any assignee of |\n| any claim.\" |\n| Do you see that? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
And then it says, \"None of the claims in the second amended |\n| complaint has been assigned.\"
Did I read that right? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| Q.
And is that true? |\n| A.
Correct. |\n| Q.
Okay.
Let's move ahead, pick up some speed here. |\n| Ms. Wang, you had never met French Wallop or Mike, |\n| Dr. Mike Waller, before you were introduced to them? |\n| Correct.
A. |\n| Q.
Now, I thought I heard you to say that you first met French |\n| Wallop on a trip to D.C.; is that right? |\n| A.
That's not right. |\n| Q.
No?
Okay, okay. |\n| So, do you recall that you actually first met them in |\n| Guo Wengui's apartment? |\n| A.
I first time met them in New York. |\n| Q.
Right; in Guo Wengui's apartment? |\n| A.
In his family's apartment, yes. |\n| Q.
I'm sorry, is that not his apartment? |\n| A.
His family owns an apartment. |\n| |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
What do you mean by his family owns the apartment? |\n| 2 | MS. CLINE:
Objection; foundation. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 4 | Q.
What do you mean by his family owns the apartment? |\n| 5 | A.
Himself and his family, entire family, owns an apartment |\n| 6 | they live in there, all of them. |\n| 7 | Q.
I see.
I mean, who are the other people?
Who are the |\n| 8 | other members of the family who live in there? |\n| 9 | A.
His wife. |\n| 10 | Q.
Okay.
Who else? |\n| 11 | A.
I think that's it. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay, okay.
So he and his wife live in the apartment? |\n| 13 | A.
Correct. |\n| 14 | Q.
And they're the ones who own it? |\n| 15 | A.
The family owns that. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
Well, I'm sorry, I don't want to belabor this, but I |\n| 17 | do have to ask you:
Other than his wife, who else owns that |\n| 18 | apartment? |\n| 19 | MS. CLINE:
Objection; foundation. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I'll permit it. |\n| 21 | A.
His family's company own apartment.
He is the owner of the |\n| 22 | family -- he's the owner of the company. |\n| 23 | Q.
I see, okay. |\n| 24 | So the company owned by his family owns the apartment? |\n| 25 | A.
Correct. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q.
And I wanted to get to this later; we'll just do it now. |\n| | |\n| 2 | Several times you mentioned Guo's family office or his family |\n| 3 | company.
Do Guo's -- does he have a mother and father who own |\n| 4 | these things with him?
Which relatives of his -- let me make |\n| 5 | it specific. |\n| 6 | Which relatives of his, for example, own the company |\n| 7 | that owns his house? |\n| 8 | MS. CLINE:
Your Honor -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
The objection is sustained unless you can |\n| 10 | correct it. |\n| 11 | MR. GREIM:
Well, you know what, I'll just move on. |\n| 12 | This may be relevant to something later but I want to move |\n| 13 | quickly through here. |\n| 14 | BY MR. GREIM: |\n| 15 | Q.
Now, was the meeting at the -- I'll just call it the Guo |\n| 16 | apartment, the Sherry-Netherland, when was that? |\n| 17 | In fall of 2017.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Okay.
Now, do you recall -- it's true, isn't it, that you |\n| 19 | don't actually know when the meetings between French Wallop, |\n| 20 | Mike Waller, and Mr. Guo began? |\n| 21 | A.
That was the first time I got to know them. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay.
But you don't know when the actual meetings began, |\n| 23 | do you? |\n| 24 | A.
I didn't know. |\n| 25 | Q.
And Guo never told you why he was meeting with French and |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Mike in New York, did he? |\n| 2 | A.
By then, he didn't. |\n| 3 | Q.
Okay.
You say by then.
What did you mean? |\n| 4 | A.
Because I was introduced to that meeting, and then |\n| 5 | Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller was introducing Mr. Guo house in |\n| 6 | Virginia.
So I step into that meeting; that was the first |\n| 7 | time. |\n| 8 | Q.
I'm sorry, did you say Mr. Guo's house in Virginia? |\n| 9 | A.
No, Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller were introducing a real |\n| 10 | estate property located in Virginia, a house called Evermay |\n| 11 | somehow.
They tried to sell their house to Mr. Guo. |\n| 12 | Q.
Okay.
And so that was the first time you met Dr. Waller |\n| 13 | and French Wallop? |\n| 14 | A.
Correct. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you remember when that was? |\n| 16 | A.
I couldn't remember clearly; like late October or November, |\n| 17 | somehow 2017.
I couldn't remember clearly. |\n| 18 | Q.
Is it your testimony that it was before December? |\n| 19 | A.
Correct. |\n| 20 | Q.
So, is it your testimony sometime before December you were |\n| 21 | meeting with French Wallop and Mike Waller in Virginia?
Is |\n| 22 | that right? |\n| 23 | A.
Not correct. |\n| 24 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 25 | A.
In Virginia I only met with Ms. Wallop.
The first time I |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | went there, she introduce me to see the real estate property. |\n| 2 | I only met her, she drove me. |\n| 3 | Q.
Okay, but that was not the first time you had met them, |\n| 4 | right? |\n| 5 | A.
That was the -- not first time, you're right.
First time, |\n| 6 | I was in New York, yeah. |\n| 7 | Q.
But the first time you met French in D.C., it was to look |\n| 8 | at real estate, right? |\n| 9 | A.
Correct. |\n| 10 | Q.
And there was no discussion of the research project, |\n| 11 | correct? |\n| 12 | A.
By the first time?
No. |\n| 13 | Q.
And you didn't even know about the research project at that |\n| 14 | point; is that right? |\n| 15 | A.
Correct. |\n| 16 | Q.
And you didn't begin your involvement with the project |\n| 17 | until late December, right? |\n| 18 | A.
In December of -- I believe it's beginning of December, the |\n| 19 | first or second week of December, yeah. |\n| 20 | Q.
You had no conversations about the project during the |\n| 21 | negotiation of the project other than with Guo, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
I was negotiating with Ms. Wallop. |\n| 23 | Q.
So, before -- okay, and you were doing that in late |\n| 24 | December, right? |\n| 25 | A.
Around mid- and late December, yes. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
So, you were negotiating with Ms. Wallop in mid-December? |\n| 2 | A.
Negotiating was the late December, which I couldn't |\n| 3 | remember clearly, should be the third or fourth week of |\n| 4 | December. |\n| 5 | Q.
And before that, your only conversations on the project |\n| 6 | were with Mr. Guo, correct? |\n| 7 | A.
You mean the investigation project? |\n| 8 | Q.
Correct. |\n| 9 | A.
Correct. |\n| 10 | And you never worked on this project with anyone else other
Q. |\n| 11 | than Mr. Guo, correct? |\n| 12 | A.
I worked with Mr. Guo, Ms. Wallop, and Mr. Waller also, of |\n| 13 | course. |\n| 14 | Q.
Okay.
Other than Ms. Wallop and Dr. Waller, you never |\n| 15 | worked on this project with anyone else than Mr. Guo, correct? |\n| 16 | Correct.
A. |\n| 17 | Q.
And Guo is the person who had discussions with Strategic |\n| 18 | about what would be valuable under the agreement, correct? |\n| 19 | A.
I was involved in also. |\n| 20 | Q.
Okay.
And you testified that you were involved in |\n| 21 | mid-December? |\n| 22 | Yeah.
A. |\n| 23 | Q.
Guo identified the research subjects, correct? |\n| 24 | A.
He identified some names.
I researched some name also.
We |\n| 25 | put together. |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
Did Mr. Guo approve every research subject? |\n| 2 | A.
He does not need to approve. |\n| 3 | Q.
You recall you testified about this topic at your first |\n| 4 | deposition? |\n| 5 | A.
I couldn't remember that. |\n| 6 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up R31.
Okay. |\n| 7 | Q.
So, on 32 — let's start at 32 — line 5 you were asked: |\n| 8 | \"Q.
What did you understand fish to mean? |\n| 9 | \"A.
Target people, human being. |\n| 10 | \"Q.
But Strategic Vision wasn't identifying anyone to be |\n| 11 | researched, that was Eastern Profit, right? |\n| 12 | \"A.
Correct.\" |\n| 13 | Did I read that right so far? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Let's move down to 11 -- I'm sorry, there we go.
Now, on |\n| 16 | page 33, line 11: |\n| 17 | And who identified these people?
\"Q. |\n| 18 | \"A.
Mr. Guo. |\n| 19 | \"Q.
And from where did Mr. Guo get his information? |\n| 20 | \"A.
I don't know. |\n| 21 | \"Q.
You never asked? |\n| 22 | \"A.
No.\" |\n| 23 | Was that your testimony? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
And Mr. Guo gave you the initial research packet in |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | December 2017, correct? |\n| 2 | A.
You mean the names?
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And he told you to deliver it to Strategic if the agreement |\n| 4 | was signed, right? |\n| 5 | A.
Correct. |\n| 6 | Q.
Guo is the one who told you to execute the research |\n| 7 | agreement, correct? |\n| 8 | A.
I executed the contract by myself. |\n| 9 | Q.
I understand that you did.
What I am saying, though, is, |\n| 10 | Guo directed you to execute the research agreement, didn't he? |\n| 11 | A.
Direct?
I don't understand what you mean by direct.
He |\n| 12 | instructed me?
No, he didn't instruct me. |\n| 13 | Q.
Did he tell you to do it? |\n| 14 | A.
No, I reviewed the contract, I negotiated the terms, I feel |\n| 15 | this ready to go, I executed, I told him.
That was the |\n| 16 | process. |\n| 17 | MR. GREIM:
Let's put up R33. |\n| 18 | Q.
Again, we're looking at the January 2019 deposition that |\n| 19 | you testified, where you said you testified under oath.
Let's |\n| 20 | take a look at page 176.
So you see: |\n| 21 | \"Q.
She didn't agree with the draft you had handed her? |\n| 22 | \"A.
Correct, correct.
So I had to leave Washington, D.C., |\n| 23 | because I have my schedule on Monday, that was a Sunday.
So I |\n| 24 | left -- I was supposed to sign on contract with her by that |\n| 25 | day, but I didn't. |\n\nof 243\n\nL4KKEAS4 Wang - Cross\n\n| 1 | \"So that's why I kind of, like, I didn't finish that | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | project or that contract.
I had to leave, but later on I | |\n| 3 | realized, and Mr. Guo told me, he was expecting me to sign the | |\n| 4 | contract together, finalize the contract.
And same time | |\n| 5 | simultaneously, it looks like he already arranged the payment. | |\n| 6 | So by the end, payment hit your account but the contract didn't | |\n| 7 | sign.\" | |\n| 8 | Did I read that correctly? | |\n| 9 | A.
Correct. | |\n| 10 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up DX 16.
Let's scroll through | |\n| 11 | here.
Just show her these pages. | |\n| 12 | Now, Ms. Wang, do you recognize this document?
Q. | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q.
What is it? | |\n| 15 | A.
It's the Signal text message between me and Ms. Wallop. | |\n| 16 | Q.
And what are the Chinese characters, by the way, under the | |\n| 17 | word \"French\"? | |\n| 18 | I'm translating for you:
A.
\"Click here go to your setting.\" | |\n| 19 | Q.
Okay, all right. | |\n| 20 | Let's go to the very beginning of this document.
Do | |\n| 21 | you see you say to French — this is on January 5th at 11:05 — | |\n| 22 | \"Hi.
Both L and M advised me that we are supposed to meet | |\n| 23 | again, I'll be available tomorrow at my hotel lobby or at your | |\n| 24 | convenience.
Just let me know if you like.
Thanks.\" | |\n| 25 | Did I read that correctly? | |\n\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A. | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q. | And who are L and M in this section? |\n| 3 | A. | L is Mr. Lianchao Han.
M is Mr. Miles Guo. |\n| 4 | Q. | Now, Lianchao Han is a name we didn't really hear in your |\n| 5 | | opening examination here.
Who is he? |\n| 6 | A. | He is the gentleman introduced Ms. Wallop and Mr. Waller to |\n| 7 | | Mr. Guo. |\n| 8 | Q. | And he was negotiating on behalf of Mr. Guo, wasn't he? |\n| 9 | A. | I believe in the beginning, yes. |\n| 10 | Q. | And he's one of the ones who advised you that you were |\n| 11 | | supposed to meet with French again, correct? |\n| 12 | A. | Correct. |\n| 13 | Q. | By the way, there's no mention of Han Chunguang here, is |\n| 14 | there? | |\n| 15 | A. | No. |\n| 16 | Q. | You came to French Wallop's home to sign? |\n| 17 | A. | Yes, because Ms. Wallop doesn't want to meet me in the |\n| 18 | | public place.
She invited me to her home. |\n| 19 | Q. | Now, before signing the agreement, you read each line to |\n| 20 | | Guo over the phone, didn't you? |\n| 21 | A. | No, I didn't. |\n| 22 | | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up Wang 1, R34. |\n| 23 | Q. | You see it says: |\n| 24 | \"Q. | Was a translation of this document ever provided to |\n| 25 | | Mr. Guo? |\n| | | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | \"A.
I orally translated for him. |\n| 2 | \"Q.
And he speaks Mandarin? |\n| 3 | \"A.
Correct. |\n| 4 | \"Q.
So you read line by line and got his okay to the final |\n| 5 | agreement, right? |\n| 6 | \"A.
Correct.\" |\n| 7 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 8 | A.
Correct.
Here, I need the key terms -- |\n| 9 | Q.
I -- |\n| 10 | A.
-- not the entire agreement. |\n| 11 | Q.
You'll have to raise that with your other counsel. |\n| 12 | If Guo insisted on a term in the agreement, you just |\n| 13 | let it go; is that right? |\n| 14 | A.
What do you mean?
I don't understand your question. |\n| 15 | Q.
Well, let me ask you this:
Were there some things -- when |\n| 16 | you came down to sign the agreement, were there some things in |\n| 17 | the draft agreement that you didn't agree with? |\n| 18 | A.
Correct. |\n| 19 | Q.
And did you discuss those with Mr. Guo? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes, I did. |\n| 21 | Q.
And were there some things that he insisted should just |\n| 22 | stay in? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q.
And when he insisted that they stay in, you had to just let |\n| 25 | it go and sign, correct? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | A.
Not really. |\n| 2 | Q.
Okay.
Let's pull up Exhibit -- let's go to R35.
Do you |\n| 3 | remember one of the issues was over the million dollar deposit? |\n| 4 | A.
Correct. |\n| 5 | Q.
So, you were asked about that again at your January 2019 |\n| 6 | deposition.
I'll read it to you. |\n| 7 | \"Q.
So, ultimately, you agreed to the million dollar deposit, |\n| 8 | correct? |\n| 9 | \"A.
That's right.
As a project manager, you know, I pointed |\n| 10 | out my concern, if he insisted, then I just let it go.\" |\n| 11 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 12 | A.
Correct. |\n| 13 | Q.
That was the truth, wasn't it? |\n| 14 | A.
This is about the deposit, not about the contract. |\n| 15 | Q.
Okay.
So, on the deposit, though, he insisted and you let |\n| 16 | it go, right? |\n| 17 | I got to know this deposit was wired after it's done, so I
A. |\n| 18 | had to agree because it's already happen. |\n| 19 | Q.
Well, you testified, \"if he insisted, then I just let it |\n| 20 | go,\" right? |\n| 21 | A.
If he insisted, I need the deposit.
That's already happen, |\n| 22 | before I sign the contract.
This is what I mean by that. |\n| 23 | MR. GREIM:
Let's go up a little bit.
Let's go up, if |\n| 24 | you can scroll up.
Do we have page 61? |\n| 25 | Q.
Let me ask you:
What was the dispute that came up about |\n| | |\n\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| the deposit at the end of the agreement?
There was a question |\n| about the amount of the deposit, wasn't there? |\n| A.
Not about amount.
Amount was great. |\n| Q.
Well, let's look at page 61, line 17.
We were trying to |\n| talk about different issues with the agreement, and the |\n| question was: |\n| \"Q.
What about the deposit?
Did he raise any issues with |\n| respect to the deposit? |\n| \"A.
Oh, you reminded me.
Because I remember clearly when I |\n| went through this draft with Mr. Guo, I pointed out, I said |\n| that 1 million deposit in advance is a lot.
Because I am a |\n| project manager, so I feel I should remind him, this is a huge |\n| amount of money to pay as a deposit.\" |\n| Did I read that correctly? |\n| A.
Yes. |\n| MR. GREIM:
Okay.
Let's go down. |\n| And then you continue:
Q. |\n| \"A.
And I remember Mr. Guo said, Ms. Wallop and Mike, they are |\n| respectful people and I trust them.
They are reliable, and |\n| before they even asked 3 million as a deposit in this contract, |\n| now they reduced by 1 million and let's just keep that.
I |\n| remember that conversation.\" |\n| Did I read that correctly? |\n| A.
Correct.
This conversation happened in New York even |\n| before I went to Virginia.
The first time I saw the draft of |\n| |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | contract, I raise my question. |\n| 2 | MR. GREIM:
I just move to strike.
There's no pending |\n| 3 | question there. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I'll permit it. |\n| 5 | MR. GREIM:
Let's pull up the research agreement.
Now |\n| 6 | let's scroll through.
Keep going.
There, you can stop there. |\n| 7 | Let's keep it there. |\n| 8 | Q.
Now, Ms. Wang, I take it you've seen this agreement many, |\n| 9 | many times; am I right? |\n| 10 | Yes.
A. |\n| 11 | Q.
And this is the agreement you signed with Ms. Wallop, |\n| 12 | right? |\n| 13 | A.
Correct. |\n| 14 | Q.
Let me ask you, we saw your signature earlier on a document |\n| 15 | produced to Strategic in this case.
Is that your signature? |\n| 16 | You don't -- actually, go ahead scroll on down.
Let's look at |\n| 17 | it.
Let's look at -- this is Exhibit 68. |\n| 18 | You said that was your signature, right? |\n| 19 | A.
Correct. |\n| 20 | Q.
Okay.
Now let's go back to the research agreement. |\n| 21 | Now, you've testified that you signed this in |\n| 22 | Ms. Wallop's presence, right? |\n| 23 | A.
Correct. |\n| 24 | Q.
Did you sign your own name to this agreement? |\n| 25 | A.
Mr. Han authorized me to sign his name on agreement. |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Q.
I see.
So, your testimony today is that you signed Mr. Han |\n| 2 | Chunguang's name on the agreement? |\n| 3 | A.
With his authorized, yes. |\n| 4 | Q.
I take it this was an oral authorization, right? |\n| 5 | A.
Correct. |\n| 6 | Q.
Did you tell Ms. Wallop you were signing Han Chunguang's |\n| 7 | name? |\n| 8 | A.
I don't remember that. |\n| 9 | Q.
Now, Ms. Wang, you insisted throughout this case that you |\n| 10 | did not write Han Chunguang's name there, didn't you? |\n| 11 | A.
You asked me many times.
I was afraid you claim me, say I |\n| 12 | forge his signature. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay. |\n| 14 | A.
Which I didn't. |\n| 15 | Q.
You're telling me the truth today, though, correct? |\n| 16 | A.
I'm telling the truth along the way.
Mr. Han authorize me |\n| 17 | to sign his signature on the contract. |\n| 18 | Q.
Now, in response to the Court's question earlier, you |\n| 19 | testified that you never gave the 15 names to Mr. Han |\n| 20 | Chunguang -- I'm sorry, actually you testified you never gave |\n| 21 | them to Eastern Profit, correct? |\n| 22 | A.
Correct. |\n| 23 | Q.
So, did you ever give the information that Dr. Waller and |\n| 24 | Ms. Wallop told you, did you ever give that information to |\n| 25 | Eastern Profit? |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A.
What information? |\n| 2 | Q.
Well, let me -- okay, fair enough. |\n| 3 | Did you ever give any information that Dr. Waller or |\n| 4 | Ms. Wallop may have told you about the contract, to Mr. Han |\n| 5 | Chunguang? |\n| 6 | A.
I told him some information. |\n| 7 | Q.
Okay.
What did you tell him? |\n| 8 | A.
For example, like the payment, right, deposit is 1 million. |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay.
What else? |\n| 10 | A.
And investigation the Chinese governmental official, which |\n| 11 | is some name Mr. Han knows also, like the vice president of |\n| 12 | country. |\n| 13 | Q.
Well, now wait a second.
I thought you said you did not |\n| 14 | provide the names to Eastern Profit. |\n| 15 | A.
No, I didn't. |\n| 16 | Q.
Okay.
Well, why do you say that Han Chunguang knows some |\n| 17 | of the names also? |\n| 18 | A.
Because they are public information. |\n| 19 | Q.
Well, do you know that Han Chunguang knows the names also? |\n| 20 | A.
I believe so. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did you actually share the names with him, though? |\n| 22 | A.
No, I didn't. |\n| 23 | Q.
Now, didn't Dr. Waller and Ms. Wallop actually tell you |\n| 24 | about the results of their research.
Unsatisfactory as I |\n| 25 | understand it was, didn't they actually tell you about the |\n| | |\n\n|----|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | | results of their research? |\n| 2 | A. | In the first meeting, which is supposed to be the report |\n| 3 | | meeting, which they did tell us, they got miscommunication |\n| 4 | | problem with our team, they apologized for their failure. |\n| 5 | Q. | Now, you didn't tell that information to Han Chunguang, did |\n| 6 | you? | |\n| 7 | A. | No, I didn't. |\n| 8 | Q. | Who's the actual owner of Eastern Profit, by the way? |\n| 9 | A. | You mean now? |\n| 10 | Q. | Let's go with now, yes. |\n| 11 | A. | Yeah, it's Ms. Mei Guo. |\n| 12 | Q. | Who is that? |\n| 13 | A. | She's a daughter of Mr. Guo. |\n| 14 | Q. | Who was the owner of Eastern Profit during the time this |\n| 15 | | contract was negotiated? |\n| 16 | A. | I found out that was Ms. Mei Guo also. |\n| 17 | Q. | And who was the owner of Eastern Profit during the time |\n| 18 | | that the contract was being be performed; same answer, Mei Guo? |\n| 19 | A. | Correct. |\n| 20 | Q. | Where does she live, by the way? |\n| 21 | A. | She lives in U.S. |\n| 22 | Q. | She doesn't live in Hong Kong? |\n| 23 | A. | No. |\n| 24 | Q. | She's also the sole director of Eastern Profit, isn't she? |\n| 25 | A. | Correct. |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | of 243
L4KKEAS4
Wang - Cross |\n| 1 | Q.
And she was the sole director at all times relevant to this |\n| 2 | contract, isn't she? |\n| 3 | A.
I believe so. |\n| 4 | Q.
Mr. Guo never told you whether the research from the |\n| 5 | contract would be reported back to China, did he? |\n| 6 | A.
We discussed about that. |\n| 7 | MR. GREIM:
Well, let's pull up R38.
This would be |\n| 8 | (a).
Let's go up a little higher.
Question, this is line 4: |\n| 9 | \"Q.
What is your understanding, though, of what he is doing |\n| 10 | and why he's researching these people?\" |\n| 11 | Answer line 9: |\n| 12 | \"A.
I don't understand.
What is your question? |\n| 13 | \"Q.
Well, what is your understanding? |\n| 14 | \"A.
My understanding? |\n| 15 | \"Q.
Of why he's investigating these people. |\n| 16 | \"A.
Oh, okay.
He needs the information about these people to |\n| 17 | whistle-blow and disclose their crime.
So Chinese government, |\n| 18 | and even other countries' authorities, they can take action to |\n| 19 | this corrupted criminal, Chinese official.\" |\n| 20 | Did I read it correctly so far? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Question: |\n| 23 | \"Q.
So your understanding was the research would be reported |\n| 24 | back to China? |\n| 25 | \"A.
I don't know that.\" |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | Did I read that correctly? |\n| 2 | A.
Correct. |\n| 3 | Q.
And you didn't ask, and didn't know, how Guo was going to |\n| 4 | whistle-blow on the research subjects, correct? |\n| 5 | A.
I didn't ask appropriately, purp -- purposefully. |\n| 6 | Q.
Purposefully? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
So you didn't ask Guo on purpose why he was or, I'm sorry, |\n| 9 | how he was going to use the research? |\n| 10 | A.
Correct.
That could be like a report to China or report to |\n| 11 | the foreign authority or going to whistle-blowing. |\n| 12 | Q.
But you didn't know? |\n| 13 | A.
I didn't know by then.
It could be all of them.
I mean, |\n| 14 | that was our -- his life.
It doesn't mean I ask what do you |\n| 15 | deal with that specifically. |\n| 16 | Q.
Well, you testified on direct about all this.
When did you |\n| 17 | finally learn how Mr. Guo was going to whistle-blow on the |\n| 18 | research subjects? |\n| 19 | A.
The research was not successful.
There's no result to deal |\n| 20 | with that. |\n| 21 | Q.
I see.
Well, let's actually talk about that here. |\n| 22 | So, after this contract was terminated, Eastern Profit |\n| 23 | never hired anyone else to do research, correct? |\n| 24 | A.
Correct. |\n| 25 | Q.
And I take it, it sounds like Guo never hired anyone else |\n| | |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | to do the kind of work that he tried to have Strategic do, |\n| 2 | correct? |\n| 3 | A.
I was not involve in that.
I don't know. |\n| 4 | Q.
Well, you're the president of Golden Spring New York, |\n| 5 | right? |\n| 6 | A.
Correct. |\n| 7 | Q.
His family office? |\n| 8 | A.
Guo family office. |\n| 9 | Q.
And so you don't have knowledge of any other effort by Guo |\n| 10 | to do the kind of research Strategic Vision was supposed to do |\n| 11 | in this matter after this contract was terminated? |\n| 12 | A.
Correct.
I'm the president of family office; doesn't mean |\n| 13 | that I should know all Guo's personal stuff and his personal |\n| 14 | investigation.
That's it. |\n| 15 | Q.
Golden Spring New York was put in charge of this project, |\n| 16 | wasn't it? |\n| 17 | Correct.
A. |\n| 18 | Q.
Does Mr. Guo have other family offices that -- are other |\n| 19 | Yvettes out there doing what you do?
I'll withdraw that, I'll |\n| 20 | withdraw it. |\n| 21 | Does Mr. Guo have other family offices that you're |\n| 22 | aware of? |\n| 23 | A.
I'm not aware. |\n| 24 | Q.
How about China Golden Spring? |\n| 25 | A.
That was a company in Hong Kong. |\n| | |\n\n|----|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q. | You say \"was.\"
Is it gone now? |\n| 2 | A. | It was frozen by the Chinese government also. |\n| 3 | Q. | Also, in 2017, like Eastern Profit? |\n| 4 | A. | Yes, around that time. |\n| 5 | Q. | Has it ever been unfrozen? |\n| 6 | A. | Nope. |\n| 7 | Q. | And, as president of Golden Spring New York, you report to |\n| 8 | | Golden Spring Hong Kong, correct? |\n| 9 | A. | I report to the owner of Golden Spring Hong Kong. |\n| 10 | Q. | And who is that? |\n| 11 | A. | It was, and is, Mr. Qian Guo, Q-i-a-n-g G-u-o. |\n| 12 | Q. | Okay.
Is this Mr. Guo's son? |\n| 13 | A. | Correct. |\n| 14 | Q. | He also goes by Mileson? |\n| 15 | A. | Correct. |\n| 16 | Q. | Do you know who he reports to? |\n| 17 | | MS. CLINE:
Objection; relevance. |\n| 18 | | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 19 | A. | I don't know. |\n| 20 | Q. | Does he report to his dad? |\n| 21 | A. | I don't know. |\n| 22 | | THE COURT:
Mr. Greim, whenever you're at a convenient |\n| 23 | | breaking point; we're now at about 5:00 o'clock. |\n| 24 | | MR. GREIM:
Okay, why don't we stop. |\n| 25 | | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | All right.
We will recess for the day.
We'll begin |\n| 2 | again at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Everybody should be in their |\n| 3 | seats and ready to go at least by 9:30 because we'll begin |\n| 4 | promptly then.
Good afternoon, everybody. |\n| 5 | And please work on the exhibits to try to reconcile |\n| 6 | them so that I don't have multiple copies of the same exhibit, |\n| 7 | each bearing different exhibit numbers. |\n| 8 | Thank you. |\n| 9 | (Adjourned to April 21, 2021 at 9:30 a.m.) |\n| 10 | * * * |\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\nof 243\n\n| 1 | INDEX OF EXAMINATION |\n|----|--------------------------------|\n| 2 | Examination of:
Page |\n| 3 | Redirect By Mr. Greim
. 229 |\n| 4 | Recross By Mr. Chuff 364 |\n| 5 | Redirect By Mr. Greim
. 401 |\n| 6 | YAN PING WANG |\n| 7 | Direct By Ms. Cline
. 403 |\n| 8 | Cross By Mr. Greim 426 |\n| 9 | PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS |\n| 10 | Exhibit No.
Received |\n| 11 | 18
. 382 |\n| 12 | DEFENDANT EXHIBITS |\n| 13 | Exhibit No.
Received |\n| 14 | 7
. 271 |\n| 15 | 20 through 23
. 343 |\n| 16 | 23
. 382 |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"证物61\n\n1 美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区\n\n3 ------------------------------x\n东方利润有限公司（EASTERN PROFIT CORPORATION\nLIMITED），\n4 原告，\n\n6 诉 18 CV 2185 (LJL)\n7 美国战略愿景有限责任公司（STRATEGIC VISION US LLC），\n被告。\n\n9 ------------------------------x\n纽约州纽约市\n2021年4月20日\n上午9:39\n审判长：\n尊敬的刘易斯·J·利曼（HON. LEWIS J. LIMAN）法官，\n地区法官\n出庭人员\n特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所（TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP）\n原告代理律师\n代理人：\n克里斯托弗·B·查夫（CHRISTOPHER B. CHUFF）\n乔安娜·J·克莱恩（JOANNA J. CLINE）\n格雷夫斯·加勒特律师事务所（GRAVES GARRETT LLC）\n被告代理律师\n代理人：\n爱德华·迪恩·格雷姆（EDWARD DEAN GREIM）\n詹妮弗·A·多内利（JENNIFER A. DONNELLI）\n另有出席：\n梅丽莎·弗朗西斯（Melissa Francis），东方利润有限公司\nJ. 迈克尔·沃勒（J. Michael Waller），美国战略愿景有限责任公司\n\n（庭审继续）\n\n法庭：各位早上好。律师：法官阁下，早上好。证人：早上好。\n\n法庭：在我们继续证言之前，我昨夜收到了被告提交的几封信，让我先予以处理。\n\n首先，有一项针对某份证物的异议，即原告证物PX 67。我理解该证物未被提出作为证据；事实上，它并未被提出作为证据。因此，就针对PX 67的异议而言，该异议已无实际意义，因为该证物未被采纳为证据。\n\n关于昨日提出的其余证物，所有该等证物均已在可能提出删除动议的前提下暂予接收。昨夜未就任何其他证物提出删除动议，因此，昨日提出的所有该等证物均在无异议的情况下予以接收；在某些情形下，该等证物系为记录中所反映的有限目的而予以接收。\n\n我想要处理的第二个问题，是昨夜信中提出的有关一名证人的问题。该证人向法庭致信，表示如其将在本法院大楼作证，则担心其人身安全。双方当事人应当知悉——首先，我理解目前任何一方均未就该信请求救济。格雷姆先生，这是否正确？1 2\n\nL4KKEAS1\n格雷姆先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：克莱恩女士，这也正确吗？克莱恩女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，双方当事人应当知悉，我不知道该信是否有事实根据。我面前并无已作为证据提出的事实，表明该信是否有事实根据；但有几项原则应当能够使双方当事人安心。\n\n首先，就在本法院大楼及本法庭内进行的任何证言而言，我对此、对此处的安保拥有控制权。我们有法院安保人员，双方当事人及证人应当放心，至少在本法庭内，他们不会因其任何证言而受到骚扰或威胁。\n\n其次，我指示双方当事人——格雷姆先生，我请您将此传达给证人——如存在任何具体威胁，而非笼统陈述，则应提请法庭注意。法庭有办法处理此类情形，同样并不就威胁具体内容是否有事实根据发表意见。\n\n第三点——原告曾就其向我提及的一名证人提出此事——该证人曾请求以某种方式进入法院，特别是经由特别入口进入。我驳回了该请求，理由是缺乏具体性，且我未发现任何令人信服的具体理由，说明该证人需要经由特别入口进入。但如有人在进入本法院大楼时受到威胁，或感到受到威胁，以致其因此不愿作证，请向我说明，我们可以处理。有办法使人们进入法院大楼，而无需面对他们可能认为会对其构成威胁的人。这不是第一起出现类似我所收到通信的案件，也不会是最后一起；如果本国有哪一座法院大楼能够处理这些问题，并以应使证人感到舒适、尽可能舒适的方式处理，那就是这座法院大楼。话虽如此，格雷姆先生，关于该信，是否还有我们应当处理的事项？格雷姆先生：没有，法官阁下，确实没有。我只是觉得应当将其转交法庭，但我认为情况仍与此前相同。法庭：好的。很好。克莱恩女士？克莱恩女士：我们没有事项，法官阁下。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\n法庭：克莱恩女士，在我们继续证言之前，今天上午还有其他应当处理的事项吗？\n\n克莱恩女士：没有。我们已准备好继续进行。\n\n法庭：辩方有任何事项吗？\n\n格雷姆先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们继续。沃勒先生，提醒您，您仍在宣誓状态。\n\n格雷姆先生，您可以询问。\n\n复询（继续）\n\n格雷姆先生：\n问：沃勒先生，早上好。我想从我们昨天正要谈到的地方开始，并想谈谈您关于布罗伊迪先生的证言。您是否记得昨天曾在某个时候谈到此事？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否记得就您对布罗伊迪先生所作认罪答辩的理解作证？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：现在，昨天并未向您出示布罗伊迪先生认罪所依据的实际陈述和事实，对吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：也未向您出示起诉文书？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您对其被控罪名及其认罪答辩的理解，是基于媒体报道吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但尽管如此，我假定您一直关注这些报道？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：请问，关于您昨天作证所述事项，您理解布罗伊迪先生何时被起诉？\n\n答：我的理解是，他于2020年秋季被起诉。\n\n问：好的。您理解他何时作出认罪答辩？\n\n答：他在此后不久，即2020年秋季——秋季稍晚时候作出了认罪答辩。\n\n问：您是否了解他是否因此获得赦免？\n\n答：是，他获得了赦免。\n\n问：而且那是一项联邦犯罪，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么您知道是谁赦免了他吗？\n\n答：总统。\n\n问：您对其被控违反的联邦法规有何理解？\n\n答：他被控违反《外国代理人登记法》。\n\n问：该法是否也被称为——您是否听说其被称为FARA，或FARA？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否了解FARA要求什么？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是什么？\n\n答：总体而言，按我的非专业理解，是指为了影响美国政府而代表外国实体或个人行事，却未向司法部登记。\n\n问：您是否了解布罗伊迪先生被控未经登记代表的是哪一名外国人士？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是谁或什么人？\n\n答：他是一名马来西亚国民。\n\n问：您是否了解布罗伊迪先生是否被控或承认与中华人民共和国共谋？\n\n答：不了解。\n\n问：或者与中国共产党共谋？\n\n答：不了解。\n\n问：现在，您昨天还作证说——嗯，实际上，让我收回这个问题。沃洛普女士作证说，在本案中接受第三方资助之前，她曾与您商议，您当时在场吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而她事实上是否与您商议？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否记得那是在何时？\n\n答：那是在2019年初夏。\n\n问：那是在本律师事务所受聘之前？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：沃勒先生，我将就此问您几个问题，而我仅将问您——这些问题均旨在避免引出受律师—当事人保密特权保护的通信，因此如果您作出此类回答，我会制止您，但这并非我的意图；我们不放弃任何律师—当事人特权或工作成果特权。我将仅询问与非律师人士之间的通信。好吗？\n\n答：好。\n\n问：现在，沃洛普女士向您征求意见时，您是否做了任何事情来——嗯，让我这样问：您最终是否向沃洛普女士提出了建议？\n\n答：是，我提出了。\n\n问：您在提出该建议之前，是否做了任何事情以了解情况？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您做了什么？\n\n答：我向人打听了布罗伊迪先生及其工作情况，并飞往洛杉矶与他本人会面。\n\n问：您总体上与布罗伊迪先生讨论了什么？\n\n答：总体上讨论了一系列问题，但与本案有关。我问他有关其在这起郭文贵事项中所从事的有争议工作。\n\n问：就整个郭文贵事项而言，布罗伊迪先生告诉您他做了什么？\n\n答：他说，所有这些都是在争取使三名美国囚犯从中国共产党统治下的中国获释的背景下进行的。\n\n问：布罗伊迪先生是否说过，那些囚犯有什么情况特别促使他这样做？\n\n答：其中有一名——有一名女性囚犯，她当时怀孕了。\n\n问：布罗伊迪先生是否告诉您，在从事其被控的行为之前，或者至少其中部分行为之前，他是否曾自行调查郭文贵先生是否是一名异见人士？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：他说他做了什么？\n\n答：他说，郭文贵是中国共产党的一部分。\n\n查夫先生：抱歉。异议；传闻证据。\n\n法庭：我将接收该证言，但并非为证明其真实性，而是为证明该话作为对布罗伊迪先生进行尽职调查的一部分曾被说过。\n\n您可以继续。\n\n证人：谢谢。\n\n布罗伊迪先生告诉我，他发现郭文贵是中国共产党某派系斗争中失败一方的一部分，这是一场围绕利益和政治内斗的斗争，而且他确实不是一名异见人士。\n\n问：您是否询问布罗伊迪先生，他是否曾调查郭文贵先生是否为美国情报目的所利用的资产？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：他说他做了什么？\n\n答：布罗伊迪先生说——\n\n法庭：再次说明，我接收所有这些证言并非为证明其真实性，而是为证明该谈话曾经发生。\n\n问：布罗伊迪先生告诉您他做了什么？\n\n答：他说，他向其美国情报界联系人核实，并称他绝对确认郭文贵并非且从未是美国政府的资产。\n\n问：现在，您是否做过任何——嗯，让我这样问：布罗伊迪先生向您所作的陈述，是否与您截至当时正在进行的任何其他调查相一致？\n\n答：是，与我过去——此前约13个月所进行的调查一致。我发现了完全相似的信息。\n\n问：现在，您说过去13个月。那么，您何时开始自行努力深入调查郭文贵先生的背景？\n\n答：在真正扎实的规模上，是在他于2019年5月提起诉讼之后。请原谅，是2018年5月。\n\n问：好的。仅就一般而言——并且，再次，请不要\n\n1 披露您与律师之间的通信，好吗——我想\n2 笼统地问您，在被起诉后，您为调查Guo Wengui（郭文贵）先生的背景\n3 做了哪些类别的\n4 事情？\n5 答。\n我——\n6 法庭：\n该证言的目的是什么？\n7 GREIM先生：\n法官阁下，我只是想证明\n8 Waller（沃勒）先生就第三方\n9 资助所作建议的依据。整个关联性，也就是我们\n10 一开始讨论这个问题的原因，是Strategic Vision（战略愿景公司）作出此项决定\n11 并不可信，而且它——\n12 法庭：\n我将为该有限目的接纳该证言。\n13 我想您不会在这上面花太多时间吧？\n14 GREIM先生：\n不会。事实上，我们\n15 就快结束了。\n16 GREIM先生询问：\n17 问。\n如果可以的话，Waller博士——我们稍后会讨论其他证据\n18 ——我只想知道\n19 您所做事情的类别。\n20 答。\n我让讲普通话的人进行了公开来源研究，\n21 查看——聆听Guo的录音并观看Guo的视频，\n22 以及Guo自己录制的、威胁在美国的中国\n23 异见人士的录音。\n24 问。\n好的。您还做了什么？\n25 答。\n还查看了他在家中会见中国高级\n\n1 秘密警察官员的录音，以及他——\n2 支持中国共产党领导人Xi Jinping（习近平）的录像声明，\n3 该声明作出于他寻求\n4 美国政治庇护前仅两周。\n5 问。\n除该调查外，您是否与\n6 美国政府有任何联系？\n7 答。\n是的。\n8 问。\n大体而言，您联系了谁？\n9 答。\n我联系了两个FBI（联邦调查局）外地办事处，并告知他们我\n10 是一宗案件中的证人——\n11 CHUFF先生：\n反对，法官阁下。在证言录取中，\n12 他拒绝回答这个问题。\n13 法庭：\n是这样吗，Greim先生？\n14 GREIM先生：\n实际上，我记不清了，不过\n15 我愿意撤回该问题。我不想花时间——这不是一个\n16 关键问题。\n17 法庭：\n该问题已撤回。\n18 GREIM先生询问：\n19 问。\n那么，Waller博士，是否可以说，由于所有\n20 这些调查，您向Wallop（沃洛普）女士作出了建议？\n21 答。\n是的。在我确信Guo并非\n22 资产，且追究本案不会损害任何美国\n23 国家利益之后。\n24 问。\n好的。现在让我们回到，Waller博士，您与\n25 Strategic Vision的关系。\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS1\n沃勒——复询\n1 问。\n在本项目之前，您是否曾为Strategic Vision工作？\n2 \n3 答。\n是。\n4 问。\n您做了什么？\n5 答。\n我为他们做过另外两个项目。一个是代笔，\n6 另一个是就一项战略问题进行研究。\n7 问。\n您与French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）之间的关系是什么性质？\n8 答。\n我们相识已有30至35年，\n9 是在我任职之后，我认识了她丈夫在参议院的工作人员之后。\n10 \n11 问。\n现在我们跳到后面。您是否在某个时候\n12 从Wallop女士那里得知关于Guo Wengui的一个可能项目？\n13 答。\n是。\n14 问。\n那是在何时？\n15 答。\n是在2017年秋天，11月。\n16 问。\n此后您是否参加过任何会议？\n17 答。\n是。\n18 问。\n您参加的第一次会议是什么？\n19 答。\n我参加的第一次会议是在她家里，与一名\n20 记者Bill Gertz（比尔·格茨）以及Lianchao Han（韩连潮）一起举行；我也与格茨相识约35\n21 年。\n22 问。\n请谈谈您与Gertz先生的关系背景。\n23 答。\n我第一次见到Bill Gertz是在20世纪80年代中期，他成为\n24 Washington Times（《华盛顿时报》）的国家安全记者时；我一直是他的\n25 信息来源，我们共同参与过许多\n\n1 项目，包括在20世纪90年代建立中国蓝队\n2 。\n3 问。\n抱歉，“蓝队”是什么？\n4 答。\n蓝队是一群美国政策专家和\n5 战略家，他们共同致力于削弱\n6 中国共产党。\n7 问。\n您认为Gertz是一个诚实的人吗？\n8 答。\n是。\n9 问。\n您认为他勤勉吗？\n10 答。\n是。\n11 问。\n您认为他是一个——嗯，您熟悉\n12 “中国鹰派”这个术语吗？\n13 答。\n是。\n14 问。\n按通常说法，您理解这是什么意思？\n15 \n16 答。\n嗯，我们都是中国鹰派。这意味着我们对中国共产党采取\n17 鹰派、强硬的立场，\n18 即对中国共产党采取非常严厉的\n19 立场。\n20 问。\n您是否理解Gertz是中国鹰派？\n21 答。\n是。\n22 问。\n我们谈谈您也提到过的Lianchao Han。\n23 请描述一下你们的关系——告诉我，在该次会议之前，\n24 您认识Lianchao吗？\n25 答。\n是。\n\nL4KKEAS1\n沃勒——复询\n1 问。\n您对他了解什么？\n2 答。\n我知道——我曾多次见过他。当时我对他\n3 并不熟悉，但我们共享相同的中国鹰派和人权\n4 网络。他曾为一位参议员工作，我认识那位参议员多年，并且信任他及其对人的判断；但\n5 最重要的是，我们有同一位——后来我们发现有同一位\n6 中国导师，一名叫Bernie Yo（伯尼·约）的人，他曾在第二次世界大战中与\n7 日本人作战，并在\n8 中国共产党革命后不久与Mao Zedong（毛泽东）作战。\n9 \n10 因此，在我年轻时Bernie将我收为门生；\n11 在Lianchao于天安门事件后来到美国时，他也将Lianchao收为门生。\n12 \n13 问。\n作为一名中国鹰派，您信任Lianchao Han吗？\n14 答。\n是。\n15 问。\n作为一个可信的人，您信任他吗？\n16 答。\n是。\n17 问。\n顺便问一下，您提到的那位参议员是谁？\n18 答。\nNew Hampshire（新罕布什尔州）的Judd Gregg（贾德·格雷格）参议员。\n19 问。\n在这次最初的会议上，Gertz对Guo以及Guo所需之事说了什么？\n20 \n21 答。\n他说Guo Wengui是一名与\n22 中国共产党决裂的异见人士，自认为是中国共产党的头号\n23 敌人，并希望投入其\n24 资源以削弱中国共产党并促使其崩溃。\n25 问。\n他是否向您具体说明Guo希望\n\n1 您做什么？\n2 答。\n是。他说Guo正在从事他所称的\n3 “吹哨人革命”或“吹哨人运动”，即揭露中国共产党\n4 领导层的内部矛盾，以使其因自身的\n5 矛盾而崩溃。\n6 问。\nLianchao呢，他是否告诉您任何不同的事情？\n7 答。\n他告诉我的实质上相同。\n8 问。\n后来您是否去会见Guo？\n9 答。\n是。\n10 问。\n您是否记得那是在何时？\n11 答。\n那是在2017年11月下旬。\n12 问。\n您为该次会议做了什么准备？\n13 答。\nFrench Wallop和我与Lianchao共同了解\n14 Guo想要什么、需要完成什么。Lianchao作为\n15 Guo的协助者和倡导者，因此他知道\n16 Guo的想法。因此，我们共同拟定了一份愿景声明，\n17 说明我们认为可以如何协助他\n18 推翻中国共产党。\n19 GREIM先生：\n请出示证物38，即辩方\n20 证物38。\n21 \n22 问。\n在进行此事时，Waller博士，我还有另一个\n23 问题。在这次会议之前，您是否得知Guo先生与中国\n24 鹰派团体中的任何其他知名成员有联系？\n25 \n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS1\n沃勒——复询\n1 答。\n他与Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）有联系。\n2 问。\n这——这对您而言在任何方面是否重要？\n3 答。\n是，但不是因为我个人信任Bannon的判断，而是因为\n4 我知道Steve Bannon是中国鹰派，并且具有影响力——他是一名\n5 有影响力的舆论塑造者。\n6 问。\n当时，您对Guo与Bannon之间的联系了解什么？\n7 \n8 答。\n我知道存在一种——我模糊地知道存在某种\n9 联系，并且他们在会面，但当时我不知道\n10 除此之外的程度。\n11 问。\n现在我们来看放在您面前的证物。这是\n12 辩方证物38。我们昨天将其作为\n13 原告方证物收到。\n14 您认得这份文件吗？\n15 答。\n是。\n16 问。\n这是否就是您刚才告诉我们、与Lianchao Han共同\n17 准备的文件？\n18 答。\n是。\n19 GREIM先生：\n我申请接纳该文件，以便我们\n20 能够——\n21 法庭：\n它已作为证据。\n22 GREIM先生：\n已作为证据？好的。\n23 GREIM先生询问：\n24 问。\n您会看到第一行写着：“这是为G先生制定的一份愿景”\n25 ——这里所指的是Guo先生吗？\n\nL4KKEAS1\n沃勒——复询\n1 答。是。\n2 问。——“以安全留在这个国家，并完成他在国内的\n3 使命。”\n4 我读得对吗？\n5 答。是。\n6 问。这是否符合您对当时Guo\n7 希望做什么的理解？\n8 答。是。\n9 问。现在，该文件写着“安全留在这个国家”。我想问\n10 您，您是否了解Guo是否曾在此寻求任何种类的\n11 永久身份？\n12 答。是。\n13 问。他做了什么？\n14 答。他在2017年9月申请了政治庇护。\n15 问。是谁告诉您这一点？\n16 答。Lianchao Han和Bill Gertz。\n17 问。Lianchao Han是否告诉您，他在该\n18 庇护申请中是否有任何角色？\n19 答。是。\n20 问。他说他在做什么？\n21 答。他说他具有法律背景，并且作为一名\n22 普通话母语者，正在协助Guo申请，或曾协助Guo\n23 申请。\n24 问。现在，在当时，即11月下旬的这次会议上，\n25 是否讨论过雇用您进行一项\n\nL4KKEAS1\n沃勒——复询\n1 调查？\n2 答。\n没有。\n3 问。\nGuo先生是否似乎不同意证物38中\n4 列出的任何陈述？\n5 答。\n没有。\n6 问。\n让我退回一步。我没有问您这一点：\n与Guo先生举行该次会议的\n7 人员是谁？\n8 答。\n该次会议的人员有French Wallop、Lianchao Han、Guo先生——\n9 我们共同参加了会议——以及Bill Gertz。\n10 法庭：\nWaller博士，这份文件，DX 38，\n11 是预先提供给Guo先生的，还是在会议上提供给他\n12 阅读的？它是如何向他提供的？\n13 证人：\n我们在会议上以纸质形式交给了他。\n14 \n15 法庭：\n您看到他在会议上阅读了吗？\n16 它是如何使用的？\n17 证人：\n是，他读了，但他需要Lianchao Han的帮助，\n18 以确保他理解其中的\n19 全部内容。\n20 法庭：\n谢谢。\n21 GREIM先生询问：\n22 问。\n那么，Lianchao Han当时是否在该会议上担任\n23 翻译？\n24 答。\n是。\n25 问。\n现在，Guo是否似乎——您是否听到Guo讲英语，\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS1\n沃勒——复询\n1 在这次会议上？\n2 答。\n是。\n3 问。\n当您用英语与他交谈时，他是否似乎理解？\n4 \n5 答。\n是。\n6 问。\n那么，在什么情况下需要Lianchao\n7 翻译？\n8 答。\n嗯，这是必要的，因为他并非——他在会话英语方面\n9 说得足够好，但在表达任何思想时，\n10 或确保他理解某些内容时，或如果我说得太快，\n11 或者诸如此类的情况，他会需要口译员的帮助。\n12 \n13 问。\nGuo在该次会议上如何谈及自己？\n14 答。\n他说自己是中国共产党的头号\n15 敌人，并希望利用其财富、\n16 影响力和在中国的联系人，获取\n17 信息以揭露中国共产党内部的矛盾，从而将其推翻。\n18 \n19 问。\n他是否向您表示，他在中国仍然有联系人？\n20 \n21 答。\n是。\n22 问。\n他是否说他能够获得他们的信息？\n23 答。\n是。\n24 问。\n他是否告诉您这些联系人的性质？\n25 答。\n是。他说他们是他认识的个人联系人，并且\n\n第243页\n\nL4KKEAS1 沃勒——复询\n\n他吹嘘——不是吹嘘，但我想是解释，有时也确实吹嘘——他似乎认识共产党领导层中的每一个人，从共产党总书记Xi Jinping，直至各级人员，包括政府部长、北京市官员以及MSS（国家安全部）或安全和情报部门官员，还有与中国共产党有关联的知名中国商人。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n\n问。他是否表示能够从这些人那里获得信息？9 10\n\n答。是。11\n\n问：他对自己的成长经历和背景说了什么？\n\n答：他说自己出身农村，称这有点像一个白手起家的故事：他没有受过多少教育，家庭人口众多，有许多兄弟，六、七个兄弟；随后，他通过房地产和建筑开发业务、房地产开发业务，在短时间内变得非常富有。12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19\n\n问：鉴于他的背景，他是否说过自己如何与中共领导人变得关系密切？20 21\n\n答：是的。我们曾问过一个问题：一个起初并非党员的人，怎么能如此迅速地变得富有？他说，这是通过他与一名叫Ma Jian（马建）的人建立的关系；而Ma Jian随后晋升为 22 23 24 25\n\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller - 重新询问\n1 安全部副部长，因此他是中国安全和情报\n2 机构中的二号官员。\n3 因此，Guo Wengui（郭文贵）就是靠着Ma Jian的\n4 庇荫赚到钱的。\n5 问：\n这就是您刚才提到的那个机构吗？\n6 答：\n是。\n7 问：\n那么，在这次会面中，当Guo先生与您一起审阅这份文件时，\n8 他说他想要什么帮助？\n9 他是否给了您更具体的内容？\n10 答：\n嗯，这是我们基于与Lianchao Han（韩连潮）的谈话，\n11 首次向他介绍我们拟开展的工作。\n12 随后，他将其进一步调整得更符合他的需求。他\n13 喜欢其中许多想法，并对其作了扩展；我们\n14 就若干问题进行了集思广益。他提到，当时他有\n15 其他团队在开展不同类型的工作，因此\n16 我们将重点收窄到他所寻求的内容，并随后建议\n17 他，我们认为怎样做最符合他的利益，以帮助\n18 推翻中共。\n19 问：\n当您说他表示有其他团队在开展不同\n20 类型的工作时，他是否告诉您是何种团队以及何种\n21 工作？\n22 答：\n是。他说，他有从公共关系团队\n23 到研究团队等各种团队，分布在世界各地。\n24 问：\n他是否向您表示过任何利用媒体的计划？\n25 答：\n是。这是整个计划的核心。\n\n第243页\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller - 重新询问\n问：他是怎么说的？他的媒体计划是什么？\n\n答：他想要——他采取双轨方式。他想要面向中华人民共和国境内、跨越中国防火墙的中文——普通话观众，以及全球华语侨民。这是其中一个主要群体。另一个群体是英语受众，主要在美国，也包括世界各地；目的是披露来自共产党内部的信息，以诋毁共产党及其官员，并在共产党内部引发内斗。这是第一部分。\n\n第二部分是建立他自己的媒体机器，当时他还没有给它取名，但它将被称为Guo Media（郭媒体）或Miles Media（迈尔斯媒体），或其某些变体，以使他自己成为某种首要人物，即国际华人反对派遇事首选的人物。\n\n问：那么，这次会面是如何结束的？\n\n答：结果是有利的。我们决定回去将这份文件进一步完善为另一份文件，并在几天后再回来见他。19 20 21\n\n问：您实际上这样做了吗？22\n\n答：是的，我们做了。23\n\n问：您认得证物39吗？24\n\n答：认得。25\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller - 重新询问\n1 问：\n这是后续文件吗？\n2 答：\n是。这就是我刚才提到的那一份。\n3 问：\n谁参与了这份文件的工作？\n4 答：\n我是主要撰写人，并与French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）\n5 和Lianchao Han共同完成。Lianchao此时\n6 作为Guo与我们之间的联络人，代表Guo所想要的内容开展工作，并\n7 帮助我们按照他认为Guo希望看到的方式\n8 对其进行塑造。\n9 问：\n再问一次，这份文件中是否有任何关于\n10 Strategic Vision（战略愿景）开展调查或研究的内容？\n11 答：\n没有。\n12 问：\n即便有，这与上一次提案有何不同？\n13 答：\n它更加细化。第一份文件是我们在\n14 见Guo之前写的。现在，在我们与他进行了大半天的\n15 会面、更了解他的想法、他的意图和\n16 愿望之后，我们写了这份文件来回应这些\n17 利益关切。\n18 问：\n顺便问一下——所以这是第二次会面。\n19 在这次会面时，您见过Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）吗？\n20 答：\n见过。起初我不知道她是谁，也不知道她的\n21 名字，但我见过她进出第一次\n22 会面。\n23 问：\n在某一次特定会面中，Guo是否曾向您介绍过她？\n24 答：\n在第一次会面中，他只是把她称为一个\n\n1 仆人。在第二次会面中，他介绍她是他的\n2 助理。\n3 问：\n他在第二次会面中告诉您她的名字了吗？\n4 答：\n是的。她的英文名，Yvette。\n问：\n我明白了。\n答：\n法文名。\n问：\n我本应早些问您：您在这前两次会面中的任何一次\n是否见过Han Chunguang（韩春光）？\n答：\n见过。\n问：\n在哪一次，或者哪些次会面中？\n答：\n我在其中几次见过他。第一次时，他是\n端上开胃菜的侍应人员之一；第二次——又一次时，\n他提供午餐，而Guo称他为自己的厨师。\n问：\n那么，第二次会面是如何结束的？\n答：\n第二次会面也以有利的结果结束，我们进一步细化了\n事项。Guo更接近他想要的内容。我们曾\n就包括研究在内的广泛问题进行了集思广益。\n随后，他要求我们带着另一份提案回来，以便进一步\n细化。\n法庭：\nGreim先生，我可以向证人问一个\n问题吗？\n先生，在DX 39的第四页，“行动”项下的第一段中，\n有一句话写道：“大部分可通过该基金会完成，从而无需\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller - 重新询问\n1 根据FARA登记”？\n2 证人：\n是。\n3 法庭：\n您能向我解释一下这句话\n4 与什么有关，以及担忧是什么吗？\n需要为哪个外国政府进行登记？\n5 \n6 证人：\n法官阁下，这将是针对外国国民，因此\n7 并非针对任何外国政府。我们想要\n8 确保不涉及政治游说或政策\n9 游说，因此通过一个501(c)(3)\n10 教育基金会开展，将允许为该项目提供资金，\n11 而无需遵守《外国代理人登记法》（FARA）。\n12 法庭：\n谢谢。\n13 由GREIM先生询问：\n14 问：\n让我跟进问一下，Waller博士。为什么——是谁\n15 担心FARA？\n16 答：\nStrategic Vision和我担心FARA。\n17 问：\n这里的委托人Guo Wengui，是担忧的对象吗？\n18 答：\n这是对任何外国国民的担忧，是的。\n19 问：\n您是否理解他是一名外国国民？\n20 答：\n是。\n21 问：\nStrategic对于为Guo Wengui登记有什么担忧？\n22 \n23 答：\n原则上并非担忧，只是遵守\n24 FARA登记的规定——Strategic Vision此前没有做过任何\n25 与FARA相关的工作，我也没有。\n\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller - 重新询问\n1 问：\n那么，研究项目最初是在何时开始被认真\n2 讨论的？\n3 答：\n大约是在第二次与Guo会面时，但这是在更大的背景下，即他\n4 已经让其他团队开展的持续性工作，以及他持续进行的\n5 揭露中国共产党领导层的\n6 吹哨人运动。因此——他的努力当时正在放缓，\n7 仿佛他正耗尽来自内部的信息，或者他\n8 需要不同类型的信息。\n9 \n10 问：\n这是Guo说的吗？\n11 答：\n是。\n12 问：\n您是否问过Guo，为什么他无法继续从他所谓的内部关系中\n13 获取信息？\n14 答：\n他说，他们面临的危险日益增加；他还说他的家人\n15 在中国，如果我没记错的话，他的妻子和两个孩子\n16 要么在中国，要么往返于中国；而且曝光的信息越多，\n17 该政权就越能锁定并弄清\n18 信息来源在哪里。\n19 \n20 问：\n是否曾有一个时候——我现在不是在说\n21 实际签署协议——项目的大纲是否曾汇聚成为一项明确的\n22 提案？\n23 答：\n是。\n24 问：\n大约是什么时候？\n25 答：\n大约是在第三次会面时。\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller - 重新询问\n1 GREIM先生：\n我们可以调出PX 2吗。\n2 问：\nWaller博士，请看一下——请向下滚动\n3 一下。\n4 Waller博士，您认得这份文件吗？\n5 答：\n认得。\n6 问：\n这份文件是在项目的基本大纲\n7 汇聚形成之前还是之后准备的？\n8 答：\n这是在之后完成的，也就是说，在证物中的前两份\n9 文件之后。\n10 GREIM先生：\n请看看能否回到写着“1.\n11 定向情报收集”的那一页。\n12 好了。\n13 问：\n还有其他人协助您准备这份文件吗？\n14 答：\n我是在与Lianchao和French Wallop协商后完成的。\n15 问：\n您记得这是在哪次会面中讨论的吗？\n16 答：\n我相信是在第三次会面中。\n17 问：\n您记得那是在十二月的大约什么时候吗？\n18 答：\n凭记忆，大约是12月18日，上下差几天。\n19 问：\n好的。您会查看哪份文件来确定这一点？\n20 答：\n我会查看我的手写笔记。\n21 问：\n好的。那么，我们继续。我们来重点看——我要\n22 请您看这里这一页。\n23 第一页是否大致概括了本案中后来形成的研究\n24 项目？如果您需要，请花一点时间\n25 读完它。\n\n1 答：\n是。\n2 问：\n您会看到第四个小箭头项目符号写着：“记录一切，将其用作取得让步、\n3 保护人员、用作政治武器，或协助刑事\n4 起诉和资产追回的筹码。”\n5 \n6 我读得对吗？\n7 答：\n对。\n8 问：\n那么，您是否记得昨天您作证称，这件事的目标之一，\n9 或者您认为可能发现的一件事，是\n10 揭露中共官员为自身利益而窃取的资金？\n11 答：\n记得。\n12 问：\n这是否与第四个项目符号有关？\n13 答：\n有关。\n14 问：\nGuo先生、Lianchao或Yvette是否曾告诉您某一项具体的\n15 刑事程序，他们想在其中使用该研究成果？\n16 \n17 答：\n没有。\n18 问：\n他们是否曾告诉您，或者向您解释，该研究成果将如何用于\n19 追回某项特定资产？\n20 答：\n没有。\n21 问：\n他们是否曾告诉您，该研究成果将如何被用于，即使是在假设的\n22 刑事起诉中？\n23 答：\n没有。\n24 问：\n那么，您是如何理解该研究成果将被\n25 使用的？\n\n1 答：\n如这份陈述材料的标题页所示，\n2 该研究是一项心理政治运动，也就是说，\n3 针对中国共产党领导层的心理战／政治战\n4 运动。\n5 问：\n如果您看到第五个项目符号，我想——好吧，让我直接问您：\n6 这是否与Guo先生告诉您的、他在此的目标\n7 一致？\n8 答：\n一致。\n9 问：\n我看到倒数第二点写着：“为商业目的渗透\n10 商业和政治网络。”您看到这一点了吗？\n11 \n12 答：\n看到了。\n13 问：\nGuo是否向您表示，这是该信息的另一种用途？\n14 \n15 答：\n他说他出于广泛的原因想要这些信息，但\n16 主要原因是将他塑造成掌握所有知识的\n17 遇事首选的一号人物。他说，他想让自己的\n18 敌人害怕与他对抗，并表明他能够保护\n19 盟友、追击敌人。\n20 问：\n那么，到这个时候，我看到已经确定了十个目标。\n21 这是否与Guo或Lianchao告诉您的内容\n22 一致？\n23 答：\n当时是一致的。\n24 问：\nGuo是否曾告诉您，他实际上已经确定了\n25 最初的十个目标？\n\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller（沃勒）—复询\n1 答。\n是。\n\n2 问。\n他是否曾在这些缔约前会议中与你讨论过其中任何人？\n\n3 答。\n是。\n\n4 问。\n他是如何讨论的？\n\n5 答。\n他说他们全都是——要么是中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party）领导层成员，要么是他们的近亲属，例如兄弟、姐妹、子女——然后，他描述在共产党体制中重要的是非婚生子女。因为中国共产党实行独生子女政策，而如果人们知道中国共产党领导层到处都在违反该政策，这将显示该党的虚伪。那些非婚生子女通过姨母、叔伯或其他家庭成员而以不同姓氏抚养，并通过这些人来隐藏资产。因此，他们通过这些非婚生子女运作这些资产。\n\n19 问。\nGuo（郭文贵）是否曾与你讨论党规？\n\n20 答。\n是。\n\n21 问。\n他对党——中国共产党的党规说了什么？\n\n22 答。\n他说党规非常严格。他向我作了描述。这些党规与我多年前所知的苏联共产党规则有些相似，但也有自身的不同之处，而且非常严格，在某些方面近乎清教徒式的严格。因此，如果你能发现任何违反党规的行为，那么按照该党自身的规则，这些党员就必须被开除出党。因此，任何能够挖掘出的有关中国共产党党员违反该党自身规则的信息，都意味着中央委员会和政治局的成员事实上必须被开除出党；如果他们未被开除，这将使党的领导层陷入一场关于是否开除以及党规本身有效性的危机。\n\n问。\n这在你看来是否是一个可行的计划？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n为什么？\n\n答。\n这似乎是一个极好的计划。根据我自己从事分化行动的经验，以及我自己反对苏联共产党、在苏联共产党体制内挑动分化的经验，我们有非常有力的历史先例表明，这种做法能够对如此庞大的目标奏效。因此，在本案中，这完全合乎情理。\n\n问。\n在你考虑该计划的可行性时，你是否考虑过该计划需要在多长时间内展开？\n\n答。\n是。我认为需要五到十年才能完成。Guo坚持认为三年内可以完成。\n\n问。\n是否有人曾讨论过在一个月内完成？\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller—复询\n1 答。\n没有。\n\n2 问。\n是否有人曾讨论过在六个月内完成？\n\n3 答。\n没有。\n\n4 问。\n你实际上见过其中一些名字吗？\n\n5 答。\n见过。\n\n6 问。\n这是在合同签署之前？\n\n7 答。\n是。\n\n8 问。\n你是如何看到它们的？\n\n9 答。\nGuo递给我们一份纸质副本——我相信那是其中一份证物——其中列有约92名党内官员或其密切关联人士中的15名主要人物，除了一人外，他希望对这些人进行调查研究。\n\n14 问。\n他是否给过你可以保留并带回家的副本？\n\n16 答。\n没有。当时他向我们展示了纸质副本，并通过Lianchao Han（韩连潮）及我相信是Yvette Wang（王雁），说明了每个人，以及他对该特定个人或群体感兴趣的缘由和相关情况。\n\n20 问。\n你能描述一下它的样子吗？\n\n21 答。\n哦，大约这么厚，看起来像一叠约四分之一英寸厚的材料。那是一份彩色打印件，看起来像PowerPoint演示文稿。15名主要人物的姓名以普通话和英语列出，并以蓝色或粉红红色区分女性或男性，之后在多数情况下附有类似流程图或家谱图的内容，以显示其与党内官员的关系，以及有关他们的其他统计资料或个人信息。\n\n1 问。\nGuo是否告诉过你他如何获得该信息？\n\n5 答。\n是。\n\n6 问。\n他说了什么？\n\n7 答。\n他说他通过国际团队投入了巨额资源，汇总了海量信息，将其提炼为该特定演示文稿。\n\n10 问。\n他是否说过他花钱编制了该材料？\n\n11 答。\n是。\n\n12 问。\n他是否说过这花了他多少钱？\n\n13 答。\n是。他说是他个人花的钱。他说花费为$250 million。\n\n15 问。\n你相信这可能花费他这么多钱吗？\n\n16 答。\n不相信。\n\n17 问。\n但你是否相信，他确实花了一些钱来编制该材料？\n\n19 答。\n是。\n\n20 问。\n他是否指明了编制该信息的承包商、团队或多个团队是谁？\n\n22 答。\n没有。\n\n23 问。\n他是否说过这些团队是否仍在为他工作？\n\n24 答。\n他没有具体说明，但我理解其中一些仍在为他工作，另一些已不再为他工作。\n\n1 问。\n如果他已经有团队为他工作，他是否解释过为何还需要Strategic Vision（战略愿景）？\n\n3 答。\n他说他想要一项以美国为基地的工作，与媒体宣传活动协调配合。\n\n5 问。\n你后来是否得知，是否有任何团队辞职或停止为Guo工作？\n\n7 答。\n事后，我得知了。\n\n8 问。\n那么，是否有一个时候，Strategic Vision必须最终决定是否继续推进这份合同？\n\n10 答。\n是。\n\n11 问。\n你是否就此与French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）商议过？\n\n13 答。\n是。\n\n14 问。\n你认为Strategic Vision应当与Guo先生签订该协议吗？\n\n16 答。\n是，因为目标一致。这就像我们毕生都在等待这个机会，去对付中国共产党。\n\n19 问。\n在决定是否签订合同时，你是否依赖Guo就其本人以及该研究目标所作的陈述？\n\n22 答。\n是。\n\n23 问。\n我应当说，如果你认为他并非真正的异见人士，你是否会建议与Guo签订合同？\n\n1 答。\n不会。\n\n2 问。\n如果你认为他并不打算利用该研究削弱中国共产党，你是否会建议与Guo签订合同？\n\n5 答。\n不会。\n\n6 问。\nGuo关于他本人的陈述是否看起来可靠？\n\n7 答。\n按照Lianchao为我们所作的解释，这些陈述看起来可靠，但Lianchao确实提醒说，Guo有时说得比实际情况更夸张；不过，即使考虑到Lianchao的保留意见，这仍然很有道理。\n\n11 问。\n你是否将Lianchao对你的提醒理解为，Guo可能实际上并非异见人士？\n\n13 答。\n没有。完全没有。\n\n14 问。\n你是否将Lianchao对你的提醒理解为，Guo可能实际上不会利用该研究削弱中国共产党？\n\n16 答。\n没有。\n\n17 问。\n为什么他的陈述在你看来可靠？\n\n18 答。\n为什么是Guo的陈述？\n\n19 问。\n是的。\n\n20 答。\n因为他带着——现在回看，他是以一名研究共产主义政治体制的学者的方式说话。\n\n22 问。\n让我提醒你一下，Waller博士——我无意打断你——我想问的是，当时为什么这些陈述看起来可靠。不要告诉我你现在的看法。\n\n25 答。\n好的。因为他掌握来自中国共产党领导层的独特、最新的内部信息。\n\n1 问。\n他是否实际上在你们的会面中向你分享了其中一些信息？\n\n4 答。\n是。\n\n5 问。\n这为什么与你相关？\n\n6 答。\n这与我相关，因为这是一个独特、全新、极具破坏性的信息来源，包含关于中国共产党内从Xi Jinping（习近平）以下所有人的内部做法、习惯、特征和行为的极其敏感且有价值的信息。\n\n11 法庭：\n我可以问你一个问题吗，Waller博士。当你谈到作为中国共产党的反对者时，我想你已经描述过，中国共产党内部存在派系；对吗？\n\n15 证人：\n是。\n\n16 法庭：\n中国共产党内部是否有习近平派系和反习近平派系？\n\n18 证人：\n是。当时，习近平正在巩固控制权。即将召开一次重要的党代会，这将标志着巩固——我认为是在2017年末；2018年初的另一事件也标志着习近平权力的巩固。当时正在进行大规模清洗，习近平会置身于清洗之上，但他会有一名副手，Wang Qishan（王岐山），W-a-n-g Q-i-s-h-a-n，他是执行者，负责所有协助——为习近平实施清洗的工作。\n\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller—复询\n1 法庭：\n当时你是如何看待此事的，我理解你反对习近平；对吗？\n\n4 证人：\n是。\n\n5 法庭：\n按照你当时的看法，中国共产党内部的反习近平派系，是否有可能对反习近平运动有所帮助？\n\n8 证人：\n你知道，当时它正在——正在急剧衰落，因此我不认为这是帮助一个派系战胜另一个派系、取得控制权的努力。我认为，这是一名身处中国共产党内部、对该体制如此沮丧和厌恶的人，他只是想向整个体制开战。\n\n14 法庭：\n你可以继续。\n\n15 GREIM先生：\n16 问。\n现在，Waller博士，你还了解到，Lianchao Han一直在与Guo合作处理其庇护申请，我想你此前已经作证说过这一点？\n\n19 答。\n是。\n\n20 问。\n一般而言，你了解庇护申请包含什么内容吗？\n\n22 答。\n了解。\n\n23 问。\n申请中是否需要向联邦政府作出宣誓陈述？\n\n25 答。\n是。\n\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller—复询\n1 问。\n那么，这是否在你相信Guo有关其本人的陈述方面发挥了作用？\n\n3 答。\n是。\n\n4 问。\n你是否知道，截至那时，Gertz先生（格茨）已经持续数月撰写关于Guo先生的文章？\n\n6 答。\n是。\n\n7 问。\n你是否知道Gertz先生是否曾坐下来多次实际采访Guo先生？\n\n9 答。\n是。\n\n10 问。\n那么，Gertz先生的参与是否在你认定这些陈述可靠的决定中发挥了作用？\n\n12 答。\n是，作用很大。\n\n13 问。\n现在，如果Guo关于其本人及其计划的这些陈述对Strategic Vision如此重要，为何不干脆坚持将其作为陈述或保证写入研究协议？\n\n17 答。\n嗯，与Guo的整个关系是——我们所有人都有共同目的，因此你不一定要在协议、商业协议中陈述共同目的，即双方都赚钱。你不一定要把这写进协议，因为这是不言自明的。\n\n22 但更重要的是，我们故意没有在协议中提及Guo或中国，以便绝不会出现任何可追溯回他的线索问题，因为他在中国仍有联系人和家人。\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller—复询\n1 问。\n这是应谁的坚持？\n\n2 答。\n他的。\n\n3 问。\n事实上，该研究协议是否曾在各方之间通过电子邮件发送？\n\n5 答。\n没有。\n\n6 问。\n为什么？\n\n7 答。\n这是因为担心中国秘密机构能够——已经渗透或监控我们的——美国的电子邮件和电子通信系统，所以他只希望以书面形式或通过U盘交付材料给他。\n\n12 问。\n好的。Waller博士，你是否曾告诉Guo、Yvette Wang或Lianchao Han，你根据任何州的法律持有私人调查员执照？\n\n15 答。\n没有。\n\n16 问。\n他们是否曾问过你？\n\n17 答。\n没有。\n\n18 问。\n是否曾讨论过执照？\n\n19 答。\n没有。\n\n20 问。\n你是否曾持有私人调查员执照？\n\n21 答。\n没有。\n\n22 问。\n你是否曾考虑取得该执照？\n\n23 答。\n没有。\n\n24 问。\nGuo、Yvette或Lianchao是否曾表示，Strategic的研究将由Eastern Profit用于其自身的\n\n利益？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：Lianchao（韩连潮）是否曾向你提及 Eastern Profit（东方利益）？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：即使在合同签署之后？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：Guo（郭文贵）、Yvette（伊薇特）或 Lianchao 是否曾表示，该项研究将会被——暂且不谈 Eastern Profit——除 Guo 以外的任何个人或实体使用？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：他们是否曾表示，该项研究将被用于调查涉及某一特定受害人的某一特定犯罪？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：他们是否表示，该项研究将被用于任何特定案件？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：在 12 月中旬，随着合同开始得到进一步讨论，你是否开始进行任何基础性准备工作？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你做了什么？\n\n答：我们进行了筹备——我们想确保——随着 Guo 先生所表达的意愿逐渐明确，我们能够从零开始组建一个团队，完成他希望完成的工作。\n\n问：你是否确定你们能够做到这一点？\n\n答：这花了一段时间，大约一周左右，但我们确实确定我们能够做到。\n\n问：你将此告知了谁？\n\n答：我们将此告知了 Lianchao Han（韩连潮）。\n\n问：在该次沟通之后，Lianchao Han 是否曾提出 Guo 的新要求？\n\n答：Lianchao Han？双方有来有往。我不会称其为要求。这是双方有来有往，Guo 想看看我们是否能在合同中为其做更多事情。\n\nGREIM 律师：请调出证据 7。\n\n问：好的。Waller 博士（Dr. Waller），请在这里向下滚动——你是否认得这份证据？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在你看来，这似乎是什么？\n\n答：这是我与 Lianchao Han 自 2017 年 12 月起的一组即时通讯往来记录。\n\n问：好的。第一条是在 12 月 11 日，并一直持续至 1 月 4 日？\n\n答：是，我看到 12 月 11 日。\n\n问：你必须通过电子方式查看？\n\n答：是的，我无法向下滚动。\n\n问：我们会在休庭期间修复。\n\nGREIM 律师：Becka，请你把画面向下显示到最底部。\n\n证人：是，至 2018 年 1 月 4 日。\n\n问：哪些对话气泡是你的，哪些是 Lianchao Han 的？\n\n答：我的气泡是右侧较深色的；他的气泡是左侧较浅色的。\n\n问：请看第 SVUS64 页。你是否看到 Lianchao Han 在此代表纽约朋友提出任何请求？\n\n答：是。他要求更多的，原话是，“保险”。\n\n问：你认为纽约朋友是指谁，如有的话？\n\n答：“纽约朋友”，或者带引号的“NY”，是指 Guo。\n\nGREIM 律师：请翻到下一页。\n\n问：你的回应是什么？\n\n答：我说我不认为 Guo 是认真的。\n\n问：而这距离合同签署仅两周；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：请继续看 SVUS66。\n\n法庭：抱歉，不是深色的部分是 Lianchao Han；对吗？\n\n证人：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：他对你“我不认为那个纽约人是认真的”这句话的回应是：“我对此感受复杂。想做，但想尽可能便宜地做。”这种复杂感受是什么？你认为那是什么意思？\n\n证人：我理解的是，Guo 说他想继续进行，但他也不确定 Guo 实际上是否会这样做，而且价格是一个问题。\n\nGREIM 律师：我们继续——法官阁下，您有任何追问吗？\n\n法庭：没有。没有。\n\nGREIM 律师继续询问：\n\n问：如果你看第 66 页，你是否看到 Lianchao 随后在平安夜回复了你？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且看起来是在平安夜当晚。他是否向你报告了他与 Guo 的谈话？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你是否记得 Lianchao 代表 Guo 传达，Guo 希望就协议中的定金退还条款进行谈判？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Lianchao 说 Guo 希望这样做的原因是什么？\n\n答：他说，如果他——Guo 希望在合同中加入一项条款，规定如果我未能提供范围界定中所定义的交付成果，Strategic Vision（战略视野公司）应当退还定金。\n\n问：现在，你说这是进展，因此你是否支持该想法？\n\n答：否。这只是一个评论，即至少 Guo 正在就该问题推进，因此我们至少在——\n\n向前推进。\n\n问：你是否对 Lianchao 所建议的这类条款有任何担忧？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：为什么？\n\n答：因为在任何深入研究项目中，在你找到之前，你根本不知道会发现什么。因此，如果我们要承担建立并运行整个研究业务的费用，而起初没有发现任何内容，或者信息不足，或者出现其他变量，我们不能仅仅因为信息不在那个位置就退还资金。这有点像勘探石油、矿产或其他东西；在找到之前，你不会知道。\n\n问：现在，我看到你的回应——实际上，如果你看第 68 页你的完整回应。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是你对 Lianchao 评论的完整回应吗？\n\n答：是，这一条是。\n\n问：这只是这份材料的打印方式。对于是否可能在最初 30 天内，在范围内制作交付成果，你是否有任何意见？\n\n答：我说，由于启动工作，在最初 30 天内可能无法做到。\n\n问：你建议了什么？\n\n答：我建议至少 90 天。\n\n问：现在，在这一时点，你是否代表——你是否是代表 Strategic Vision 参与合同谈判的人员之一？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你并不是 Lianchao 的某种秘密渠道，对吗？\n\n我撤回这个问题。\n\n问：你是否就谈判事宜定期与 French（弗伦奇）沟通？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：当时你们二人中是否有一人比另一人承担更多责任？\n\n答：当时，因为我了解应当查找内容的架构，所以由我处理那些细节。\n\n问：现在，你提到了 90 天。该概念是否被写入研究协议？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。在哪里？\n\n答：我面前没有该协议。\n\nGREIM 律师：我们能否调出，我认为可能是——\n\n证人：至少 90 天。\n\nGREIM 律师：请调出证据 4。\n\n法庭：你是否提交 DX 7？\n\nGREIM 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。我提交证据 7。\n\n第 页，共 243 页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller（沃勒）—再询问\n\n法庭：好的。对于其真实性或时间有任何问题吗？\n\nCHUFF 律师：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：在可提出删除动议的前提下予以接纳。\n\n（被告方证据 7 作为证据接纳）\n\nGREIM 律师：法官阁下，现在可能是个合适的时机——我知道我们昨天这样做过——我想知道我是否可以拿着其中一个活页夹走近证人，让他可以翻阅，而不必让我们的人为他上下滚动？\n\n法庭：你为什么不把活页夹放在一旁，然后你离开你放置活页夹的位置，由他走近；这样，你们将遵守法院大楼内的社交距离规则。\n\n为供将来参考，就将活页夹交给证人而言，我将允许的方式是：在距离证人大约六英尺处打开活页夹，提交该活页夹的律师随后离开活页夹，证人将获准离开证人席，拿起活页夹，并将其带回证人席。这样，我们将始终遵守法院命令正在生效的社交距离规则，同时也能够将活页夹交给证人。\n\nGREIM 律师：证人现在可以走近活页夹吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n第 页，共 243 页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller—再询问\n\nGREIM 律师：法官阁下，就供将来参考而言，我刚才所做的是否可以？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nGREIM 律师：好的。\n\nGREIM 律师继续询问：\n\n问：好的。Waller 博士，我已为你打开至证据 4。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：在你看来，这是否是研究协议的副本？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。根据你的理解，你是否看到这项 90 天条款——90 天问题——在任何地方被写入研究协议？当你找到时，如果你确实找到，请告诉我们页码。我们会将其显示在屏幕上。\n\n答：第 2 页第一完整段落中提到，承包商将在三个月内提交一份历史研究报告，并于其后每个月提供更新。\n\n问：好的。还有哪里？或者就这些？\n\n答：第 4 页顶部有第二处提及，规定截至 3 月及在合同存续期间；然后在第 4 页第二段，“双方同意，就本协议最初三个月”，涉及付款。\n\n第 页，共 243 页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller—再询问\n\n问：你是否看到任何关于核对账目的提及？\n\n答：是，我刚才看到了，但我找不到了。\n\n答：是，在第 4 页顶部第三段：“双方还同意，在 3 月报告之后”，即第三个月报告，“并作出付款后”，在此之后，“所有各方均须在进入下一季度之前核对账目。”\n\n问：其中写着“核对账目”的会议，其目的是什么，据你的理解？\n\n答：其目的是，因为这是一个新项目，这是一个非常大的项目，而且考虑到所涉及的某些其他参数，它非常复杂，存在——存在一个启动阶段，需要一些时间；然后，在该启动阶段中，还有查找和验证信息来源的阶段，也需要一些时间，因此启动存在不可预测的因素，所以我们会在第三个月后进行核对，以确保我们对于它将如何运作具有一致理解。\n\n法庭：抱歉，Waller 博士，当其在“核对账目”这一短语中提及账目时，你理解其指的是何种账目？\n\n证人：这是指账目，也就是说，所谓的鱼的比喻，我们实际上如何追踪合同中列明的鱼，或各个独立的信息单位。\n\nL4KKEAS1 Waller—再询问\n\n法庭：那么，在大约 3 月举行的会议上，要核算什么？\n\n证人：嗯，假设我们是否找到了针对目标 A 所要求的适当信息，以及目标 A 下几个类别中的任何一个；这是否合理，还是我们应当停止并转向具有不同参数的另一目标；以及这是否运作正常。\n\n在我们的讨论中还提出了其他机会，但未在合同中规定，即我们可能发现完全新的、没有人预料到的、对客户具有价值的内容；而这将满足客户的某些期望，以替代每个个人的特定鱼类，因为客户对某些公司、党控制的公司感兴趣，它们并非个人本身，因此不符合合同中的鱼类公式。\n\n法庭：那么，例如，这不是对你们成本的财务核算？\n\n证人：不是。那全部是固定费率。\n\n法庭：你可以询问。\n\nGREIM 律师继续询问：\n\n问：请翻到第 3 页。\n\n问：你将看到——你是否看到一个以粗体标示、题为“不规则情形”的段落？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：\n“双方均理解，偶尔可能出现不可预见的挑战，从而拖慢或阻碍全面调查，并且可能会有信息不规则、无法获得或不完整的时期。承包商将尽力按照及时安排的进度，使所有调查和报告尽可能完整。”\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n是你坚持将这一条款写入合同的吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n为什么？\n\n答：\n因为会出现不规则的情形。我们不是，也从未声称是，一个独立运作的组织。我们正在组建分隔运作的团队，且没有公司形象，这是因为我们当时尚未建立这些团队，同时也是为了保护——不仅是客户的隐私，还有客户本人、其利益及其在中国的家人的安全。因此，这将是高度分隔运作的，因而管理起来困难得多；而且你永远不知道会在哪里——合同其他地方也反映了这一点——我们永远不知道会在哪里找不到信息，或者会找到对客户价值不足的信息，而客户会指示我们转向一个甚至不在主要名单上的不同目标。\n\n问：\n现在，沃勒博士（Dr. Waller），你昨天作证称，你认为在第一个月获得高质量信息很重要。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n你记得该证词吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n那么，你所说的“高质量信息”是什么意思？\n\n答：\n我们必须表明，我们的方法和来源足以产生对客户有价值的质量的信息。因此，这并非意在获得大量的高质量信息，而只是表明——再说一次，就像开采矿物一样，矿石必须具备一定的质量，才能知道开采并加工它是否值得，是否是一项有价值的事业。因此，这里的信息也是同样的道理。\n\n问：\n你是否理解，你本应提供郭文贵（Guo）可在第一周开始发布的信息？\n\n答：\n否。\n\n问：\n前三周内呢？\n\n答：\n否。\n\n问：\n或者第一个月内？\n\n答：\n否。\n\n问：\n那么，后来你是否理解，他确实期待在那之后获得他可以发布的信息？\n\n答：\n是。在与韩连潮（Lianchao）合作时，我们的谈话中明确表示，我们会把这件事安排妥当，以确保不危及我们的来源、我们的方法，甚至郭文贵在中国境内的来源。因此，会有一个等待期或筛选阶段，以确保该信息不会危及来源或毁掉方法。\n\n问：\n但我的问题是：你后来是否理解，郭文贵事实上期待在最初几周内获得他可以发布的信息？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n我们稍后会谈到这一点。\n\n现在，你看到你在对韩连潮的这份回复中的第二段，你写道：“按现状，书面合同赋予任何一方在提前30 days通知的情况下无理由终止的权利。因此，如果他提前30 days通知，我们将在任何正常情形下，自定金中按比例计算该30 days，并返还余额。”我读得对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n那是你的理解吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n该理解后来是否体现在调查协议中？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n它是否在处理百万美元定金的条款中？\n\n答：\n是。在第5页第二段。\n\n格雷姆先生（MR. GREIM）：\n你能把它标出来吗？\n\n问：\n现在，关于这种按比例计算——沃勒博士，其中哪一部分落实了你在这里的理解？\n\n答：\n你所说的哪一部分是什么意思？\n\n问：\n那么，让我撤回那个问题。那是个不好的问题。你看到第二句话写道：“该定金将按比例计入合同最后one and one-third months”吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n因此，如果战略——抱歉。如果东盛（Eastern Profit）决定在第二周取消该协议，你理解你的定金将会如何处理？\n\n答：\n我们会按比例计算前两周，并返还其余部分。\n\n问：\n那么，提前30 days通知呢？\n\n答：\n不，会有那30 days——你提前30 days通知，因此你会减去——你会把30 days加到两周上，然后从那六周中按比例计算。\n\n问：\n这就是你在给韩连潮的第二段中所表示的吗？\n\n答：\n是的，我没看到。\n\n问：\n抱歉，回到——我们得回到——好了。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n现在，我们继续看这份证物并翻到下一页。顺便说一下，你看到韩连潮说：“我不知道谁会签字”吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n那让你担忧吗？\n\n答：\n是，让我担忧。\n\n问：\n为什么？\n\n答：\n因为我们基于——先前讨论过的原因——对韩连潮有信心。根据我们对他的了解，我们愿意与他合作，我们信任他，而且他有相同的愿景；他在华盛顿（Washington）生活了这么长时间，知道事情如何运作。郭文贵有他的想法，但他未必了解所有事情如何运作，而伊薇特·王（Yvette Wang）从未表示她知道事情如何运作。\n\n问：\n你是否也担心在没有韩连潮参与的情况下，信息被过早发布？\n\n答：\n是，我担心这一点。\n\n问：\n顺便说一下，我看到你在这里用深色字体提到：“任何与伯尼和贾德交朋友的人，都是我喜欢的人。”\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n这里的“伯尼”指什么？\n\n答：\n那是伯尼·尤（Bernie Yo），他是在第二次世界大战中抗击日本人的中国战士，后来又在——直到1949革命期间——抗击毛泽东，并且住在华盛顿；我上大学时，是他照顾并指导我，韩连潮在天安门广场事件后过来时，他也以同样方式照顾并指导韩连潮。贾德·格雷格（Judd Gregg）是来自新罕布什尔州（New Hampshire）的参议员贾德·格雷格。\n\n问：\n现在，从这个时间点往后，是否有一个时候，伊薇特·王接管了谈判的最后阶段？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n你记得大约是什么时候发生的吗？\n\n答：\n是在2017圣诞节后几天。\n\n问：\n我们暂时谈谈她。你已经告诉我们，郭文贵在你与郭文贵的会面中如何向你介绍她。那些会面是在纽约（New York）吗？\n\n答：\n韩连潮如何？\n\n问：\n抱歉，我是说郭文贵如何介绍她。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n好的。现在我想问你王女士就她的角色所说的话。她是否为她在这个项目中的角色取了一个名称？\n\n答：\n是。她先说她是郭文贵的助理，随后她说自己将担任项目经理。\n\n问：\n她是否对郭文贵有任何称呼，或者用任何术语来描述他？\n\n答：\n是。她称他为首长。她给了他一些军衔。她称他为老板。\n\n问：\n你是否理解，她与你谈判的事项最终必须经郭文贵批准？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n而且它们是否获得了批准？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n你是否记得，后来有一段时间伊薇特·王实际上来到华盛顿特区（D.C.）？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n你是否理解她是来签合同的？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n合同实际上签了吗？\n\n答：\n她在12月底第一次到那里时没有签。\n\n问：\n她离开时，你是否理解合同是否还会签署？\n\n答：\n我们不确定，因为合同最初的写法是——通过韩连潮与郭文贵谈判达成的。\n\n问：\n她回纽约后，你是否联系了韩连潮？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n韩连潮对你说了什么？\n\n答：\n他不确定他的角色会是什么。\n\n问：\n如果请你翻到——我们看证物7（Exhibit 7）第74页。你看到深色字体部分了吗，这是否是伊薇特·王回家后你发给韩连潮的信息？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n他如何回复你？\n\n答：\n他说：“我与F谈过了，”意指弗伦奇·沃洛普（French Wallop）。“最好等几天。迈尔斯（Miles）、郭文贵，今天与我沟通过几次，但没有提到失败一事。”\n\n问：\n接下来一则中，他又提到了关于日本的其他事情。那与本案有关吗？\n\n答：\n否。\n\n问：\n先生，你当时是否与韩连潮处理其他事务？\n\n答：\n他——我们当时没有与他处理其他事务。他正在向我们提出其他问题，以帮助推翻中国共产党（CCP）。\n\n问：\n这是否进一步增加了你对韩连潮的信心？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n格雷姆先生：\n如果我尚未这样做，我申请接纳被告方证物7（DX 7）。\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：\n我认为你已经这样做了，而且我裁定该证物已被接纳，但以可能提出删除动议为条件。\n\n问：\n顺便说一下——\n\n格雷姆先生：\n我们调出被告方证物13（DX 13）。\n\n问：\n沃勒博士，我将请你查看被告方证物13。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n你认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：\n认得。\n\n问：\n它是什么？\n\n答：\n那是我先前提到的多页PowerPoint的第一页，其中列有郭文贵希望调查的主要15个名字，以及这些页面中他感兴趣的总计约92人。\n\n问：\n所以，这是郭文贵在12月与你的一次会面中实际拿出来的一份文件？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n我们澄清一下，你是否能够带走其中任何部分？\n\n答：\n否。\n\n问：\n你是否能够就其做笔记并带走？\n\n答：\n否。\n\n问：\n还有——\n\n法庭：\n你认得这些名字吗？\n\n证人：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n你认得其中所有人还是大多数人？\n\n证人：\n我没有认出其中有任何变化。因此，我看到的那些名字，我认得——或者说，我认得的名字，我先前见过；而与那些名字相关联的人的照片，我记得。\n\n法庭：\n但当他在12月把它交给你，而你查看这些名字时，它们是否是你已经知道、且为你所知的名字？\n\n证人：\n否，有一个例外。\n\n法庭：\n那个例外是什么？\n\n证人：\n他是前中国领导人邓小平的儿子——我相信是邓小平。我可能记错了。要么是邓小平，要么是岳翔（Yuexiang）。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n格雷姆先生：\n申请接纳证物13（Exhibit 13）。\n\n法庭：\n证物13已在证据中。现在可能是我指示双方当事人的适当时机：在证言结束后，你们应当会面协商，并确保有一份清单，为每份文件标明一个单一的证物编号。你们甚至可以今晚或在休庭期间进行该项工作，以免同一份文件附有多个不同的证物编号。\n\n格雷姆先生：\n是。这有点困难。我准备了一份直接询问材料，而且我不太确定它是否会被使用，所以我们会交叉引用并避免这种情况。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n由格雷姆先生继续询问：\n\n问：\n好的。沃勒博士，在协议签署前的某个时候，你是否得知东盛？\n\n答：\n我相信是的，就在伊薇特于12月底去会见弗伦奇·沃洛普时。\n\n问：\n好的。所以是第一次会面，而不是第二次会面？\n\n答：我相信是这样。我当时不在场。\n\n问：那么，您最初是从谁那里听说 Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）的？\n\n答：从 French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）那里。\n\n问：她告诉您，是 Yvette（伊薇特）告诉她这个名称的吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您得知 Eastern Profit 这个名称后，是否采取任何措施了解该公司？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：顺便问一下，您此前听说过这个名称吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您做了什么来了解它？\n\n答：嗯，我们与 Guo（郭先生）有一项安排，即付款将通过公司、独立实体进行，以便无法追溯到他本人，从而不会对其利益、其家人等等产生不利影响。因此，我们预期会出现一个不同的公司名称。\n\n在听到该名称后，我查了一下——我查了这个名称。我在 Hong Kong registry（香港登记处）中查到了它，并发现它在香港注册成立，登记在 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅，M-e-i G-u-o）名下。\n\n问：那么，该调查的结果对您是否具有任何意义？\n\n答：嗯，它使我确信那是一家由郭氏家族控制的公司，但这也令人不安，因为这违背了我们的理解，即此事应当以迂回方式进行，以便 Chinese Government（中国政府）无法发现。\n\n问：因此，Strategic（战略公司）继续签署了合同，并将 Eastern 列为合同当事方？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，您是否进一步理解，合同当事方可能并非实际向 Strategic 付款的一方？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：其原因是什么？\n\n答：这同样是为了保护郭文贵的利益，以便资金无法追溯到他本人。\n\n问：您是否理解，研究结果将以某种方式被送往香港？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：在合同中加入 Eastern Profit，在您看来是否以任何方式改变了该协议的目的？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：那么，截至签署时——我们简单回顾一下——您理解该协议的目的是什么？\n\n答：其目的只是以书面形式载明我们将做什么的一般构想、完成工作的时间框架、最终交付成果以及付款时间表。\n\n问：您理解该研究的目的是什么？\n\n答：其明确目的在于，郭先生将为其吹哨人媒体活动提供信息。\n\n问：如果 Lianchao（连超）、郭，或伊薇特曾经表示，该研究将用于某一特定程序或者调查某一特定犯罪，这是否会改变您的规划或工作？\n\n答：不会。\n\n问：如果这会改变您的规划或——\n\n答：抱歉，您能重复一下这个问题吗？\n\n问：当然。如果连超、郭或伊薇特曾经表示，该研究将用于某一特定犯罪或某一特定程序，这是否会改变您的规划或工作？\n\n答：会，这将完全改变我的——我不会对该协议感兴趣。\n\n问：如果这三人中的任何一人——连超、郭或伊薇特——曾经表示，该研究将用于追回特定财产，这是否会改变您的规划或工作？\n\n答：我们不会对该协议感兴趣。\n\n问：为什么？\n\n答：因为这是一次危险的行动，会招致 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）领导人的愤怒。许多像这样与该党作对的人都会遭遇不幸。因此，这非常危险，而且在我个人的职业经历中从未有过。我不关心——追回财物或处理法律案件并不是我感兴趣的事情。如果能够以重大方式打倒 Soviet Communist Party（苏联共产党），那么让我们继续以同样的方式对付中国共产党。这就是我的兴趣所在。\n\n问：现在我们换个话题，Waller博士，谈谈工作本身。\n\n将要开展哪些基本研究领域？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：哪些领域？\n\n答：这些内容在协议中有所概述——是正式概述的。一共有三个。第一项是金融法证历史研究，第二项是当前追踪研究，第三项是社交媒体研究。\n\n问：对于您的研究，是否存在未写入合同的任何参数或限制？\n\n答：嗯，其中一项是我们不会违反美国法律。\n\n问：您是与谁达成这一理解的？\n\n答：具体是与郭达成的。\n\n他说，他很乐意与中国共产党周旋，但他不想与 American legal system（美国法律制度）周旋，而我也无意以任何方式违法。\n\n问：现在，让我们再多谈一点这件事的实际层面。我们来谈谈细节。\n\n截至当时，即合同签订后的1月初，谁将实际开展工作？\n\n答：我是初期深入研究大部分工作的负责人，因此我的职责是组建和管理我们所谓的 Team 1（第一团队）。该团队由计算机工程师和数据分析工程师组成，他们将建立——这是一个由十名工程师组成的团队，我们后来又增加了一名领域专家和语言学家——以开展全天候研究业务，并由此获得我们的主要原始材料。\n\n问：好的。首先，该研究团队将驻扎在哪里？\n\n答：将驻扎在欧洲。\n\n问：您认识该团队的所有成员吗？\n\n答：不认识。\n\n问：是否有某个人实际负责雇用他们？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那个人的职责是什么？其职务是什么？\n\n答：他是我认识的人，是美国人，并且长期在那个国家工作。因此，他组建了该团队，而且他具有计算机背景。\n\n问：那么，具体来说——您提到了计算机。该团队开展工作需要什么？\n\n答：需要购置一套十台高速计算机及相关软件，然后还需要与之配套的外围材料，以开展一项数据挖掘行动，同时针对这一特定数量的目标。\n\n问：什么是数据挖掘行动？\n\n答：数据挖掘是指获取大量商业可得的数据，就像美国的一家营销公司所做的那样，然后您——引用地说——“挖掘”这些数据，以确定人员网络、社会偏好，例如他们喜欢或不喜欢什么样的事物、旅行习惯、他们去哪里、他们常去什么类型的场所，甚至包括可通过商业订阅获得的金融数据。您挖掘这些数据，以便聚焦于——识别本案中目标名单上人员的网络，并将这些数据制作成可视化呈现，以显示行为和关联模式、他们在哪里办理银行业务、到哪里旅行、如何转移资金，等等。\n\n问：这可能是一个基本问题，但这是否只是来自普通互联网，例如我们在这里通过 Google（谷歌）获取并开始进行数据挖掘？这是如何运作的？\n\n答：不，不，这是通过订阅获得的。比如说，信用卡公司和银行将我们所有的个人数据出售给任何想购买的人。实际上，每当我们进行网上购买、信用卡购买或银行交易时，这些信息都会被记录在某个地方。其中一部分是私密的，但大部分并非如此，而且大多数客户没有意识到，当他们点击用户条款中的“我接受”时，他们就放弃了隐私权。因此，这些数据随后被出售和打包，提供给几乎任何想订阅的人。\n\n共243页\nL4KKEAS1\nWaller（沃勒）—复询\n\n问：您熟悉“暗网”这一术语吗？\n\n答：熟悉。\n\n问：那是什么？\n\n答：暗网是指互联网上可获得的信息，其中发生大量非法活动。其中一些仅具有注重隐私的性质，一些则具有邪恶或犯罪性质。但是，在暗网上也存在大量商业性的信息交换。\n\n问：第一团队是否在该暗网上查找过任何信息？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是数据挖掘行动的一部分，还是一项单独的安排？\n\n答：那是为了核实——核实数据挖掘中发现的内容，或者跟进数据挖掘产生的线索。\n\n问：那么，您有了团队，也有了计算机。为了让他们开始工作，还必须购买和组装哪些其他外围物品？\n\n答：他们需要标准的安全措施，包括电子安全措施和实体安全措施。有很多旅行，因为这些是在三个不同国家以现金购买的，以防止设备序列号与购买者之间发生任何电子追踪——如果使用的是信用卡或银行卡——然后将设备带回另一个国家实际进行设置，之后又在第四个国家开展活动，以获取其他电子材料，用于掩饰实际活动发生的地点。\n\n问：那么，您是否可以仅通过电子邮件，或者——比如说加密电子邮件或加密电话——与这些人沟通？\n\n答：不可以。\n\n问：您必须如何向该团队传递信息，以及从该团队获取信息？\n\n答：按照郭先生的指示，我们只能通过当面交换 USB 驱动器来交换信息。\n\n问：是否必须采取任何预防措施，以确保该团队能够开展工作？\n\n答：是。实行了分隔管理，以确保如果链条中的任何一个环节被破坏，也不会暴露链条中的其他环节。同样，这是为了保护客户的利益及其在中国的家人的安全。\n\n而且——嗯，仅仅实际旅行本身就非常繁重，因为您必须——一次往返需要两到三天，停止正在做的事情，在第三个地点会面，然后交换数据，随后返回各自所在地继续工作。因此，这是一个非常繁琐的过程，并非所有事情都能在线完成，甚至也不能通过加密短信完成。\n\n问：Strategic 能否预先知道，它能够就这些人员中的每一人成功获取哪些信息？\n\n答：不能。\n\n问：为什么不能？\n\n答：嗯，首先，因为您永远不知道会发现什么。您知道会发现某些东西，但随后我们的研究人员遇到了一个问题——\n\nCHUFF先生：异议。\n\n法庭：依据是什么？\n\nCHUFF先生：传闻证据和关联性。他即将就第一团队调查时的经历作证，而他们并未到庭作证，且他们的身份尚未在本诉讼中披露。\n\nGREIM先生：问题是——\n\n法庭：我认为这个问题没有问题，因此驳回异议。\n\n问题是：仅根据您的理解，先生，Strategic 为什么不能预先知道它能够就这些人员成功获取哪些信息？\n\n证人：是，法官阁下。这也类似于我的学术背景；人们基于我们不知道的事情写作——或者做研究或撰写论文，因此，在我们将信息整合并综合起来之前，我们不知道将会发现什么信息。因此，与任何其他研究项目一样，我们不会预先知道将会发现什么。\n\nGREIM先生继续询问：\n\n问：在这项工作开始后，您是否对第一团队研究的保密性有所担忧？\n\n答：关于对研究保密？\n\n问：关于对其活动保密。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那项担忧是什么？\n\n答：嗯，有几项担忧。第一项是信息被过早公开发布。\n\n问：那会有什么危险？\n\n答：这可能会暴露某些事项正在被研究，或某些人正在被调查这一事实，因此，如果你在调查某个从事非法或颠覆性活动的人，那么他们可能会被提醒，这种事情正在发生在他们身上，他们将采取措施防止——他们将采取反制措施防止被发现。\n\n问：Guo（郭文贵）是否曾告诉你，你或Strategic Vision（战略愿景公司）实际上正受到中国方面的监视？\n\n答：他说应假定我们正受到监视。\n\n问：他是否表示中国大使馆正在监视任何人？\n\n答：是，他表示过。\n\n问：Guo、Lianchao Han（韩连潮）或Yvette Wang（王雁）是否曾告诉Strategic Vision——实际上，取消这个问题。\n\n问：他们是否曾告诉你，Strategic Vision获得的信息将被提供给一家名为ACA（ACA公司）的公司？\n\n答：没有。\n\nL4KKEAS2 （共243页） Waller（沃勒）—复询\n\nGREIM（格雷姆）先生：法官阁下，我正准备转入一个新话题。我只是想知道，现在是否正是合适时机。\n\n法院：我们休庭进行上午中场休息吧。休息十分钟。我们将在11:30重新开庭。你们应于11:30回到各自座位。\n\n（休庭）\n\n法院：Waller博士——是Waller博士还是Waller先生？\n\n证人：以法院偏好为准。我拥有博士学位。\n\n法院：先生，提醒你，你仍在宣誓之下。\n\n你可以提问。\n\n格雷姆先生询问：\n\n问：Waller博士，我想问你，你是否理解，提供给Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）的报告总数是可预先预测的？\n\n问：让我撤回这个问题。\n\n问：Strategic Vision将在某一年度向Eastern Profit提供的报告数量，是可以预先预测的吗？\n\n答：是。嗯，这是平均计算的。会预先平均分配。\n\n问：那么，对于每个研究领域，是否需要不同的报告？\n\n答：是。\n\nL4KKEAS2 沃勒—复询\n\n问：时间安排不同？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：报告数量也不同？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：谁选择针对每个个别对象或“鱼”开展何种研究？\n\n答：客户最终将选择合同中概述的哪些领域需要开展，但起初我们只是根据当时正在创建的方法，看看我们能找到什么。\n\n问：如果一条“鱼”或一个对象被从考虑范围中移除，Strategic Vision是否必须重新开始，选择一个新的对象？\n\n答：是。\n\n格雷姆先生：让我们调出该协议。请展示证物4。\n\n问：顺便问一下，每当Strategic Vision接手一个新对象或替换对象时，相较于仅仅保留刚被剔除的对象，这需要更多还是更少的工作？\n\n答：每次发生变更，都是从零开始。\n\n问：那么这需要更多还是更少的工作？\n\n答：这会需要更多工作。\n\n问：Eastern Profit——抱歉，Strategic Vision是否能够就此从Eastern Profit获得额外补偿？\n\n答：不能。\n\n问：为什么不能？\n\n答：因为我们约定了固定费率。\n\n问：每月的固定费率是多少？\n\n答：固定费率为每月$750,000。\n\n问：你是否记得曾作证——\n\n格雷姆先生：让我们看——是，让我们停留在这一页。\n\n问：如果你看第四段，你是否看到其中写道：“每年30个单位或交付成果的定价保持为每年固定$9 million，或12个月中每月750,000”？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你是否理解，这些单位——每一项单独的单位或交付成果——并不是在年初预先确定的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，如果对象A在前六个月接受的是有关财务追踪信息的研究，而后六个月变更为对象Z并进行社交媒体追踪，这仍算一个单位吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：现在，先前——昨天，你是否记得曾在某个时候作证说，固定费用为每月$300,000？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：当你那样说时，协议是否在你面前？\n\nL4KKEAS2 沃勒—复询\n\n答：没有。我说错了。\n\n问：你的证言是，每月$300,000并不适用于任何事项——\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：——对吗？\n\n格雷姆先生：让我们看第3页。\n\n问：现在，在“价格”项下，第一行写道，每项交付成果，即A、B和C，每个对象每年各为$300,000。你看到这一点了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你是否记得此前被问过这个问题？\n\n答：是，大意如此。\n\n问：你是否——现在让我带你看最后一段。\n\n格雷姆先生：嗯，最后两段。让我们把这两段都标示出来。\n\n问：你是否看到其中写道：“因此，当一条‘鱼’被从考虑范围中移除时，客户将放入一条新的‘鱼’取而代之，使任何时候受监测的‘鱼’的数量保持为10条”？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我读得对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是你的理解吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：然后，对于这十条“鱼”中的每一条，各有多少个研究事项？\n\n答：三个。\n\n问：总共是多少个？\n\n答：三十个。\n\n问：然后，在第一个月，你们获得了多少条“鱼”？\n\n答：十五条。\n\n问：但每一条有多少个事项？\n\n答：两个。\n\n问：总数又是多少？\n\n答：三十个。\n\n问：干得不错。\n\n问：如果你看最后一段——\n\n法院：抱歉，第一个月的两个事项是什么？\n\n格雷姆先生：法官阁下，这不在本协议中。那是——让我澄清一下。\n\n格雷姆先生询问：\n\n问：那么，最初的15个对象以及每个对象两个领域，这是否载于研究协议中？\n\n答：那——我必须重新阅读该协议，但它载于客户给我们的任务清单中，我们已经在先前一份证物或更早一份证物中讨论过该清单。\n\n问：你是否看到——实际上，如果你看第4页，你是否看到其中写道：“第一个月，即一月，本合同将包括最多15条‘鱼’”？\n\nL4KKEAS2 沃勒—复询\n\n答：是。\n\n问：总共30份报告？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，这是你对达成的协议的理解吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这项内容是在谈判的早期还是晚期加入的？\n\n答：这是后来加入的。\n\n问：让我们回到第3页。让我带你看最后一段。\n\n问：因此，我们刚刚讨论了加入“鱼”、移出“鱼”这一构想，你会看到最下方写道：“然而，此解决方案并未提供可预测的预算或工作量。”\n\n问：你看到这一点了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是Strategic Vision的担忧吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是否与Guo讨论过？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：随后其中写道：“为确保约定价格的最大工作量具有可预测性，我们将把交付成果按每年30个单位计算。”我读得对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：十条“鱼”乘以三份报告——A加B加C——每条“鱼”如此，对吗？\n\nL4KKEAS2 沃勒—复询\n\n答：是。\n\n问：接着它有一个等号，并写道：“在任何特定时点30项工作/报告。”我读得对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你是否理解，这是Strategic Vision的义务，即在任何特定时点处理30项工作/报告？\n\n答：每年，在一年期间内。\n\n问：嗯，在全年期间内，但也包括任何特定时点，对吗？\n\n答：是，但在启动时，我们必须——启动过程是不可预测的。因此，只有在实际开始后，你才能知道工作量会是多少。\n\n问：你是否理解，每月$750,000是否必须在每个月支付？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是否取决于——这是否取决于在任何类别下实际交付给Eastern Profit的报告数量？\n\n答：不取决于。\n\n问：它取决于什么？\n\n答：嗯，我必须重新阅读确切措辞。那么，你想要确切措辞，还是我的理解？\n\n问：嗯，我只想知道你的理解。\n\n答：我们将以每月$750,000的固定费率完成工作，但理解是，在最初大约90天内，由于启动一项大型研究项目的性质，工作将是不规律的。\n\n问：现在让我带你看最后一页，即第5页。我们此前看过这一关于百万美元保证金的段落。\n\n格雷姆先生：让我们将其标示出来。\n\n问：你看到它允许在合同结束时抵扣该保证金吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：该抵扣是否以Strategic Vision完成的报告数量为基础？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：它以什么为基础？\n\n答：它以工作的月数或开展工作的时间长短为基础。\n\n问：顺便说一下，我们已经看过你与Lianchao Han关于启动初期30天和90天问题的短信。在协议签署前，你是否向Guo团队中的其他任何人表达过有关启动困难以及审查工作质量的这些看法？\n\n答：我向Guo本人、Lianchao Han以及Yvette Wang提出过这一点。\n\n问：Guo对你的回应是什么？\n\n答：Guo的回应是，尽快完成。Lianchao的回应是，他理解启动这类事项的复杂性。\n\nL4KKEAS2 （共243页） 沃勒—复询\n\n答：到这个时候，他是作为Guo对我们的代理人行事，而不只是一个帮手或盟友。他是Guo指定给我们的代表，也就是联络人。因此，他告诉我们，他理解启动此事的复杂性，并且只要看看我们能从最初几批信息中获得什么。\n\n答：Yvette Wang似乎完全不理解这一点。\n\n问：好的。谢谢你，Waller博士。\n\n问：现在让我们转入我们此前开始探讨的一个话题。合同已经签署，我们谈过必须完成的初步工作。你何时实际收到——或者是否曾有一个时候，你实际收到存有对象姓名的U盘？\n\n答：French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）于一月初收到那些姓名——她昨天就此作证——而这些U盘含有恶意软件，或者以电子方式受到某种污染，她不得不返回纽约取得一套新的U盘。\n\n问：我先打断你一下。\n\n问：你本人是否曾有一个时候拿到那些U盘？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：然后你对它们做了什么？\n\n答：为了删除任何电子元数据，我——我买了一台从未连接过互联网的电脑和一台从未连接过互联网的打印机，然后打印出该U盘的内容，也就是前一份证物中所载的那份清单，将其打印出来后再扫描，并将其放入一个新的加密驱动器中，送往欧洲，交付至欧洲。\n\n问：这种设备有没有名称，例如一台从未上过互联网的笔记本电脑？\n\n答：我们称它为“处女笔记本电脑”。我不知道这是否是一个技术术语，但这是我们所能想到的最贴切说法——我们就称它为“处女笔记本电脑”，所以它是完全干净的。我们还用现金购买这台笔记本电脑，因此无法追踪该购买行为。\n\n问：现在，我们昨天听说，该合同的最初开始日期变成了January 16th。这是你的理解吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我理解你将它们交给了第1组？\n\n答：将其中一个交给了第1组。\n\n问：对。那是在美国还是海外交付的？\n\n答：在美国。\n\n问：你是否开始了解到第1组发现了什么？\n\n答：几天之后——而且，再说一次，我们无法立即获得结果，因为除了诸如“嘿，我们正在进行设置”或“我们正在推进”这类最模糊的信息外，我们不能进行任何电子信息传输。所以，我当时……\n\n1 前往欧洲，以获取第一份进展报告。\n\n2 问：好的。你何时这样做的？\n\n3 答：这记载在我的手写笔记中，收据中也有记载，但大约是在一月中旬。那是在合同正式开始后约一周左右。\n\n6 问：查看那些笔记会对你有帮助吗？\n\n7 答：会。\n\n8 问：那你就这样做吧。\n\n9 GREIM（格雷姆）先生：法官阁下，证人可以走近那个活页夹吗？\n\n11 法庭：可以。\n\n12 GREIM先生：我们无需公开展示这些材料。\n\n13 法庭：但我们应当通过证据编号注明在案证人正在查看的内容。\n\n15 GREIM先生：是的。证人正在查看证物57。\n\n17 证人：好的。我们于2018年1月24日在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）地区将该存储设备交给了第1组的负责人。这些笔记中没有记载，但几天后，应客户坚持，我前往欧洲。\n\n21 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n22 问：那么，你记得作出——我们来谈谈那个问题。我们不妨从那里倒推。\n\n24 你记得何时将第一个初始U盘交给Eastern Profit（东盈）吗？\n\n1 答：记得。\n\n2 问：那是什么时候？\n\n3 答：那是——我更正一下。我于1月24日从第1组负责人处收到该存储设备。\n\n5 问：很好。那是在何处？在海外吗？\n\n7 答：那是在French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）家中。\n\n8 问：我明白了。那么，你何时将其转交给Eastern Profit？\n\n11 答：当天我告知Lianchao Han（韩连潮）我们已拿到该存储设备，随后安排将其提供给Yvette（伊薇特）。\n\n13 问：你最终在几天后这样做了吗？\n\n14 答：是的。在New York（纽约）。\n\n15 问：我们来谈谈24日与第1组负责人的会面。\n\n17 首先，我认为你刚才更正了自己。你并非在24日向他提供姓名；而是在24日从他那里获得信息，对吗？\n\n20 答：正确。\n\n21 问：而这就是你最终转告给Yvette Wang（王雁南）的信息？\n\n23 答：是的。\n\n24 问：第1组负责人告诉你的内容中，是否有任何内容你没有转告Lianchao Han或Yvette Wang？\n\n1 答：没有任何重要内容，没有。\n\n2 问：你是否得知第1组在审查的第一周遇到了任何困难？\n\n4 答：是的。\n\n5 CHUFF（查夫）先生：反对，法官阁下；该问题要求证人作出传闻陈述。\n\n6 法庭：是，反对成立。证人可以就其向Yvette Wang所说的内容作证，但不能就其得知的内容作证。\n\n9 GREIM先生：好的。\n\n10 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n11 问：你说了什么——我们先从Yvette Wang开始。你向Yvette Wang所说的、你从第1组得知的事情，首先，你是否告诉了Yvette Wang？\n\n14 答：是的。\n\n15 问：你是否将从第1组得知的事情告诉了Lianchao Han？\n\n17 答：是的。\n\n18 问：你告诉Yvette Wang什么？\n\n19 答：我告诉她，第1组向我们报告说——\n\n20 CHUFF先生：反对，法官阁下。\n\n21 法庭：我准许该证据进入记录，但并非为了证明第1组实际上曾向证人作出该陈述。因此，该证据并非为证明其内容真实而提出；但就该合同是否存在目的落空等问题，存在一个争议。因此，该证据仅为该有限目的而准许进入；但是，如果——\n\n第 / 243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 再次直接询问\n\n1 你想就调查中的困难引入证据，你必须由具有直接亲身感知的人员提出该证据。\n\n4 GREIM先生：明白。我们试图确立的是，已经完成的工作被如何告知Eastern Profit。\n\n7 法庭：因此，该证据进入记录并非为证明其内容真实，而是为了证明这些话确实向Yvette Wang说过。\n\n9 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n10 问：那么，Waller博士，问题是：你告诉Yvette Wang，你从第1组得知了什么？\n\n12 答：起初，那是一份关于无法通过USB存储设备传递的材料的进展报告。其目的是表明，他们发现了并非通过计算机手段核实的信息——即就他们发现的内容作出进展报告。其中一项是某些离岸公司的所在地；一项涉及由中国政府运营的计算机服务器的密码，即CITIC（中信）证券的服务器，以及访问或不访问该服务器的方法。还包括——而那是一项非常巨大、非常巨大的——\n\n21 问：Waller博士，我们先把这些逐项列出来，然后再逐项回顾，好吗？\n\n23 答：好的。\n\n24 问：那么，第一项是离岸公司的所在地？\n\n25 答：嗯。\n\n第 / 243页\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller—再次直接询问\n\n问：第二项是计算机服务器的密码？我们稍后会回到这一点。\n\n答：嗯。\n\n问：然后还有什么？\n\n答：他们已经开始工作——该小组通过调查公开可获得的信息，着手了解全部15个目标。因此，研究人员自身能够了解其目标，知道他们是谁、他们——他们如何运作，以及基本上一切为理解正在调查的对象所必需的事项。因此，所有这些均为开源资料、社交媒体或其他类型媒体、公共领域材料，以及他们自己的社交媒体或相关账户，或者他人的此类账户。\n\n他们称，存在缺口；他们在Yvette Wang向我们提供的、载于本证物中的15个姓名的部分信息中发现缺口；并且，他们称其中一些姓名以普通话拼写有误；存在大量无效数据，难以吸收和绘制关联图，但他们正在处理；他们预计其绘制关联图工作很快将得出一百个姓名及关联，但他们面临的挑战是，向他们提供的是假名。因此，在那15个姓名中，有三至四个姓名不准确，或者指向错误的人。如果你姓名中有20%至30%不准确，这对调查而言是很大的差异。\n\n问：Waller博士——\n\n法庭：证人是否正在阅读一份尚未作为证据提交的文件？\n\n2 GREIM先生：我正——\n\n3 证人：请原谅。\n\n4 GREIM先生：——打算确立这一点。\n\n5 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n6 问：Waller博士，我看到你——在作证时，你正在查看DX 57。\n\n8 答：是的。\n\n9 问：那么，我的问题是：这些是否是你在1月24日会见第1组负责人时所作的笔记？\n\n11 答：是的。\n\n12 问：那么，几天后你与Yvette Wang商议时，是否使用了那些笔记？\n\n14 答：是的。当天也与Lianchao商议时使用了。\n\n15 问：好的。那么，为了明确起见，你于1月24日就1月24日的会面与Lianchao商议；几天后，你就此与Yvette Wang商议？\n\n18 答：在我亲自见到她时。\n\n19 问：两次你都使用了那些笔记？\n\n20 答：是的。\n\n21 问：而现在查看这些笔记，是否唤起了你对自己向Yvette Wang及Lianchao Han所说内容的记忆？\n\n23 答：是的。\n\n24 CHUFF先生：反对。抱歉，法官阁下，我只是想确认，您关于可采性的裁定也适用于这些笔记吗？\n\n1 法庭：这些笔记尚未被提交，我认为它们只是——我听到的是，它们正被用于唤起记忆。\n\n5 GREIM先生：它们很可能会被提交。我只是想继续进行。\n\n7 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n8 问：Waller博士——\n\n9 法庭：但是，先生，如果你正在查看一份文件以唤起记忆，作为证人，你的职责是：如果不查看该文件你无法记起，你可以根据你律师的指示查看该文件，以判断其是否唤回记忆。如果它唤回了记忆，你应当就你的记忆作证，无论该记忆是否与文件中所写内容完全相同。如果即使你看到文件中写有相关内容，它仍未唤回记忆，则意味着你的记忆尚未被唤起，而你的回答应当是：我没有记忆。\n\n19 你明白吗？\n\n20 证人：好的。谢谢。\n\n21 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n22 问：那么，Waller博士，请让我明确一下。或许我刚才没有完成最后一步。\n\n24 你对与第1组负责人的讨论，以及与Yvette Wang和Lianchao Han的讨论的记忆，是否因查看这些笔记而被唤起？\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller—再次直接询问\n\n1 查看这些笔记？\n\n2 答：是的。\n\n3 GREIM先生：我将申请——我们已经有——将证物57作为证据接纳。\n\n5 CHUFF先生：法官阁下，我仅请求您的裁定也适用于那些笔记。\n\n7 法庭：我将保持一致，准许该证物进入记录，但以可能提出排除动议为条件；律师应当知悉，如果就此提出排除动议，且该证物被排除，则有关该证词的证言将被排除。因此，就确保你已建立记录而言，你是在自行承担风险。\n\n13 GREIM先生：那么，法官阁下，既然如此，我将不——我将撤回将其作为证据提交的申请。我们将依赖证人在查看该文件后被唤起的记忆。\n\n17 GREIM先生讯问：\n\n18 问：那么，Waller博士，我们——我们谈过你向Lianchao Han和Yvette Wang报告的四件事，Wang是在24日，Han是在26日。\n\n21 你是否向他们报告过任何关于中文翻译人员的担忧？\n\n23 答：是的。\n\n24 问：你告诉他们什么？\n\n25 答：嗯，Guo（郭文贵）曾特别指示我们，调查小组中不得有任何普通话使用者；这当然使得理解欧洲人员所恢复的信息成为一项极大挑战。因此，在第1组之后，我与Lianchao商议；第1组能够找到一些普通话流利、但并非华人背景的退休欧洲外交官，因为Guo认为许多华裔人士可能是CCP（中国共产党）的间谍。这令作为Guo代理人的Lianchao感到满意，因此第1组随后聘用了第一名和第二名语言学家。\n\n10 问：因此，第1组因此聘用了两名语言学家？\n\n11 答：是的。还聘用了一名了解中国共产党的控制结构和金融网络的主题专家。\n\n14 问：这些人员最终是在何时聘用的？\n\n15 答：在与第1组负责人会面后立即聘用；当时他仍在城内，我指示他返回并雇用他们。\n\n18 问：当你告诉Lianchao Han，其中三至四个姓名是假的或拼写错误时，他如何答复你？\n\n20 答：他同意该名单上有三至四个姓名是错误的。\n\n22 问：截至当时，就那三至四个姓名的数据挖掘已经花费了多少时间？\n\n24 答：整整一周。无论如何，整整一周。\n\n问：我们来谈谈你刚才提到的第一项问题，即离岸公司的所在地。\n\n第 / 243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller—再次直接询问\n\n1 离岸公司的所在地。\n\n2 你就此告诉Yvette什么？\n\n3 答：我说，他们找到了Guo未向我们指明的离岸公司，并询问她是否对此感兴趣。\n\n5 问：它们在哪里？\n\n6 答：我记得其中一家是在Turkey（土耳其）。\n\n7 问：它们是否是其中一名调查对象的离岸公司？\n\n8 答：是的。\n\n9 问：那么，Yvette如何回应？\n\n10 答：她完全没有作出指示，只说这还不够好。\n\n12 问：在第一组会面中，你是否还向Lianchao或Yvette报告了其他离岸公司？\n\n14 答：如果我记得没错，有Cayman Islands（开曼群岛）的公司和其他Caribbean（加勒比地区）的公司，其中一些是Guo在与我们亲自会面时概括向我们指出的，另一些则是第1组自行发现的，或者是第1组自行发现的有关其存在的证据。\n\n19 问：Yvette对该披露有何回应？\n\n20 答：全都是垃圾。\n\n21 问：Lianchao Han呢？\n\n22 答：他说这些是很好的线索，继续调查。它们只是线索。\n\n24 问：在第一组会面中，就这一第一类别，你是否还向Lianchao或Yvette告知了任何其他事项？\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）—复询\n1 答：\n第一类对象或者——\n\n2 问：\n是。\n\n3 答：\n最大的一项是进入中国政府自身的、我们称之为宝库的中信（CITIC）。\n\n4 问：\n我们会谈到那个。\n那是我们的第二类。\n\n5 我理解，那么，您想不起第一类中的其他任何事情——\n\n6 答：\n一时想不起来。\n\n7 问：\n您还记得有关巴拿马公司的任何事情吗？\n\n8 答：\n记得。\n\n9 问：\n那是在第一次会面中，还是在后一次会面中？\n\n10 答：\n那是在后一次会面中。\n\n11 问：\n我们稍后会回到那个问题。\n\n12 我们来谈谈——您曾表示——您说中信。\n那是中国政府本身，还是一家独立公司？\n\n13 答：\n是中国政府百分之百国有的公司，由中国共产党官员经营。\n\n14 问：\n那么，您为什么让第一小组调查中信？\n\n15 答：\n那是我们发现的一个机会目标。我们发现了它。它也是郭文贵（Guo）感兴趣的对象，但不在合同中；不过，由于其极其重要，我们回去报告说，嘿，我们可以进入这个中国政府服务器，然后我们请求指示。\n\n16 问：\n那么，您为什么必须请求指示？为什么不直接进入？\n\n共243页\n\nL4KKEAS2 沃勒—复询\n\n答：嗯，在外国服务器上有两种做法——如果它是——首先，如果它是私人服务器，我们不会这么做，但这是政府服务器。第一种是保持低调，等到您能找到通过您正在监视的人员之一进入的办法。您可以观察他们访问该服务器上电子邮件账户的情况，然后进入。这样，您可以在不被发现的情况下进入。\n\n第二种是所谓的暴力破解攻击。这是黑客术语，也就是，您知道，顾名思义；但其结果是会在服务器上触发警报，导致系统要么关闭，要么建立新的安全协议以阻止任何人进入，并且提醒该实体的领导人，或者至少提醒信息技术安全人员，使其意识到有人正试图访问服务器。那将彻底违背试图通过这些目标查明其中信息的整个目的。所以——\n\n问：让我打断您一下。\n\n那么，您是否向Yvette Wang（王雁）说明过每种选择的这些后果？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否请求——我理解您向她请求指示应当采取哪一种做法？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：她怎么说？\n\nL4KKEAS2\n沃勒—复询\n1 答：\n她说继续进行暴力破解攻击。\n\n2 问：\n好的。她去做了吗？\n\n3 答：\n没有。\n\n4 问：\n为什么没有？\n\n5 答：\n因为在——在与Lianchao（连超）商议后，为了客户的利益——为了确保您能够获得信息，而不是关闭破入——破入以获取信息的途径。\n\n6 我还请求允许在相关国家进行法律审查，以确保这在该国是合法的。\n\n7 问：\n您为该法律意见付费了吗？\n\n8 答：\n是。\n\n9 问：\n那是Wallop女士昨天提到的那份法律意见吗？\n\n10 答：\n是。\n\n11 问：\n那么，在与连超交谈后，您最终是否采取了任何措施，绕过Yvette，对中信服务器尝试低调的方法？\n\n12 答：\n是。在获得他的同意，即连超的同意后，为了客户的长期目标，我们没有做Yvette坚持要做的事情。\n\n13 问：\n在合同终止之前，您最终是否获得了该服务器的访问权限？\n\n14 答：\n没有。\n\n1 问：\n我们来看第三类。您表示，已对全部15个目标提取了社交媒体页面？\n\n2 答：\n是。\n\n3 问：\n而且我可能没有恰当地表述您的证词，但我只想问您：是否有任何目标未被纳入该审查？\n\n4 答：\n有些人没有社交媒体账户。而且，如果您看协议中对社交媒体的定义，它并不包括我们通常理解的所有社交媒体，而是其他在线媒体；有些信息要么相互矛盾，要么无法获得。\n\n5 问：\n那么，关于——您作证说，三四个是假名字？\n\n6 答：\n是。\n\n7 问：\n是否找到了关于他们的信息？\n\n8 答：\n找到了关于不同人员的信息，他们的姓名相似或相同。\n\n9 问：\n我明白。那么，当您向Yvette提到这些假名字时，她是否承诺回去给您取得替代姓名，或者——我只问一下，她的回应是什么？\n\n10 答：\n她说我们的小组无能；她不会容忍这种垃圾。\n\n11 问：\n那么，这项社交媒体调查，就是您第一次从第一小组获得的U盘上实际存有的内容吗？\n\n12 答：\n第一次是的。\n\nL4KKEAS2\n沃勒—复询\n1 问：\n如果您把它插入电脑，它会如何显示？您如何能够看到它？\n\n2 答：\n其中一部分整理在文件夹中，另一部分没有；因此，目标名单中每个不同人员各有15个文件夹。但这只是——而且我事先告知客户——只是供第一小组了解其目标是谁的前期调查。因此，这不是所需要的深入调查，但它是社交媒体调查将在其上建立的基础。\n\n3 问：\n那么，您说您于24日在弗吉尼亚州从第一小组负责人处取到这个U盘？\n\n4 答：\n是。\n\n5 问：\n他必须从海外来到这里；对吗？\n\n6 答：\n是。\n\n7 问：\n合同是从16日开始的，对吗？\n\n8 答：\n是。\n\n9 问：\n您是否了解第一份U盘的截止日期？换言之，为了让他来到这里并于24日交给您，资料必须在何时载入U盘？\n\n10 答：\n必须是前一天。\n\n11 问：\n对不起？\n\n12 答：\n必须是在他抵达华盛顿的前一天。\n\n共243页\n\nL4KKEAS2\n沃勒—复询\n1 问：\n那么，他何时抵达华盛顿？\n\n2 答：\n他是在那次会面的当天抵达华盛顿的。\n\n3 问：\n那么，连超是否表示他将该信息转告给郭文贵？\n\n4 答：\n是。\n\n5 问：\n他有没有告诉您郭文贵的回应是什么？\n\n6 答：\n有。他说郭文贵很生气，说我们全都无能，并且试图骗他的钱。\n\n7 问：\n连超是否至少给了您那三四个虚假或拼写错误姓名的替代姓名？\n\n8 答：\n没有。我们请求过，但始终没有收到。\n\n9 问：\n您知道，我忘了问您，回到我关于电脑屏幕上内容的问题，所以您说有些信息按不同对象整理在文件夹中，但是否还有不在特定文件夹中的其他信息？\n\n10 答：\n有。每当您搜寻信息时，都会出现一些——在您将其放入文件夹之前仍需要分类的内容。文件夹的目的，是说明哪些“鱼”对应名单上的哪个人员，并由此最终建立工作成果的核算系统。这只是其中的基础部分，以确保客户认可追踪方法。\n\n11 问：\n顺便问一下，您是否保留了该USB驱动器的另一份副本？\n\nL4KKEAS2\n沃勒—复询\n1 答：\n没有。\n\n2 问：\n所以您把唯一的一份交给了Eastern（东方）？\n\n3 答：\n是。那是应他们的要求。\n\n4 问：\n第一份驱动器上的信息是否包括任何数据挖掘结果？\n\n5 答：\n没有。\n\n6 问：\n在您与第一小组负责人第一次会面之后，您是否还向Yvette或连超传达了其他任何事情？\n\n7 答：\n是。\n\n8 问：\n还有什么？\n\n9 答：\n其中一个问题是，他们发现名单中一人的护照——那是一个北约盟国的非中国护照——是一份伪造护照；这是通过第一小组所做的核查——电子调查——确认的。随后，第一小组负责人把它带到相关国家的大使馆，向他们的情报站站长交谈说，嘿，我们发现这本护照，我们认为它是假的。\n\n10 这引起了该盟国情报官员的强烈兴趣，后者感谢第一小组负责人发现了确实是一份伪造护照的东西。因此，我将此事告知了连超和Yvette Wang；而且，再次强调，这不是您能从数据挖掘中获得的东西，这是亲自去另一国大使馆获得的。\n\n1 而且，这是一个重大发现，因为它显示我们发现了一名共产党人员违反共产党规则而持有非中国护照。\n\n2 问：\n连超的回应是什么？\n\n3 答：\n他认为这很好，并认为我们应当继续推进。\n\n4 问：\n您也是这样认为吗？\n\n5 答：\n是。\n\n6 问：\n那么，第一次会面中还有其他事情吗？\n\n7 答：\n我确信还有，但不查看我的笔记，我记不起来。\n\n8 问：\n那么，现在正好是我们的时间，所以我——\n\n9 证人：\n可以吗？\n\n10 法庭：\n可以。\n\n11 记录应当反映，证人正在查看他的笔记——您将告诉我证物编号——以刷新其记忆。\n\n12 由GREIM先生讯问：\n\n13 问：\nWaller先生，您是否再次翻到第57号证物？\n\n14 答：\n是。\n\n15 哦，抱歉，他们发现了——我尚未在这些笔记中看到这一点，但我刚被提醒，他们发现了——第一小组发现，网上还有其他人，似乎各种个人或团体正在同时搜索相同的姓名，以及其中一些深入搜索。\n\nKEAS2\n\nL4KKEAS2 沃勒—复询 共243页\n\n1 因此，第一小组担心两件事：第一，他们——他们问，是否有竞争性小组——参与该项目的小组，因为如果第一小组继续其搜索，就有被发现的风险；或者，如果中国情报部门正在寻找此类调查活动，第一小组可能会有以电子方式危及其他调查小组的风险。\n\n2 他们停止了调查，以请求指示，确保他们继续进行是安全的，并且不会危及郭文贵的项目。\n\n3 问：\n那么，您是否将该问题转告给Yvette和连超？\n\n4 答：\n是。\n\n5 问：\nYvette的回应是什么？\n\n6 答：\n她说继续进行。\n\n7 问：\n连超的回应是什么？\n\n8 答：\n他——我不记得他的确切回应。我记得他说他会核实，但我不记得他是否也告诉我们继续进行。\n\n9 问：\n当您提出该问题时，他们两人中是否有任何一人确认郭文贵事实上同时有其他竞争性小组调查相同对象？\n\n10 答：\n郭文贵事先亲自告诉我们，他有其他小组。\n\n11 问：\n但当您提出问题时，Yvette或连超是否有任何一人确认？\n\n12 答：\n嗯，我相信连超说他认为有。我的意思是，回应中存在保持谨慎的余地，但Yvette还是说继续进行。\n\n13 问：\n那么，您是否指示第一小组继续进行调查？\n\n14 答：\n是。\n\n15 问：\n您知道第一小组因该事在调查中停顿了多久吗？\n\n16 答：\n嗯，第一小组负责人至少需要两天时间返回——从这里得到答案，返回该国，然后将答案传达给小组。\n\n17 问：\n好的。Waller博士——\n\n18 答：\n还有另一项同样重要的数据，那就是第一小组发现了客户是谁。\n\n19 问：\n对不起，第一小组发现了客户是谁？\n\n20 答：\n是。\n\n21 问：\n这里所说的客户，您指的是谁？\n\n22 答：\n他们发现是郭文贵。\n\n23 问：\n他们是如何做到的？\n\n24 答：\n嗯，我们采取了措施确保没有人知道客户是谁，再次是为了保护郭文贵的身份和利益。我们明确向第一小组表示，我们不会说客户是谁。小组负责人回来后说：你们的客户是否是一个名叫Guo的人？\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 复询问\n\n1 问：Wengui（郭文贵），还是 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），还是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）？\n2 答：我们说：你们为什么想知道？\n3 他们说：大量信息已经存在于网上，而且其来源可以准确追溯到他及其运作。\n5 问：这是否令你担忧？\n6 答：这非常令人担忧，因为其中一项是证物中所示、带有 Anita Suen（安妮塔·孙）姓名的那份文件的一部分。在那份15人名单中排在第一位的那个人，其确切图像已经作为 Guo（郭文贵）此前媒体运作的一部分存在于网上。\n11 问：现在，你说的是该图像。那是整页，还是只有她的照片？\n13 答：那是带有文字的整页，文字相同、颜色相同、字体相同，一切都相同。\n15 问：那么，Guo（郭文贵）曾就这份 PowerPoint 对你说了什么？\n16 答：Guo（郭文贵）说它极其机密，而且制作费用高昂。\n18 问：他是否告诉你可以公开分享它？\n19 答：没有，从未。\n20 问：那么，在你从 Team 1（团队1）了解到此事之后，你做了什么？\n21 答：我通知了 Lianchao（连潮），并通知了 Yvette Wang（王雁）。\n22 问：Yvette Wang（王雁）的回应是什么？\n23 答：她说不用担心。\n24 问：Lianchao（连潮）呢？\n25 答：他非常担忧。\n\n1 问：根据他的回应，你是否相信他和你一样理解这些幻灯片的保密性？\n3 答：是。\n4 问：那么，在与 Lianchao（连潮）和 Yvette（王雁）交谈后，你是否向 Team 1（团队1）作出了任何回应？\n6 答：我只是说继续进行。我没有确认或否认客户是谁。\n8 问：那么，在第一次与 Team 1（团队1）会面后，你是否还向 Yvette（王雁）或 Lianchao（连潮）提供了任何其他信息？\n10 答：我可以查阅我的笔记吗？\n11 问：当然可以。\n12 GREIM 律师：证人正在查看 DX 57。\n13 证人：他们把这项信息收集工作比作吸沙子，这并非抱怨，只是表示，与其立即找到一大批极具价值的东西，你必须先吸取大量电子沙子。他们要求进一步——\n18 GREIM 律师继续询问：\n19 问：现在，请稍等，沃勒博士。我的问题是你告诉 Yvette（王雁）——\n21 答：是。\n22 问：——和 Lianchao（连潮）的内容。\n23 答：是。他们要求我们向客户索取一些更具体的数据，以帮助他们缩小范围并加快进度。\n\n1 问：他们说还需要哪些更具体的数据？这样问吧：你告诉 Yvette（王雁）和 Lianchao（连潮）的更具体数据是什么？\n4 答：他们需要——他们要求提供一份分析文件，以帮助他们了解所要寻找内容的更广泛背景，这样他们就不至于只是吸沙子。\n7 问：Yvette（王雁）对此作何回应？\n8 答：基本上还是同样的说法。如果这是一个如此出色的团队，他们为什么如此无能。\n10 问：Lianchao（连潮）呢？\n11 答：Lianchao（连潮）完全明白，他只是耸了耸肩。\n12 问：到你与 Lianchao（连潮）交谈时，你已经与 Yvette（王雁）交谈过了，对吗——不，顺序相反，你先与 Lianchao（连潮）交谈？\n15 答：我先与 Lianchao（连潮）交谈。\n16 问：就你今天的记忆而言，我们是否已经穷尽了与 Yvette（王雁）和 Lianchao（连潮）的第一组会面？\n18 答：就我所记得的，是的。\n19 问：好的。后来你是否收到过第二个待交付的 USB？\n21 答：是。\n22 问：那是在什么时候？\n23 答：那是在几天后。Yvette（王雁）非常不耐烦，想要更多信息，并坚持让我去取回下一只装有信息的 USB 驱动器。那是在两三天之内。\n\n1 问：那么，你做了什么来取回第二只 USB 驱动器？\n3 答：我飞往爱尔兰。\n4 问：好的。你在那里见了某个人吗？\n5 答：是。我在那里见了 Team 1（团队1）的负责人。\n6 问：你从他那里得到了什么？\n7 答：我从他那里得到了一只 USB 驱动器；他事先向我告知了其基本性质，以便我们能够通过加密的自毁短信含糊地沟通。因此，他说我们获得了大量尚未解密的加密材料，所以即使你来取走它，在我们将其解密之前，它也不会有价值。我将此事通知了 Yvette Wang（王雁）。\n13 问：这些是数据挖掘结果吗？\n14 答：这是——不是，这些尚未完成，因为完成这项工作所需的时间性质。这大约是80行加密代码，即计算机代码。\n17 问：它来自哪里？\n18 答：来自暗网。\n19 问：那么，在你飞往都柏林取得它之前，你是否将此事通知了 Yvette Wang（王雁）？\n21 答：是。\n22 问：她的回应是什么？\n23 答：她说她不在乎，她只想让我去取回来。\n24 问：那么你这样做了？\n25 答：是。\n\n共243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 复询问\n\n1 问：这是你在 Penn Station（宾夕法尼亚车站）交给她的一只驱动器吗？\n2 答：是。\n3 问：那是哪一天？\n4 答：那是1月底的最后几天之一。\n5 问：沃勒博士，那个驱动器上有什么？\n6 答：是。只有无法辨认的加密文本。\n7 问：那么，该代码中是否有任何行或部分可能有用？\n9 答：是。\n10 问：哪一部分？\n11 答：Team 1（团队1）告诉我们，在80,000行代码中，有16行代码可供使用。\n13 问：Team 1（团队1）是如何向你传达它会有用？\n15 答：它们由 Guo（郭文贵）名单上共产党人物的加密电子邮件地址和密码组成。\n17 问：也就是说，在这些对象之中？\n18 答：是。\n19 问：现在，你说有16个。我们知道其中三四个姓名是假的。那么，你是否也找到了假名，还是另有其他人？\n22 答：我不知道。是16行代码，不是16个人。\n23 问：那么，你是否将此事告知 Yvette（王雁）？\n24 答：是。\n25 问：她的回应是什么？\n\n1 答：她说无论如何都去取回来。因此我回去——\n2 问：抱歉，你是否传达了有关16行的信息？\n3 答：是。\n4 问：这16行？\n5 答：是。\n6 问：她对此作何回应？\n7 答：她说全都是垃圾。\n8 法庭：你如何传达16行代码？\n9 GREIM 律师：法官阁下，那么让我问一个更好的问题。\n11 GREIM 律师继续询问：\n12 问：你是否向她传达了关于这16行代码的信息？\n14 答：是。\n15 问：你是否实际将闪存驱动器交给了她？\n16 答：是。\n17 问：Yvette（王雁）本人是否有任何办法使用这16行加密代码？\n19 答：据我所知，没有。\n20 问：不过，你是否告诉她 Team 1（团队1）正在处理这16行代码？\n22 答：是。\n23 问：你是否告诉她他们正在如何处理？\n24 答：是。我说他们告诉我，解密每个电子邮件地址和密码大约各需六天。\n\n共243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 复询问\n\n1 密码。因此，并非所有六个都需连续六天，但可以同时进行，约需六天。\n4 问：你取得该信息——这样问吧：你在都柏林实际取得该信息的日期是哪一天？\n7 答：我想是 January 30th。可能是前一天，但应为 January 29th 或 30th。\n9 问：在那里与你会面的人本人曾从欧洲其他地方前来？\n11 答：是。\n12 问：那么，你知道该信息何时——这样问吧：Team 1（团队1）的负责人是否告诉你，该信息何时被加载到驱动器上？\n15 答：那应当是当天早上，即我抵达欧洲时。\n16 问：所以，到这个时候，我们已经进入合同的第13天了？\n17 答：是。\n18 问：你是否向 Team 1（团队1）的负责人表达过任何担忧，认为他们工作得不够快？\n20 答：我表达了客户对于他们工作不够快的担忧；此人是一名计算机工程师，他难以置信，认为在人的能力或技术上根本不可能工作得更快。\n24 问：你是否将此事告诉了 Yvette Wang（王雁）？\n25 答：我传达了——是的，大意如此，是的。\n\n共243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 复询问\n\n1 问：你在 January 30th 从 Team 1（团队1）负责人处了解到的内容，与 January 24th 的会面有何不同吗？\n4 答：不同？\n5 问：或者是补充内容？\n6 答：可能有。我不记得了。\n7 问：那么，早些时候你提到巴拿马问题。你是在这个时候了解到该信息的吗？\n9 答：不是，这是——他们找到了一项联系，但这与 Team 2（团队2）有关，那里有实际的——大量材料，但他们也确实发现了与一系列巴拿马空壳公司的联系。\n13 问：让我打断你。我们稍后再谈这个问题。就你通过这最初两个驱动器向她传达的工作内容而言，你是否与 Yvette Wang（王雁）有过信息往来？\n16 答：是。\n17 GREIM 律师：我们能否展示——让我们从 Exhibit 21（证物21）开始。\n19 问：沃勒博士——\n20 法庭：Greim 律师，我可以问一个问题吗？\n21 GREIM 律师：当然可以。\n22 法庭：在研究协议中，记得有一项规定称，承包方与客户之间应有单一的沟通渠道。进行此类沟通的人员将在合同启动时予以确定。\n\n共243页\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller（沃勒）— 复询问\n合同启动时将予以确定。\n\nEastern（东方公司）为其确定的沟通渠道是谁？他们如何确定该人？证人：该沟通渠道在 Lianchao Han（韩连潮）和 Yvette Wang（王雁）之间交替；Lianchao Han（韩连潮）住在我们华盛顿哥伦比亚特区附近，因此我们当天几分钟内就可以去拜访他；Yvette Wang（王雁）则在这里纽约。\n\n法庭：我的意思是，我明白这些人是你沟通的对象。我的问题是：Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）的哪一个人传达了沟通渠道将是谁，以及其具体内容是什么？或者也许并不存在这样的——\n\n证人：是的。我记得有一次，Yvette Wang（王雁）在短信中以书面方式说明了这一点。但在此之前，是直接与 Lianchao（连潮）打交道，他与 Guo（郭文贵）交谈，Yvette Wang（王雁）并未参与。因此，我们直接通过——通过 Lianchao Han（韩连潮）作为与 Guo（郭文贵）沟通的中间人开展工作。\n\n法庭：那么，Yvette Wang（王雁）随后发了一条信息，说了什么？18 19\n\n证人：之后，大约在1月第三周的一次午餐中，在 Guo（郭文贵）的房子即其住所，我们被指示只与 Yvette Wang（王雁）合作；随后，在 January 30th 前后的一条短信中，Yvette 指示我只与 Lianchao（连潮）合作。20 21 22 23 24\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 复询问\nGREIM 律师继续询问：\n问：我们来谈谈这个。沃勒博士，我们就此继续，并稍微快进一些。我们谈谈在 Guo（郭文贵）公寓的那次会面。Guo（郭文贵）在那次会面上说了什么？\n答：是哪一次会面？\n问：就是你刚才回答法庭问题时提到的那次会面。\n答：他——\n法庭：这次会面是什么时候？\n证人：是在1月第三周的某个时候。我想大约是24日，但我不太确定日期。\n法庭：好的。\n证人：抱歉，您能否——\nGREIM 律师继续询问：\n问：Guo（郭文贵）在这次会面上说了什么？\n答：那是在一次午餐中，French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）、Guo（郭文贵）、Yvette Wang（王雁）和我都在场；她在 Guo（郭文贵）在场时转达了指示，即她将是唯一的中间人。\n问：Guo（郭文贵）在那次会面上对结果说了什么？\n答：他非常沮丧。在那次会面期间，他因我们没有立即找出那一大批材料而非常沮丧。\n问：你对他怎么说？\n\n共243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）— 复询问\n\n答。\n我们试图向他解释整个安排是如何搭建起来的。\n我们此前没有表达过——没有当面告诉过他；我们只是通过Lianchao Han（韩连潮）或Yvette Wang（王雁南）转达过，而他仍然非常愤怒，并说他现在就要这些信息。\n\n问。\n现在请看证物21。\n如果您看——抱歉，\n证物20。\n我道歉。\n首先，您是否认得\n证物20？\n\n答。\n20是——看起来像是一段短信往来。这是我在Signal（信号）上的用户名，Pyratz。我没有看到其他页面，但这看起来是与Yvette Wang（王雁南）的通信。\n\nGREIM先生：\n我想请证人注意，使用您面前活页夹中的这些证物可能会更容易一些，这样您可以来回翻阅。\n\n证人：\n再说一遍，是哪一号证物？\n\nGREIM先生询问：\n\n问。\n20。好的。\n\n答。\n是的，这是Yvette Wang（王雁南）与我之间的通信。\n\n问。\n您是否记得，曾试图向Yvette解释您到目前为止向她作出报告的原因？\n\n答。\n记得。\n\n问。\n您是否记得，曾试图向她解释，您预计会发现较长期的结果，但不一定是即时结果？\n\n1 答。\n是的。这从一开始就已被理解。\n\n2 问。\n这是否就是您在证物20第一页中传达的内容？\n\n3 \n\n4 答。\n是的。\n\n5 问。\n然后您看到她次日的回复，她说——或者说，\n\n6 下一条信息：“他说最大的问题是，你的人十天后连门都没有找到，更不用说进门了。”\n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 您是否看到了她的担忧？\n\n10 答。\n这是哪一页？\n\n11 问。\n就是证物20的下一页。她对\n\n12 您所述内容的回复。底部应写有263。\n\n13 答。\n是的。\n\n14 问。\n顺便问一下，当她在这里说“他”时，您是否明白她代表谁说话？\n\n15 \n\n16 答。\n明白。Guo Wengui（郭文贵）。\n\n17 问。\n据您理解，那并非Han Chunguang（韩春光），对吗？\n\n18 答。\n不是。\n\n19 问。\n此时您是否对各方之间的关系感到担忧？\n\n20 \n\n21 答。\n是的。\n\n22 问。\n您的担忧是什么？\n\n23 答。\n嗯，我们当时——我们有两个相互冲突的联络点，两者均由Guo先生指定。\n\n24 \n\n25 一位是Yvette Wang；另一位是Lianchao Han。\n\nL4KKEAS2 Waller（沃勒）——复询问 第243页\n\n1 Lianchao实际上理解一切。他\n\n2 心领神会，并且——并且理解细节。她似乎完全不理解任何细节，\n\n3 只是索要我们已告诉他们在启动期间根本不可能提供的信息。\n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 问。\nWang女士是否告诉过您，她是否有此类研究项目的经验？\n\n7 \n\n8 答。\n没有。\n\n9 问。\n她看起来有研究项目的经验吗？\n\n10 答。\n完全没有。\n\n11 问。\n您是否记得，在这次往来期间的某个时候，\n\n12 她告诉您一笔大预算已经准备就绪，而且投资者\n\n13 即使没有合同也可以向您付款？\n\n14 答。\n记得。\n\n15 GREIM先生：\n请调出证物21。\n\n16 问。\n遗憾的是，我们收到的通信链是以这样的片段形式提供给我们的，但我只想请您注意。\n\n17 \n\n18 您看到，灰色部分至少是您回复的一个片段，是您发给她的一条信息吗？\n\n19 \n\n20 答。\n是的。我的信息是浅灰色。\n\n21 问。\n她的信息则是深灰色？\n\n22 答。\n是的。\n\n23 问。\n您看到她告诉您：“是的，如您所知，这个长期项目的大预算\n\n24 已经准备好了。投资者甚至可以在没有合同的情况下向\n\n25 您的团队付款”？\n\n1 答。\n是的。\n\n2 问。\n收到她的那条信息时，您的反应是什么？\n\n3 答。\n有两方面，因为我们与Guo合作的许多工作在我们的交谈中已得到理解，\n\n4 我们会直接去做，但我们仍需要在合同\n\n5 框架内进行，以确保付款。这是我们第一次\n\n6 听到——或者说我第一次听到\n\n7 任何有关投资者以及合同之外某些事项的说法。\n\n8 \n\n9 问。\n您是否曾问过她投资者是谁？\n\n10 答。\n问过。\n\n11 问。\n她怎么说？\n\n12 答。\n她拒绝说。\n\n13 问。\n请看下一页，她回复的其余部分。\n\n14 您会看到，上面写着：“但投资者不会继续\n\n15 把钱花在他们不需要的事情上，例如，\n\n16 今天的事情。”\n\n17 现在，Waller博士，这是您给她\n\n18 第二个硬盘驱动器的那一天吗？\n\n19 答。\n是的。\n\n20 问。\n然后她说：“已与他们核实。我们有20天时间\n\n21 向他们更新两到三次，希望包括合同中约定的财务\n\n22 和追踪结果。即使是部分结果，但请务必正确。没有上述内容，\n\n23 投资者就无法与我们进入第二个月，并且恐怕\n\n24 很难与我们继续合作。”\n\n25 \n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）——复询问\n\n1 您看到了吗？\n\n2 答。\n看到了。\n\n3 问。\n您对此的反应是什么？\n\n4 答。\n嗯，首先，这告诉我，她以某种方式理解\n\n5 并接受了启动工作所涉及的复杂性，因为她说我们还有20天时间向正在被更新信息的某个人\n\n6 进行更新。\n\n7 但第二点令人不安，因为她说\n\n8 如果没有那个先决条件，引用原话，“投资者无法\n\n9 进入第二个月”，这会使某件事终止，但这更多只是一种假设，\n\n10 不过仍是一个警告信号。\n\n11 而且我将其理解为客户表明他们\n\n12 期待更多成果，但他们明确给了我们\n\n13 另外20天，开始产出更多令他们满意的结果。\n\n14 \n\n15 问。\n您预计何时收到合同项下的第一笔付款？\n\n16 答。\n2月15日。\n\n17 问。\n据您理解，合同项下那笔付款\n\n18 应是多少？\n\n19 答。\n应为\\$750,000。\n\n20 问。\n那么，Strategic Vision（战略远见）是否指望依靠那笔付款\n\n21 继续支付其团队的费用？\n\n22 答。\n是的。\n\n23 问。\n我应该说，是其团队？\n\n24 答。\n是的。\n\n25 问。\n当时您是否担心合同可能会\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）——复询问\n\n1 被提前终止？\n\n2 答。\n没有，我们并不预期会发生这种情况。我们并不预期它会\n\n3 被终止，因为我们预计能够解决这些问题。\n\n4 问。\n现在请看证物22。\n\n5 您在那里看到——而且，同样，这是否是您发给\n\n6 Wang女士的一条信息？\n\n7 答。\n是的。\n\n8 问。\n您说：“我们之间存在一个需要解决的脱节。\n\n9 我们的理解是，前90天将用于\n\n10 启动并开发数据，并定期向他报告，\n\n11 以便他可以：(1)看到进展，以及(2)评议工作，\n\n12 从而使我们能够作出必要调整。”\n\n13 我读得对吗？\n\n14 答。\n对。\n\n15 问。\n从谈判到履行期间，\n\n16 这是否一直是您的理解？\n\n17 答。\n是的。包括与Guo先生当面交谈时也是如此。\n\n18 问。\n接下来您看到，您说：“我们并不理解他\n\n19 期待在最初几天或第一周内获得可付诸行动的数据”？\n\n20 答。\n是的。\n\n21 问。\n“如果我们当时理解这一点，我们会告诉他，根据我们的经验，\n\n22 事情并不是这样运作的。”\n\n23 我读得对吗？\n\n24 答。\n对。\n\n25 问。\n这是真的吗？\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）——复询问\n\n1 答。\n是的。\n\n2 问。\n所以您说：“因此，这是需要迅速解决的事情”，对吗？\n\n3 \n\n4 答。\n是的。\n\n5 问。\n那么，它是否迅速得到解决？\n\n6 答。\n没有。我们迅速处理了它，也迅速产出了结果，\n\n7 但它并未迅速得到解决。\n\n8 问。\n在这次往来之后，您是否对\n\n9 调查工作作出了任何改变？\n\n10 答。\n是的。\n\n11 问。\n您做了什么？\n\n12 答。\n我们聘请了美国另一个团队，\n\n13 采用截然不同的方法论进行研究。\n\n14 问。\n顺便说一下，抱歉，Waller博士，我跳得有点太快了。\n\n15 \n\n16 GREIM先生：\n请调出证物23。\n\n17 法庭：\n我认为您打算在某个时候申请将它们作为证据提交？\n\n18 \n\n19 GREIM先生：\n是的。我只是要在这里一次性全部处理。\n\n20 \n\n21 GREIM先生询问：\n\n22 问。\n您在证物23中看到，Wang女士说：“再次，我为上述评论的直接翻译\n\n23 道歉。彼此坦诚相待，\n\n24 这是让该项目得以实现的唯一方式。我希望您能够与我们\n\n25 有同样的感受。谢谢。”\n\n1 \n\n2 我读得对吗？\n\n3 答。\n对。\n\n4 问。\n然后您的回复是：“很高兴知道。报告\n\n5 并非可付诸行动，而是为了展示工作如何执行”，\n\n6 然后您接着说？\n\n7 答。\n是的。\n\n8 问。\n当时这是您的看法吗？\n\n9 答。\n是的。\n\n10 问。\n您表示你们是从零开始？\n\n11 答。\n是的。\n\n12 问。\n您的意思是什么？\n\n13 答。\n意思是我们没有公司架构。我们不是一个现有的——我们没有公司架构\n\n14 来开展此类工作，我们必须从头组建团队，\n\n15 而这正是我们与Guo先生谈判的一部分内容。\n\n16 \n\n17 问。\n您随后是否要求在30日之后与Guo会面，\n\n18 以便他就是否继续当前工作——\n\n19 是否提供指导？\n\n20 答。\n是的。\n\n21 问。\n那次会面发生了吗？\n\n22 答。\n没有。\n\n23 GREIM先生：\n现申请将证物21\n\n24 至23作为证据准予接纳。\n\n25 法庭：\n我理解，对于这些证物中每一份的\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）——复询问\n\n1 真实性或时间，没有异议？\n\n2 CHUFF先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n3 GREIM先生：\n抱歉，我想加上20。\n\n4 法庭：\n那么，这些证物予以接纳，但以\n\n5 删除动议为准。\n\n6 GREIM先生：\n为明确起见，我加上了20。我刚才\n\n7 漏掉了它。\n\n8 法庭：\n20至23予以接纳，但以\n\n9 删除动议为准。\n\n10 （被告方证物20至23已作为证据接纳）\n\n11 \n\n12 GREIM先生询问：\n\n13 问。\n那么，Waller博士，在这次往来之后，您做了什么来改变或\n\n14 补充您的研究方法？\n\n15 答。\n我们聘请了Texas（得克萨斯州）的一家公司，其技能组合和\n\n16 方法论完全不同，以研究名单上的姓名。\n\n17 问。\n您所说“完全不同”是什么意思？\n\n18 答。\n因此，该组织并非进行数据挖掘和侵入式计算机\n\n19 操作，而是使用其他\n\n20 商业可用数据库以及联邦政府内部的联系人开展工作。\n\n21 \n\n22 问。\n您的意图是否是继续使用Team 1（第一团队），同时增加\n\n23 Team 2（第二团队）？\n\n24 答。\n是的。\n\n25 问。\n您是否记得第一次与Team 2会面是什么时候？\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）——复询问\n\n1 答。\n是在与Yvette Wang会面后仅几天，\n\n2 即2018年2月的头几天。\n\n3 问。\n他们在哪里？\n\n4 答。\nTexas（得克萨斯州）Dallas（达拉斯）。\n\n5 问。\n您是否飞到那里去见他们？\n\n6 答。\n是的。\n\n7 问。\n您在第一次会面中讨论了什么？\n\n8 答。\n我向他们出示了证物中那份研究姓名名单，\n\n9 即15个姓名及总计92个对象，然后\n\n10 请他们研究其中选定的姓名，看看他们使用自身方法\n\n11 能得出什么结果。\n\n12 问。\n您是否觉得可以放心聘请这个Team 2？\n\n13 答。\n是的。\n\n14 问。\n为什么？\n\n15 答。\n我认识与该团队有关联的成员已有数年，而且他们是经一位同事推荐的；\n\n16 我曾与那位同事就中国问题合作，\n\n17 我与他共事多年，他住在Dallas。\n\n18 \n\n19 问。\nASOG是否就研究结果回复了您？\n\n20 答。\n是的。ASOG是我们聘请进行研究的公司，\n\n21 他们在一周内回复了我们。\n\n22 问。\n他们是如何——他们是否向您提供了信息？\n\n23 答。\n是的。我们飞到Dallas与他们会面。他们向\n\n24 我们——我们与他们的全体研究人员和管理层会面，\n\n25 我们会面数小时，他们向我们展示了他们得出的数据，\n\n1 并向我们解释了所有这些数据的背景，但他们不向我们提供\n\n2 数据的实体副本。\n\n3 \n\n4 GREIM先生：\n请调出证物56。\n\n5 问。\n您认得这份文件吗？\n\n6 答。\n认得。\n\n7 问。\n它是什么？\n\n8 答。\n那是我们称为Team 2的ASOG\n\n9 为已提供服务向我们出具的发票。\n\n10 问。\n看起来它是寄给Georgetown Research（乔治敦研究公司）、Michael Waller（迈克尔·沃勒）的？\n\n11 \n\n12 答。\n是的。\n\n13 问。\n那是您？\n\n14 答。\n是的。\n\n15 问。\n您看到第一页“Description（说明）”项下的内容了吗，这是否反映了\n\n16 他们告诉您他们所做的工作？\n\n17 答。\n是的。\n\n18 问。\n现在，我看到第三个项目符号下写着：“追踪\n\n19 错误信息至源头以予核实”？\n\n20 答。\n是的。\n\n21 问。\n他们是否向您说明这是什么意思？\n\n22 答。\n是的。\n\n23 问。\n他们怎么说？\n\n24 答。\n他们说有一些——\n\n25 CHUFF先生：\n异议，法官阁下。陈述内容由\n\n第二组此前已在法官阁下对证据排除动议的裁定中被认定为传闻证据，而且与ASOG的心理状态无关。\n\n法庭：\n您有我关于证据排除动议的裁定引文吗？\n\nCHUFF先生（查夫）：\n有。见Docket 310，第2页——第1页和第2页。\n\n法庭：\nGreim先生（格雷姆），您要回应吗？\n\nGREIM先生：\n当然。\n\n法官阁下，我所做的与之前所做的是同一件事。\n\n该动议涉及这份记录的受保护指定。我正试图从证人处获知ASOG告诉他其所做及所发现的内容；我们很快将有证词——我可以先奠定该基础——证明他将此事转告了Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）和Lianchao Han（韩连潮）。\n\n法庭：\n但是，就ASOG所做之事而言，如果该信息是从ASOG处获得的，它怎么会不是传闻证据呢？\n\nGREIM先生：\n嗯，它将被用于——再说一次，我可以如同此前处理第一组结果时那样倒推，但不，这涉及ASOG所传达的内容，以及随后向Yvette Wang和Lianchao Han请求的指示，因为——嗯，我不说证词将会是什么。\n\n法庭：\n抱歉，我打断您了。请继续。\n\nGREIM先生：\n法庭在其裁定中称，被告方应准备就这些陈述如仅为心理状态目的而采纳，是否具有任何相关性作出说明。嗯，该证据并非为证明ASOG的心理状态而引入，而是为说明，就这些姓名而言，Lianchao Han和Yvette Wang获悉并被转达了什么，而不论ASOG是否实际进行了这项工作。关键在于，该信息被转达给了Yvette Wang，并且有人向她提出了问题。\n\n法庭：\n那么，如果这是您试图引出该证词的目的，我认为该问题没有相关性，因为无论ASOG是否向Waller先生（沃勒）说过此事，您想引出的内容是Waller先生向Yvette Wang说了什么。据我所知，而且您不会问这个问题，Waller先生向Yvette Wang所说的内容是否为ASOG告诉Waller先生的内容，您只会问这是否是他所说的内容。\n\nGREIM先生：\n好的，那我就问那个问题。\n\n法庭：\n对于有关Waller先生向Yvette Wang所说内容的证词，是否有异议？也就是说，我推定那是交付成果的一部分。它或许不满足合同要求，但与该问题相关。律师？\n\nCHUFF先生：\n只要该证据不是为证明所陈述事项的真实性而提出。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n因此，对询问ASOG向Waller先生说了什么这一问题的异议成立。您可以继续。\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）—复询问\n\nGREIM先生询问：\n\n问：那么，我不会问您ASOG对您说了什么，好吗？我现在要问您——我可能刚才就应当提出这个问题——我要问您您看到了什么，您看到了什么，如果您还能回忆起来；再说一次，您不能告诉我ASOG对您说了什么。\n\n您在ASOG的第二次会议上看到了什么？\n\n答：我看到了大量信息，因此无法重构全部内容，但其中包括追踪信息，非常详细的追踪信息；其中包括名单上的某些对象共用同一个美国社会保障号码，显示存在社会保障欺诈，并可能存在美国税务欺诈；还显示有伪造美国文件的证据，官方美国文件——\n\n问：让我打断您一下。\n\n他们向您展示了——您看到了复印件吗？\n\n答：打印件，是的。\n\n问：打印件。\n\n那是在一张纸上的打印件，还是您在电脑屏幕上看的？\n\n答：它们是彩色打印在纸上的。\n\n问：它们是否以某种有组织的方式向您展示？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且这是在一次会议中？\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）—复询问\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：再说一次，在您讲述过程中，不要告诉我们ASOG对您说了什么。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：您还观察到了什么？\n\n答：他们掌握了大量非常有用、可使用且可付诸行动的信息，这正是Guo（郭文贵）先生想要的。\n\n问：您为什么没有把那些信息带走？\n\n答：他们不会——ASOG不会允许我这样做。\n\n问：他们是否告诉您为什么不允许您这样做？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：他们说了什么？\n\nCHUFF先生：\n异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n异议成立。\n\nGREIM先生询问：\n\n问：嗯，无论如何，您无法将其取走并带回；对吗？\n\n答：是的，但这在这份——中有说明。\n\n问：我们不能——\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：顺便问一下，您是否曾向Yvette Wang或Lianchao Han出示过这张发票？\n\n答：到那时，Yvette Wang已指示我不得再与她有任何联系——这大约是在January 30th——并且只与Lianchao Han合作。\n\n问：所以到这时，您已重新与Lianchao Han合作？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您向Lianchao Han出示过这张发票吗？\n\n答：我相信出示过。这张发票的日期晚于这个当时的时间。这张发票的日期晚了几周。\n\n问：好的。\n\n答：这张发票的日期晚了几周。\n\n问：现在，ASOG原本准备向您收取约$105,000？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而他们只向您收取了$5,412？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您是否了解其中原因？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：这是否基于ASOG告诉您的某些事情？\n\n答：我的意思是，我很乐意直接回答这个问题，但我理解这些限制。\n\n问：这只是“是”或“否”的问题。如果是——\n\n答：我明白原因。\n\n问：这是否基于ASOG对您所说的内容？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。\n\n那么，您是否将此结果报告给了Lianchao，而不是Yvette Wang？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您告诉Lianchao Han什么？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区记录员专业公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n答：我告诉他，鉴于所发现内容的性质，我被告知根据联邦法律取得这些信息是非法的。\n\n问：您告诉他为什么是非法的吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您告诉他什么？\n\n答：我被告知，名单上的五名对象——\n\n问：不，不，抱歉。\n\n您告诉了他什么——不要告诉我们别人告诉您的内容；告诉我们您告诉Lianchao的内容。\n\n答：我告诉Lianchao Han，ASOG告诉我，进一步调查这五名对象将构成联邦犯罪，因为美国政府已将这些人归类为，即，RP，或“受保护记录”。\n\n问：Lianchao看起来是否理解“受保护记录”的含义？\n\n答：他不知道这是什么意思，但当我向他解释其含义时，他同意了。\n\n问：您是否告诉Lianchao任何将他们指定为受保护记录的联邦机构？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您告诉他什么？\n\n答：我告诉他，是NCS将其指定为受保护记录。\n\n问：NCS是什么？\n\n答：那是CIA（美国中央情报局）的National Clandestine Service（国家秘密行动处）。\n\n问：那么，您是否独立知晓那是什么？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：CIA的National Clandestine Service是什么？\n\n答：它过去称为Directorate of Operations（行动局）。那是CIA负责处理被招募为CIA人力情报特工的外国人的部门。\n\n问：您是否告诉Lianchao“受保护记录”的重要意义？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您告诉他什么？\n\n答：我告诉他，有一种称为“受保护记录”的分类，用于保护外国对象免受此类数据库检索，以保护他们的记录、个人记录不受侵扰；其原因可能是他们是刑事或国家安全调查的对象，也可能是他们并非正在进行的刑事或国家安全调查的对象，从而使任何人都无法知晓他们是否为调查对象；同时也用于保护同意秘密与美国政府合作的外国人。\n\n问：Lianchao作何回应？\n\n答：他立即理解了，说我们必须想出一些新名字，然后我们讨论了如何做。\n\n问：您说我们讨论了如何做。您讨论了什么？\n\nL4KKEAS2\nWaller（沃勒）—复询问\n\n答：嗯，我说我们不能检索这些名字。我完全不知道其合法性。这是那家事务所所说的、该事务所进行会属非法的事情。我显然不会做任何损害美国政府利益的事，因此我们必须集思广益，弄清楚如何把这些鱼拿出来，再放进更多鱼，以使用合同中的比喻。\n\n问：您是否告诉Lianchao，ASOG向您展示但不允许您带走的那类信息？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：那是什么信息？\n\n答：其中包括飞行记录、某些财务记录，即并非银行账户对账单本身，而是世界各地某些银行和金融机构存在账户这一事实。其中包括住址、房产。名单上有一人，但不是那15人之一，是与Anita Suen（安妮塔·苏恩）有关联的人；我相信该人聘请了一名Nebraska（内布拉斯加州）的律师，该律师设立了数十家，甚至数百家巴拿马掩护公司。\n\n问：那么，您是否询问Lianchao，您能否跟进该线索？\n\n答：他很兴奋。他说，这正是我们在寻找的东西。看起来——很明显，有人在设立数量巨大的巴拿马掩护公司，中国国民通过Nebraska进行此事。这表明有不正当的事情正在发生；如果它违反共产党规则，而我们能够揭露它，那就这么做。\n\n因此，Lianchao同意，这一批信息中存在大量潜在信息。\n\n问：现在，您是否理解，如果您能够取得新的名字，ASOG将继续工作，或者会就这些新名字开展工作？\n\n答：他们不愿继续工作，因为他们要求知道客户是谁。\n\n问：您告诉他们了吗？\n\n答：没有，我不被允许这样做，但他们自行猜出来了。\n\n问：嗯，我们不能谈这个。\n\n那么，Lianchao是否回去从Guo那里取得了新名字？\n\n答：没有。\n\n请原谅。他回去找了Guo，但没有带着新名字回来找我们。\n\n问：他何时回来找您？\n\n答：嗯，在整个这段时间里我们一直在交谈。\n\n问：您是否记得，您最终是否在February与Lianchao进行了当面会面？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：是什么时候？\n\n答：那时我们会面了数次，但几周后，我们在French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）家中会面，只是审视我们的现状以及我们该做什么。与此同时，他已告诉我们暂停活动，直至他能够解决与Guo之间的事情。他仍以Guo的代理人身份与我们接洽，但没有向我们提供进一步指示。\n\n问：到February 16th时，您是否已收到第一笔$750,000付款？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否曾收到该笔款项？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：那——这如何影响了您的调查工作？\n\n答：这使我们无法继续第一组的工作，因为我们预先支付他们一个月的费用，因此我们无法为任何事情作出提前规划。\n\n问：那么，到这时，您已向第一组支付了多少？\n\n答：我们已向他们支付了200——昨天已具体讨论过，但大约在200至$250,000之间。\n\n问：并且——\n\n法庭：\nGreim先生，您结束这一轮询问时，我们将休庭。\n\nGREIM先生：\n好的。\n\n抱歉，我本想结束。我们快到了。\n\nGREIM先生询问：\n\n问：他们的月费是多少？\n\n答：$200,000。\n\nL4KKEAS2\n沃勒 — 再次直接询问\n1 问：\n那么，他们下一笔200,000是否在2月中旬到期？\n2 答：\n是。\n3 问：\n您是否指望用那笔$750,000来支付给他们？\n4 答：\n是。\n5 问：\n您是否问过韩连潮（Lianchao Han）是否应当继续设法筹集这笔钱？\n6 \n7 答：\n是。\n8 问：\n他怎么说？\n9 答：\n他说，先等等，让我设法解决。\n10 问：\n接下来您从郭文贵（Guo Wengui）一方听到的是什么？\n11 答：\n除了通过韩连潮以外？\n12 问：\n那么，就说是从韩连潮那里，您接下来听到的是什么？\n13 \n14 答：\n韩连潮非常沮丧。他因该项目未能继续推进而感到沮丧。他看起来比起其他任何事情，更为我们感到沮丧，因为他本人对该项目非常热衷，而且他无法向我们提供任何形式的答复。\n18 问：\n那么，您后来是否记得收到一封终止函？\n19 答：\n是。\n20 问：\n那是在何时？\n21 答：\n那是在2018年2月23日。\n22 问：\n也就是说，在与韩连潮会面仅一周之后？\n23 答：\n是。\n24 格雷姆先生（MR. GREIM）：\n法官大人，我确实有一个问题要问证人，关于——嗯，实际上——这算是一个新的\n\n1 领域。可能需要十到十五分钟。\n2 法庭（THE COURT）：\n好的。我们在2:00重新开庭。\n3 我们现在休庭用午餐。\n4 各位，请务必在2:00之前充分提前回到座位上，\n5 以便我们能够准时开始。\n6 （午餐休庭）\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒 — 再次直接询问\n1 下午庭审\n2 下午2:01\n3 （审判继续）\n4 法庭：\n沃勒博士（Dr. Waller），提醒您，您仍在宣誓之下。\n5 \n6 格雷姆先生，您可以询问。\n7 再次直接询问\n8 由格雷姆先生进行：\n9 问：\n沃勒博士，我们今天已经花了相当大一部分时间讨论您收到的内容，以及您转交给王越（Yvette Wang）和韩连潮的内容。我现在想向您出示双方的约定书最后一页。这些是我们共同提出的事实认定。我想请您关注第54至57段。\n14 那么，您会看到，第54至56段都很相似；它们涉及“财务法务历史研究、当前追踪研究”，而第56段是“社交媒体研究”。\n17 您看到了吗？\n18 答：\n是。\n19 问：\n其中每一项均称，“Strategic Vision（战略远景公司）从未向Eastern（东方公司）交付任何”，然后列明该研究，“即研究协议所要求的研究”。您看到了吗？\n22 答：\n是。\n23 问：\n您同意该陈述吗？\n24 答：\n是。\n25 问：\n根据研究协议，我们看到——我们实际上看到，\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒 — 再次直接询问\n1 事实上，研究只能通过USB驱动器交付？\n2 答：\n是。\n3 问：\n我们还看到其他一些要求，包括为提供不同类型研究设定了严格的时间框架，对吗？\n6 答：\n是。\n7 问：\n我们还看到，至少按照研究协议的要求，Strategic Vision无法向Eastern交付那些内容，对吗？\n10 答：\n是。\n11 问：\n而且，如我们在第57段所见，Strategic Vision无法编制任何详细报告，对吗？\n13 答：\n是。\n14 问：\nStrategic Vision能够向Eastern提供什么？\n15 答：\n在极端情况下，我们能够向Eastern提供我们所能提供的最佳信息。\n17 问：\n现在，沃勒博士，我想转到损害赔偿问题。\n18 格雷姆先生：\n请出示证物64，该证物在沃勒资料册中。如果可以，请翻到第2页。\n20 问：\n沃勒博士，昨天沃洛普女士（Ms. Wallop）就这些资金从Strategic Vision账户转出作证时，您一直坐在这里？\n23 答：\n是。\n24 问：\n如果您看她图表的右侧一栏，您会看到有200转给了Cyber Sol？\n\n1 答：是。\n2 问：而那笔钱转给了Cyber Solutions（赛博解决方案公司），对吗？\n3 答：是。\n4 问：那是您的实体？\n5 答：是。\n6 问：然后有25,000转给GRG？\n7 答：是。\n8 问：然后有200,000转给GRG？\n9 答：是。\n10 问：那么，您将其中哪些电汇款转给了Team 1（第一团队）？\n11 答：我将25,000转给了GRG，并将20,000转给了GRG。\n12 问：如果我们继续——\n13 答：抱歉，是200转给GRG。\n14 问：200,000。\n15 如果我们翻到5月——\n16 法庭：\n那是Team 1？\n17 证人：\n是。\n18 由格雷姆先生进行：\n19 问：而Cyber Solutions——\n20 答：GRG是用于向Team 1付款的中间通道。\n21 问：而Cyber Solutions那笔钱，您没有向其他人支付，对吗？\n22 \n23 答：是。\n24 问：那笔钱用于支付什么？\n25 答：那是用于支付我本人在该项目中投入的时间、努力以及\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n风险。\n问：那并不只是您的纯利润，对吗？\n答：不是。\n问：然后，如果您翻到2018年6月——\n格雷姆先生：能否向前翻？实际上，我翻得太远了。翻到5月。\n问：您看到有15,000转给GRG吗？\n答：是。\n问：那笔钱去了哪里？\n答：那是用于支付一笔未结账单。\n问：这是我们此前谈到的律师费账单吗？\n答：是。\n问：现在我们可以翻到6月。50,000转给沃洛普女士写作OE的对象。您当时是否因OA收到50,000？\n答：通过我当时拥有的一家名为Oceanic Advisors（海洋顾问公司）的有限责任公司。\n问：那笔钱用于什么？\n答：那是用于结束与Team 1的安排，以使他们接受那是合同安排的终结。\n问：抱歉，您当时为何必须向Team 1付款？\n答：因为我们突然结束了——第二个月的款项突然将不再支付。他们非常不满和愤怒。他们觉得自己受骗了。因此，这是为了结清他们的索赔，以便他们不会披露该项目的存在。\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒 — 再次直接询问\n1 问：\n现在让我问您——我将——谢谢您，沃勒博士。\n2 我只想非常简要地转到您就查夫先生（Mr. Chuff）问您的欺诈索赔所作的证言。\n4 您是否记得昨天作证称，美国与中国之间某人的密切关系，本身不足以引发对其异见人士身份的担忧？\n7 答：\n是。\n8 问：\n我刚才的表述准确吗？\n9 答：\n是。\n10 问：\n您表示还需要有其他因素。您记得吗？\n12 答：\n是。\n13 问：\n那项其他因素是什么？\n14 答：\n是这些关系的性质以及这些关系背后的意图。\n16 问：\n那么，我不想逐一讨论我们的全部证据，我只想用一个例子，沃勒博士。\n18 您记得有人问过您2017年5月郭文贵与中国共产党（CCP）政策层和中华人民共和国（PRC）的一些成员之间的会面？\n21 答：\n是。\n22 问：\n在合同签署之前，您如何得知此事？\n24 答：\n郭先生告诉我的。\n25 问：\n是否也有媒体对此作出报道？\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒 — 再次直接询问\n1 答：是。\n2 问：郭先生就那次会面对您说了什么？\n3 答：他说，高级党务官员和秘密警察官员到他那里，以绑架威胁他。\n5 问：这是在他位于纽约市（New York City）的公寓内？\n6 答：是。\n7 问：您是否看到他多次、多次提出过该说法？\n9 答：是。\n10 问：那么，在您签订合同之前，您只听到了郭先生对该事件的说法，对吗？\n12 答：是。\n13 问：您后来是否发现——顺便问一下，您是否记得郭先生说他有一些录音？\n15 答：是。\n16 问：您后来是否实际找到了一些录音，并查看了其文字记录？\n18 答：是。\n19 问：当您说还需要其他因素时，您是否在审阅那些录音时发现了该其他因素？\n21 答：是。\n22 问：那是什么？\n23 答：那并非针对郭先生的威胁；他用自己的声音表示，他已与共产党达成协议，并且他会将其举报活动限制于某些目标，而且他没有越过他此前与共产党人约定的某条界线。\n4 问：\n而且，继续谈其他因素这个主题，您是否看到郭先生在2017年5月之后的任何其他录音中说过类似的话？\n7 答：\n是。在2017年8月底，他有一份书面声明，随后他录制了一段自己的视频，宣称他效忠中国共产党并亲自效忠习近平主席（Chairman Xi Jinping）。\n11 格雷姆先生：\n谢谢。没有其他问题了，沃勒博士。\n13 法庭：\n是否有再次交叉询问？\n14 查夫先生：\n有，法官大人。\n15 法庭：\n您可以进行。\n16 再次交叉询问\n17 由查夫先生进行：\n18 问：\n下午好，沃勒博士。\n19 那么，今天早些时候，您作证称您信任韩连潮；这正确吗？\n21 答：\n是。\n22 问：\n并且他可信？\n23 答：\n是。\n24 问：\n在本案中，您出席了韩连潮的证言记录程序；对吗？\n\n1 答：\n抱歉？\n2 问：\n您出席了本案中韩连潮的证言记录程序；对吗？\n4 答：\n是。\n5 问：\n那么，今天早些时候，您多次将韩连潮描述为郭先生的帮手。您记得吗？\n7 答：\n是。\n8 问：\n并且您称他为郭先生的代理人？\n9 答：\n是。\n10 问：\n那么，您是否记得韩连潮实际上作证称，他仅仅充当双方之间的中间人，并非郭先生的代理人？\n13 答：\n是。嗯，让我纠正一下。我得先看看确切措辞。\n15 问：\n那么，您记得这一点吗？\n16 答：\n我无法具体回忆起，因而无法给您肯定或否定的回答。\n17 当然。\n问：\n好的。\n18 格雷姆先生：\n那么，请出示韩连潮2019年8月28日的证言记录文字稿，并翻到第160页。\n20 问：\n那么，韩连潮被问道：“您在这里的角色是什么？您认为自己是双方之间的中间人，还是郭先生的代表？”\n23 韩连潮回答：“我认为我是促进这个项目的人。我是双方的朋友。我在其中没有经济利益。我的全部动机都出于\n1 政治议程。因此，我只是想把事情办成，您知道，实现我们说过要做的事情。就是这样。”\n3 我读得正确吗？\n4 答：\n是。\n5 问：\n现在，您还作证称，韩连潮告诉您Strategic Vision向Eastern交付的USB驱动器是“很好的线索”；这正确吗？\n8 答：\n是。\n9 问：\n事实上，您作证称他说那些内容很棒；这正确吗？\n11 答：\n不是。他说我们正在形成的信息——线索——很棒。他并非特指驱动器中的信息。\n14 问：\n我想请您再次参阅韩连潮的证言记录文字稿，这次是第275页。我将从第15行开始。韩先生被问道：“让我再试一次。请看第二页第一完整段落，其中写道：‘承包方将在第一个月每周制作一份关于财务法务研究的进展报告，在第一个月制作一份初步报告，并在三个月内制作一份全面的历史研究报告，且在其后每个月制作更新报告。客户可要求在特定期限内就客户指定的每个个别对象提供报告，以及提供所有相关数据。’您看到了吗？”\n25 他回答：“是。”\nL4KKEAS3 沃勒 — 再次交叉询问 第243页\n\n随后，他被问道：“我再问您一次。Strategic Vision是否在协议第一个月内交付了每周报告？”\n\n他回答：“没有。”\n\n随后，他被问道：“如果您再往下看，该页写道：‘承包方将在第一个月内按周、此后按月就客户指定的每个个别对象制作社交媒体研究，但客户指示需要更频繁报告的情况（每周或每两周一次），或者承包方可能发现的不定期紧急情况除外。’您看到了吗？”\n\n韩先生回答：“嗯哼。”\n\n随后，他被问道：“Strategic Vision是否在协议第一个月内交付了有关社交媒体研究的每周报告？”\n\n而他回答：“没有。”\n\n再往下一些，他被问道：“如果您再看该页中部，我们现在在第6页，中间段落写道：‘承包方应按月就客户指定的每个个别对象制作同步追踪研究，但第一个月除外。如客户指示需要更频繁报告（每周或每两周一次）的情况，该每周报告应在最长六个月期间内交付。’您看到了吗？”\n\n他回答：“是。”\n\n随后，他被问道：\n“在协议的第一个月期间，Strategic Vision（战略愿景）是否就每名调查对象的追踪研究每周提交报告？”\n\n他回答：\n“没有。”\n\n随后，他被问道：\n“好的。Strategic Vision 是否曾向 Eastern Profit（东方利润）交付过一个装有数据的 60-gigabyte 硬盘？”\n\n他回答：\n“是。”\n\n现在看第278页。他被问道：\n“硬盘上有什么？”\n\n他回答：\n“有很多垃圾信息。”\n\n随后，他被问道：\n“其中是否有任何信息属于 Eastern Profit 根据本协议所预期的那种有用报告？”\n\n他回答：\n“没有。”\n\n沃勒博士，我刚才读的都正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：稍微换个话题：今天早些时候，你作证称，你告诉韩连潮（Lianchao Han），由于调查对象名单中的个人具有所谓的受记录保护身份，Allied Special Operations Group（联合特别行动组，ASOG）无法对其进行调查；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：如果我仅提及第二组，你是否会理解我指的是 ASOG？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区庭审记录公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，在第二组告诉你调查对象名单中的个人受记录保护之前，你此前从未听说过这个术语；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：除 ASOG，即第二组，告诉你的内容外，你不知道受记录保护身份的法律依据；对吗？\n\n答：不对。\n\n问：你并非首先从 ASOG 了解到受记录保护身份及其法律渊源？\n\n答：我首先是从 ASOG 了解到的。\n\n问：而且，你没有任何文件证明这些调查对象具有所谓的受记录保护身份，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是的，你没有文件？\n\n答：不，我有。\n\n问：该文件是否已在本诉讼中提交？\n\n答：是，已提交。\n\n问：是哪一份文件？\n\n答：是在 ASOG 的二月份发票上——\n\n问：好的。抱歉，沃勒博士，我插话了。\n\n法庭：证人当时仍在作答。\n\n问：你可以答完。抱歉。\n\n答：是在 ASOG 的发票上，即2018年2月发票的第2页。\n\n问：那么，除 ASOG 在其发票上所写的内容外，你是否还有任何其他关于受记录保护身份指定的文件？\n\n答：只有他们告诉我的内容，而我被指示不得在法庭上重复。\n\n问：对。我们现在仅讨论文件。因此，除那份发票外，还有其他文件吗？\n\n答：那是唯一的文件。\n\n问：但你的主张是，获取这些信息是非法的，对吗？\n\n答：这是别人告诉我们的。\n\n问：然而，第二组不知何故积累了所有这些可采取行动的信息宝库；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，ASOG 是否违法了？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：那么，你作证称获取这些信息是非法的，不是吗？\n\n答：这是非法的——将其转交是非法的。他们显然是合法取得的；只是不能合法地将其转交出去。\n\n问：先生，你早些时候作证称，这些个人调查对象受记录保护，获取有关他们的信息是非法的；对吗？\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒——复交叉询问\n\n答：如果你知道他们是 RP，获取该信息就是非法的。他们取得了该信息，随后被警告这些人是 RP。因此，就我而言，我不知道有任何违法行为。将其交给我是非法的，而进一步转交是否也会违法——我不知道。因此，我回去告诉客户，这是非法的，请给我关于该如何处理的指示。\n\n问：那么我们把这分开来看。你刚刚确认，获取有关受记录保护当事人的信息是非法的；对吗？\n\n答：按照向我解释的方式，他们将被指定为 RP 的材料转交给我是非法的。\n\n问：我知道。我们几秒钟前刚讨论过。你作证称，你确认——按照你的理解，获取有关被指定为受记录保护的调查对象的信息是非法的？\n\n答：该事务所将 RP 信息交给我，也就是允许我取得 RP 信息，是非法的。\n\n问：好的。你是否有关于这一受记录保护身份指定的引证？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你是否知道有哪一部法规规定了这一受记录保护指定？\n\n答：没有。\n\n共243页\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒——复交叉询问\n\n问：有编纂成文的联邦规章吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：而且，尽管 ASOG 显然不知何故取得了这一整套信息宝库并提供给你，它并未就此向你收费？\n\n答：它只就此收取了象征性费用。\n\n问：尽管它拥有其向你展示的所有这些信息？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，它也没有向你收取 $200,000 的启动成本，对吗？\n\n答：没有。它是一个独立的研究组织，已经拥有自己的团队和自己的方法。\n\n问：今天早些时候，你还作证称，你告诉 Yvette Wang（王悦特），第一组告诉你第一组在调查期间遇到的各种问题。你记得作过这样的证词吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你今天花了很多时间谈这个问题，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但在你的证言录取中，你作证称，第一组没有遇到任何非属正常的问题。你记得吗？\n\n答：是。出现不规则情况总是正常的。\n\n问：抱歉，目前没有待答的问题。\n\n法庭：现在，你可以完成你的回答，沃勒博士。\n\n证人：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n答：答案是，在启动一个复杂的研究项目时，你将——很可能会遇到重大困难，这是正常的，也是可以预期的。\n\nCHUFF 先生询问：\n\n问：好的。正常并不等于不规则，对吗？\n\n答：是的，等于。就进度安排而言，这是不规则情况。\n\n问：正常和不规则是一回事？\n\n答：在进行复杂研究项目时，发现困难被认为是正常的，就如同你在构建一个法律案件时一样。\n\n问：好的。\n\n答：好的。因此，你——不过，就进度而言，这确实是不规则的。它将导致进度安排出现不规则情况。\n\n问：好的。我的问题是：正常是否等同于不规则？\n\n答：并非按你试图暗示的含义。预期会出现不规则情况是正常的。\n\n问：此外，今天早些时候，你作证称，研究协议中的预付款不可退还；正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：但研究协议中没有任何地方这样写，对吗？\n\n共243页\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒——复交叉询问\n\n答：协议写的是——嗯，我得把研究协议放在我面前看一下。\n\n问：我们马上可以调出来，但你是否记得——\n\n答：我不想仅凭记忆依赖该文件。我宁愿看一下该文件。\n\n问：当然。我们可以调出来。\n\nCHUFF 先生：请调出 PX 01。\n\n问：那么，你可以花尽可能多的时间。请指出其中写明预付款不可退还的条款。\n\n答：其中写道：“客户将在签署合同时向承包方支付 U.S. $1 million 的预付款。该预付款将按比例抵扣合同最后一个又三分之一月的费用。”\n\n问：并抵扣已完成工作的费用？\n\n答：抵扣合同最后一个又三分之一月的费用。\n\n问：抵扣已完成工作的费用？\n\n答：该句的表述就是其表述的内容。\n\n问：好的。这并没有写不可退还，对吗？\n\n答：它写的是，该款项将抵扣合同最后一个又三分之一月的费用。\n\n法庭：你真的需要花时间就一份文件写了什么来交叉询问证人吗？为什么不继续往下问。\n\n问：而且，研究协议中没有任何地方规定支付启动成本？\n\n答：抱歉，你的问题是什么意思？\n\n问：研究协议是否规定应向 Strategic 支付启动成本？\n\n答：这是我们与郭先生（Mr. Guo）的具体明确共识，这就是 Strategic 要求最初 $1 million 预付款的原因。\n\n问：只是该协议中没有明确规定？\n\n答：协议中甚至没有郭先生的名字。\n\n问：而且，你昨天承认该预付款不是签约奖金；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：现在，你今天早些时候还作证称，研究协议规定无论履约情况如何，均收取固定 $750,000 费用；对吗？\n\n答：再看一下文件。\n\n问：可是，你今天不是这样作证的吗？\n\n答：再看一下文件。\n\n问：不。我只是问，这是否是你的证词？\n\n答：这是每月固定 $750,000 的费用。这是为吸收任何异常情况而设定的固定费率。\n\n问：现在，你昨天作证称，付款与交付成果挂钩，除非提供交付成果，否则不应付款。你记得自己这样作证吗？\n\n答：不，我不记得自己作过那样的证词。\n\nCHUFF 先生：如果可以，请翻到昨天的庭审记录，第194页。\n\n共243页\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒——复交叉询问\n\n法庭：律师，请你尽量确保你的口罩调整妥当，使其不会脱落。\n\nCHUFF 先生：是。\n\n194页。\n\nCHUFF 先生询问：\n\n问：所以，昨天我问道：“现在，如果没有向 Strategic 提供交付成果，根据研究协议就不应付款”；正确吗？\n\n答：我相信我今天上午在证词中已经纠正了这一点。我昨天是基于错误记忆这样说的，并非直接根据协议阅读。因此，我今天上午较早时的证词已准确处理了这个问题。\n\n问：好的。那么我们把这个放下，来看另一份文件。\n\nCHUFF 先生：我们来看 PX 19。实际上，是 PX 18，抱歉。\n\n问：现在，沃勒博士，你早些时候作证称，这些是你的手写笔记，正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，它们详细记载了你就这份研究协议的经历；正确吗？\n\n答：它们详细记载了促成该协议形成的会议，以及之后的执行情况。\n\n问：好的。\n\nCHUFF 先生：请翻到第9页。\n\nL4KKEAS3\n沃勒——复交叉询问\n\n问：现在，沃勒博士，我请你注意那里的第一行。你看到上面写着12月10日吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是2017年12月10日吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在研究协议签署前不久？\n\n答：是。\n\nCHUFF 先生：请向下滚动到该页底部附近。就在那里，很好。\n\n问：现在，在这一页上，你只是概括描述了正在谈判的某些条款；正确吗？\n\n答：有一些想法正在讨论。我不记得它们全都是正在谈判的条款。\n\n问：好的。你看到本页倒数第五行了吗？\n\n答：嗯。\n\n问：你写道：“一次性首付款。未来以交付成果为基础。”我读得正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nCHUFF 先生：请转到下一页，第10页。\n\n证人：那是12月10日？那是——我看不到文件的日期。\n\n问：是。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：标题处就是这样写的。或者说，在最上面一行。\n\n1 您看到了吗？\n\n2 答：看到了。\n\n3 问：好的。\n\n4 CHUFF（查夫）先生：那么，请转到第 10 页。\n\n5 再往下一点。就在那儿。\n\n6 问：从被删节的部分往上数四行，\n\n7 您看到写着“Will pay”的那一行了吗？\n\n8 答：看到了。\n\n9 问：所以您写道：“Will pay down payment first. Remainder upon\n\n10 delivery. Give a line item for A, B, and C.”\n\n11 我读得对吗？\n\n12 答：对。\n\n13 问：而且这正是合同中发生的情况，对吗？\n\n14 有 A、B 和 C 三个细目；对吗？\n\n15 答：嗯，您——在您问我的这个部分中，\n\n16 有两件不同的事情。\n\n17 问：我现在只是问您：在研究协议中，\n\n18 有 A、B 和 C 三项定价细目？\n\n19 答：是，三个细目。\n\n20 CHUFF先生：请调出 PX 01。\n\n21 请转到第 4 页，第六段。\n\n22 问：所以这就是 A、B、C 细目，对吗？上面写着——\n\n23 答：我看不见上面整块内容。\n\n24 问：抱歉？\n\n25 答：是光标所在的位置，还是那些字母所在的位置？\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller（沃勒）—再次交叉询问\n\n1 问：那三个字母，它们被高亮显示了。\n\n2 答：好的。\n\n3 问：您看到了吗？\n\n4 这些就是刚才\n\n5 在笔记中提到的三个细目，对吗？\n\n6 答：是。\n\n7 问：它们写着：“Comprehensive”——\n\n8 答：嗯，让我更正一下。它们可能是，也可能不是\n\n9 笔记中的三个细目，因为我们当时在笔记中还只是\n\n10 讨论如何把这件事整合起来。所以我不能\n\n11 断定这些内容是否直接对应于\n\n12 我们当时在笔记中仍在讨论的假设情况。\n\n13 问：好的。笔记中说要有 A、B 和 C 的细目？\n\n14 答：对。但我不知道笔记中的 A、B 和 C\n\n15 是否对应于本证物中的 A、B 和 C。\n\n16 问：那么合同中写着 A、B 和 C？\n\n17 答：是。\n\n18 问：第一项写着：“Comprehensive historical\n\n19 reports: 300,000 per report, tracking reports”？\n\n20 答：或者每年相当于一份报告。请把\n\n21 这一点说完整。\n\n22 问：当然。\n\n23 “B. Tracking reports: \\$300,000 per report or report\n\n24 equivalent per year.”我读得对吗？\n\n25 答：对。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n\n1 问：“Social media reports: \\$300,000 per report (or\n\n2 report-equivalent) per year.”我读得对吗？\n\n3 答：对。\n\n4 问：现在，如果财务安排只是无论如何每月 \\$750,000，\n\n5 用于 30 个单元，那么为什么合同中会有这种表述？\n\n6 \n\n7 答：这是为了说明客户所寻求的是何种性质的报告，\n\n8 即在\n\n9 一年期间内应完成的报告性质。\n\n10 问：报告的性质？\n\n11 答：是。\n\n12 问：但上面写的是每份报告 \\$300,000？\n\n13 答：是，每份报告每——正如合同其他部分\n\n14 所规定的那样。\n\n15 CHUFF先生：好的，我们可以取消显示该证物。\n\n16 证人：按固定费率每月支付。\n\n17 CHUFF先生继续询问：\n\n18 问：现在，您今天上午还就研究结果的时间安排作了证。\n\n19 您记得吗？\n\n20 答：记得。\n\n21 问：而且您作证说，没有人预计在第一个月内会有可付诸行动的研究成果。\n\n22 您记得吗？\n\n23 答：我希望看到书面文字，而不是由您\n\n24 转述我所说的话。\n\n25 问：那么您可以用您自己的话说。您作证说，\n\n1 第一个月内不会有什么？\n\n2 答：我作了我所作的证言，但会有——\n\n3 您何不试着换一种说法来问这个问题。\n\n4 问：当然。\n\n5 那么，您作证说，没有人预计第一个月内会有\n\n6 高质量的信息？\n\n7 答：完整的高质量信息，对。\n\n8 问：但是昨天——\n\n9 法庭：您所作出的区分是\n\n10 完整的高质量信息与高质量信息之间有什么区别？\n\n11 证人：这是质量与数量的区别。因此，如果\n\n12 我们发现，例如，我们在数字领域找到了\n\n13 一条金矿脉，知道我们已找到了一个高质量目标，但我们尚未\n\n14 能够挖掘出足够的数量，构成\n\n15 我们希望产出的那种数量的高质量材料。\n\n16 所以这表明我们发现了有希望的线索，随后我们可以\n\n17 对其进行挖掘。\n\n18 法庭：谢谢。\n\n19 证人：谢谢。\n\n20 CHUFF先生继续询问：\n\n21 问：但您明白郭先生想在第一个月就获得\n\n22 可付诸行动的信息；对吗？\n\n23 答：不。他想要的是一项为期三年的行动，他可以利用\n\n24 相关信息，这需要时间来积累，但他\n\n25 会在最初 90 天内获得一些内容。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n\n1 CHUFF先生：好的。请回到 PX 18。\n\n2 另外，作为程序性事项，我提出将 PX 18 作为\n\n3 证据。\n\n4 法庭：对笔记的真实性\n\n5 是否有异议？\n\n6 GREIM（格雷姆）先生：法官阁下，抱歉，我不愿这么说，\n\n7 但我手头没有立即拿到它。我通常会看到它\n\n8 被显示出来。PX 18 是那些笔记吗？\n\n9 法庭：我理解为没有异议？\n\n10 GREIM先生：没有，对真实性或\n\n11 证据基础均无异议。\n\n12 法庭：好的。予以接纳，但可另行提出删除动议。\n\n13 \n\n14 （原告证物 18 作为证据接纳）\n\n15 CHUFF先生：法官阁下，我记得昨天我没有\n\n16 正式提出 DX 23。那是沃勒博士与 Yvette（伊维特）之间的短信往来。\n\n17 我现在提出该证物。\n\n18 法庭：同样予以接纳，但可另行提出\n\n19 删除动议。\n\n20 （被告证物 23 作为证据接纳）\n\n21 CHUFF先生：现在请转到 PX 18 第 1 页，\n\n22 谢谢。\n\n23 CHUFF先生继续询问：\n\n24 问：那么，沃勒博士，我请您看该页顶部。\n\n25 上面写着，“11/21 [MG]”，Miles Guo（郭文贵）。我读得\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n\n1 对吗？\n\n2 答：对。\n\n3 问：如果您看第 1 点，您用引号写道：“I\n\n4 want now immediately information.”\n\n5 答：对。\n\n6 问：那是郭先生告诉您的内容，对吗？\n\n7 答：那是带引号的逐字原话。\n\n8 CHUFF先生：也请转到本文件第 15 页。\n\n9 看该页靠近底部的地方。\n\n10 问：您写道：“First month is critical for quality of\n\n11 information”；对吗？\n\n12 答：对。\n\n13 CHUFF先生：我们可以取消显示 PX 18。\n\n14 证人：质量，不是数量，而是质量。\n\n15 CHUFF先生继续询问：\n\n16 问：合同本身设想在第一个月的数周内以及在月末\n\n17 提交报告，对吗？\n\n18 答：是。现在，这些具体是原始数据报告，\n\n19 用引号括起，并非分析性或叙述性报告。\n\n20 问：但这符合合同条款？\n\n21 答：是。\n\n22 问：而且它们只能通过 USB 驱动器交付，对吗？\n\n23 答：是。\n\n24 CHUFF先生：请调出 DX 20，第 1 页。\n\n25 问：现在，沃勒博士，这是一份您今天上午早些时候与格雷姆先生\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n\n1 一起审阅过一段时间的文件。您记得吗？\n\n2 答：记得。\n\n3 问：我相信这是您与 Yvette Wang（王伊维特）之间的短信；\n\n4 对吗？\n\n5 答：是，看起来是。\n\n6 问：我们不必具体援引它，但在这里，\n\n7 您谈到研究团队在本文件中\n\n8 显然经历的一些延误，并将其转达给\n\n9 王伊维特；对吗？\n\n10 答：是。我们已经口头讨论过，然后这只是\n\n11 在另一次讨论后写下来的。\n\n12 问：好的。这份文件的日期是 January 30th, 2018？\n\n13 答：对。\n\n14 问：到那时，您已经在为 Eastern Profit（东方利润）终止合同\n\n15 作准备了，对吗？\n\n16 答：不。\n\n17 问：不？\n\n18 CHUFF先生：请转到 PX 18。\n\n19 请滚动到第 25 页。我想是在\n\n20 该页中部。\n\n21 问：那么，沃勒博士，我请您看那里的下划线文字。\n\n22 您会看到，上面写着“1/26”。那是 January 26th, 2018，\n\n23 对吗？\n\n24 答：对。\n\n25 问：您写道，“Prep for termination on train”；这\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n\n1 对吗？\n\n2 答：不。\n\n3 问：那写的是什么？\n\n4 答：“Prep for transcription on train.”\n\n5 问：转录？那上面不是写着终止？\n\n6 答：写的是转录。\n\n7 问：嗯，在那一行下面——\n\n8 答：T-r-a-n-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-o-n。\n\n9 问：好的。那么，转录什么？\n\n10 答：我们所掌握的任何口头材料的转录。\n\n11 问：好的。那么，在那一行显然写着\n\n12 转录的文字下面，列有您声称在本次研究调查中\n\n13 发生的所有问题；对吗？\n\n14 答：对。\n\n15 问：所以，您是在罗列 Strategic（战略）未能履行本协议的\n\n16 借口；对吗？\n\n17 答：不。\n\n18 问：理由？\n\n19 答：理由。\n\n20 问：好的。而且该文件日期为 January 26th，在我们刚才\n\n21 查看的发给王伊维特的短信之前？\n\n22 答：对。\n\n23 问：现在，昨天您承认，研究协议\n\n24 并未载有郭先生反中国共产党的陈述。您记得吗？\n\n25 答：该协议未提及中国、中国共产党或\n\n共 243 页\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n\n1 郭先生。\n\n2 问：好的。而且今天，您作证说，原因是\n\n3 保密方面的顾虑，对吗？\n\n4 答：对。\n\n5 问：您不希望合同泄露出去？\n\n6 答：对。\n\n7 问：对。\n\n8 但合同并未公开，对吗？\n\n9 答：我们没有公开该合同。\n\n10 问：您拟定合同后删除了电子版本，\n\n11 对吗？\n\n12 答：我在一块加密的外置驱动器上保存了一份电子版本。\n\n13 \n\n14 问：加密的外置驱动器？\n\n15 答：是。\n\n16 问：而且它没有通过电子邮件发送？\n\n17 答：没有。\n\n18 问：因此，任何地方都没有未加密的电子副本？\n\n19 答：据我所知没有。\n\n20 问：但您没有坚持要求加入郭先生反中国共产党的陈述，\n\n21 是出于保密方面的顾虑，即担心合同会\n\n22 泄露出去？\n\n23 答：不，这只是我们双方都想要的事情的自然结果。我们\n\n24 双方都希望实现相同的目标。\n\n25 问：自然结果就是不坚持要求作出您认为对该协议具有实质重要性的\n\n1 陈述？\n\n2 答：您能重复一下问题吗？\n\n3 CHUFF先生：可以，抱歉，您能否重复\n\n4 沃勒博士刚才的回答？\n\n5 （宣读记录）\n\n6 问：所以，不坚持要求作出您声称对整个安排具有实质重要性的陈述，\n\n7 是自然而然的？\n\n8 答：对。当你们有共同的事业时，你不一定\n\n9 要陈述同一个共同事业。这有点可笑。\n\n10 问：现在，沃勒博士，您记得今天上午早些时候\n\n11 您和格雷姆先生谈到 Elliott Broidy（艾略特·布罗伊迪）吗？\n\n12 答：记得。\n\n13 问：格雷姆先生提到了认罪答辩，但没有给您看\n\n14 该文件？\n\n15 答：没有什么？\n\n16 问：没有给您看？\n\n17 答：对。\n\n18 问：现在，您是否在宣誓后作证称，艾略特·布罗伊迪与中国共产党没有\n\n19 任何关联或隶属关系？\n\n20 答：我在宣誓后作证称，我不知道艾略特·布罗伊迪与中国共产党有任何\n\n21 不当关联或隶属关系。\n\n22 问：好的。我问的是任何关联。\n\n23 答：我刚才已经告诉您了。\n\n24 问：不。您说的是“不当”。我问的是，您是否知悉——您是否在\n\n25 宣誓后作证称您不知道任何——撤回。\n\n1 问：您是否在宣誓后作证称，艾略特·布罗伊迪在任何方面均未与中国共产党\n\n2 有关联或隶属关系？\n\n3 答：我在宣誓后作证称，我不知道艾略特·布罗伊迪与任何中国共产党人员\n\n4 有任何关联。\n\n5 问：隶属关系呢？\n\n6 答：这——让我告诉您为什么这是一个难以\n\n7 回答的问题，因为在国际商业或\n\n8 政治圈子里，你会认识非常多的人，这就像说\n\n9 我一定与郭文贵勾结，因为我正在与他的律师交谈。\n\n10 这只是关系性质的问题。因此，我确实无法诚实地评论\n\n11 您试图问到的内容。我无法\n\n12 按您所提问的方式直接作答。\n\n13 问：我在记录中、在宣誓后问您，您是否知道\n\n14 艾略特·布罗伊迪是否以任何方式与中国共产党有关联或隶属关系？\n\n15 答：对，我不知道。\n\n16 问：同样的问题，但这次是关于中华人民共和国，即 PRC？\n\n17 答：对。\n\n18 问：同样的回答？\n\n19 答：是。\n\n第243页（共243页）\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller（沃勒）—再次交叉询问\n问：现在，昨天您作证称，您知道“Elliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）”—我引述一下—“承认与中国合作，促使Guo Wengui（郭文贵）被驱逐出境。”引述完毕。您记得吗？\n答：记得。\n问：但您说您不知道中国共产党的参与性质。您记得自己这样说过吗？\n答：记得。我当时面前没有任何文件，只是依据我对媒体报道的记忆，而这些报道彼此之间可能有所不同。因此，我没有文件可供查看。\n问：好的。但您记得自己作过该证词吗？\n答：记得我说过那样的话，但我今天要更正我的评论。\n问：明白。\nCHUFF先生（查夫）：请调出DX 71。实际上，抱歉，我想应该是PX 71。\n问：现在，Waller博士，这是Elliott Broidy的认罪答辩。如果您能翻到第1页，我相信您今天已经就此作证，但在标题1之下——实际上，您知道，抱歉，让我们翻到顶部。\n法庭：律师，这看起来是由Broidy先生签署的认罪协议，而不是其实际认罪答辩的庭审记录；我说得对吗？\nCHUFF先生：请让我确认一下，法官阁下。\n\n第243页（共243页）\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n法庭：我认为您应当为记录和证人正确识别该文件。\nCHUFF先生：是的。抱歉，法官阁下。\nCHUFF先生继续询问：\n问：这是Elliott Broidy的认罪协议，正确吗？\n答：您是在问我吗？\n问：是。\n答：我不知道。我以前从未见过这份文件。\n问：好的。那么，如果我们能翻到第1页，您看到第一行写着：“本函载明向您的当事人Elliott Broidy（以下简称您的当事人或被告人）提出的完整且全面的认罪要约”吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：因此，您将理解，若本函提及您的当事人或被告人，指的就是Elliott Broidy？\n答：是。\n问：如果您看标题1，其中写道：“您的当事人同意就一份控告您的当事人串谋担任未登记外国委托人代理人的起诉书认罪，违反18, U.S.C., Section 371。”您看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：这就是您今天上午所作证的内容，正确吗？\n答：嗯，我没有看过这份文件，因此我并非就这份文件作证。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n问：您是在就他的认罪答辩作证？\n答：是。\n问：并且是就其承认违反该法条认罪，正确吗？\n答：我不知道该法条的名称。\n问：即他违反了FARA？\n答：是，我知道这一点，但我不知道该条款编号。\n问：好的。接着，如果我们翻到第2页，在标题2“事实约定”之下，写道：“您的当事人同意，所附犯罪事实陈述公平且准确地描述了您的当事人的行为及其参与其认罪所涉犯罪的情况。”您看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：如果我们翻到第12页，您可以看到Elliott Broidy在此签字，并接受了这项认罪要约？\n答：是。\n问：接着，如果我们翻到第13页第2段——实际上，在此之前，我想问您：中国共产党是目前掌管中华人民共和国的政党，对吗？\n答：是。\n问：并且在研究协议签署之前就是如此？\n答：是。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n答：是。\n问：因此，在该期间内，政府部长必然是中国共产党党员；这正确吗？\n答：是。\nCHUFF先生：请翻到第13页。是的，没错。\n问：在第2段，我将其读入记录：“在大致相同期间”——\nCHUFF先生：我想我们应当翻到第1段。\n问：那么第1段写道：“自不晚于2017年3月起至至少2018年1月前后。”我读得正确吗？\n答：页面滚动得太快了。\nCLINE女士（克莱恩）：抱歉。\n问：我再读一遍。“自不晚于2017年3月起至至少2018年1月前后。”我对该期间读得正确吗？\n答：是。\n问：好的。如果我们向下滚动至第2段，内容为：“在大致相同期间，Broidy、Davis（戴维斯）和A某还同意游说政府及DOJ（美国司法部），代表外国国民A安排将在美国居住的中华人民共和国公民、中国国民A遣离并送回中华人民共和国。”您看到了吗——首先，我读得正确吗？\n\n答：基本上是的。\n问：我哪里读错了吗？\n答：可能有一两个词，但我不反对您读的方式。\n问：好的。您看到中华人民共和国被定义为PRC了吗？\n答：是。\n问：下一句写道：“其中包括倡导安排PRC部长A与美国政府官员会面”？\n答：是。\nCHUFF先生：接着，如果我们能翻到第20——28段，抱歉，二八。\n问：该段写道：“2017年5月18日前后，Broidy、Davis和A某前往PRC，并在那里会见外国国民A和PRC部长A。PRC部长A要求Broidy利用其对美国高级政府官员的影响力，倡导将中国国民A遣离并送回PRC。PRC部长A还表示，他将很快访问Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），并且在安排与某些美国高级政府官员会面方面遇到困难。”我读得正确吗？\n答：是。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n问：现在，其中多次提及PRC部长A；正确吗？\n答：是。\n问：并且其中提及Broidy前往会见PRC部长A，正确吗？\n答：是。\n问：而您刚才承认，要成为PRC政府部长，就必然是中国共产党党员；正确吗？\n答：是。\n问：而且这并未写道——我认为您此前作证称，他只是在与一名来自Malaysia（马来西亚）的人会面。PRC——\nGREIM先生（格雷姆）：异议，法官阁下。律师歪曲了证人先前的证词。\n法庭：您何不直接提问，不要援引先前的证词。\nCHUFF先生：我可以向对方律师询问我歪曲了什么吗？\n法庭：不可以。直接提问。\nCHUFF先生：好的。\nCHUFF先生继续询问：\n问：PRC部长A——实际上，鉴于中国共产党控制PRC，要成为政府部长，该人必须是中国共产党党员，正确吗？\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n答：是。\n问：现在，您是否理解，第8段所指的PRC部长A是Yanping Liu（刘延平）？\n答：我完全不知道。我以前从未见过这份文件。\nCHUFF先生：请调出本案中有关费用的约定，日期为——实际上，在此之前，我可以提交DX 71吗？\n法庭：好的。对真实性有异议吗？\nGREIM先生：对真实性没有异议，但对基础有异议，法官阁下。\n法庭：您是否要进一步尝试奠定基础？否则，我将暂予接收，但可依删除动议处理。\nCHUFF先生：我可以与我的同事商议吗？\n法庭：可以。您的计时正在进行。请便。\n（暂停）\nCHUFF先生：不，我们以现有记录为据。\nCHUFF先生继续询问：\n问：那么，Waller博士，我们展示了一项本案当事方Eastern Profit（东方利润）和Strategic Vision（战略愿景）达成的约定。我请您注意第2段。第2段写道：“Strategic Vision U.S., LLC（战略愿景美国有限责任公司）在本诉讼中的律师费，并非由任何现为或曾为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。”\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n问：在逗号之前，我读得正确吗？\n答：是。\n问：抱歉，您说是吗？\n答：是。这又回到我先前所说的关联和意图问题。因此，仅仅因为某人与他人会面，不能仅凭关联就认定有罪。\n问：嗯，他因与该人会面而承认犯有联邦罪行？\n答：我不认为情况是这样。\nGREIM先生：异议，法官阁下。我反对这种不当——\n法庭：异议成立。\n问：现在，Strategic自称是一家专门从事尽职调查的公司；正确吗？\n答：这是它从事的业务之一，是的。\n问：而您有很多从事研究的经验？\n答：是。\n问：您是否知道Circinus（瑟西纳斯）并非诉讼资助方？\n答：并非什么？\n问：诉讼资助方？\n答：不知道。\n问：您不知道这一点？\n答：不知道。\nGREIM先生：法官阁下，抱歉，我刚才反应慢了。我以问题含糊提出异议——诉讼资助方。\n\nL4KKEAS3 Waller—再次交叉询问 第243页（共243页）\n\n法庭：异议驳回，但我建议您尽快结束这一询问方向，因为作为事实认定者，除非您能提出很有力的内容，我认为这并非您最有力的询问方向。\nCHUFF先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\nCHUFF先生继续询问：\n问：因此，我只想问：您作了何种尽职调查，以核实Elliott Broidy是否与中国共产党或PRC有关联或隶属关系？\n答：嗯，首先，我亲自问了Broidy先生其工作性质，他说，在与那名马来西亚人士会面的情境中——其姓名我在先前展示证物滚动时看到——他试图释放被关押在中国境内的三名美国人，其中包括一名孕妇。在试图释放那三名美国人的过程中，他会见了那名官员，我相信那名官员就是该文件提到的人。因此，就我而言，这并不显示他与共产党有关联，而是显示他在努力把美国公民带回家。\n问：是。Waller博士，我只是问，您作了何种尽职调查，以确保不存在任何关联？\n\n问：是。Waller博士，我只是问，您作了何种尽职调查，以确保不存在任何关联？\n答：首先，我当面问了他。其次，我研究了他的背景及其公司的背景，\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller—再次交叉询问\n答：并且我找到了许多了解他本人的人。\n问：好的。并且——\n法庭：Waller博士，我只问您一个问题：当您描述与Broidy先生的谈话时，他是否告诉您，在试图释放那三名美国人过程中，他会见了该名人士——即您现在看到在认罪协议中被提及的人？\n证人：他没有。\nCHUFF先生：这是就此问题的最后一点。\n法庭：请继续。\nCHUFF先生：请快速调出PX 67。\nCHUFF先生继续询问：\n问：我不想在此过分纠缠。这是一篇New York Times（纽约时报）文章，标题为“Seeking Foreign Money, GOP Donor Pushed for Trump To Golf with Malaysian Premier”。您看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：您看到第四段写道：“Broidy先生还探索了另行迫使一名中国亿万富翁及异见人士Guo Wengui退出美国的计划，显然是为了取悦中国在马来西亚的盟友”吗？您看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n\n问：\n“Chinese allies（中国盟友）”是指中华人民共和国境内的人吗？\n\n答：\n文中没有说明——\n\nGREIM先生（格雷姆先生）：\n反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n反对成立。\n\n由 CHUFF先生（查夫先生）提问：\n\n问：\nWaller博士（沃勒博士），在2018年1月1日那份约定签署之前，您读过这份文件吗？\n\n答：\n没有，因为这份文件是2018年6月的——2018年4月的。\n\n问：\n对不起，该约定的日期是2020年1月31日。\n\n您是否在2020年1月31日之前读过那篇文章——即这篇文章，PX 67？\n\n答：\n我相信我是在该文章发表时读到的。\n\n问：\n好的。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n我可以和我的同事商议一下，看看是否还有其他问题吗？\n\n（暂停）\n\n由 CHUFF先生提问：\n\n问：\n关于这个问题再问一个问题，然后我们将转换话题。您是否曾读过 Elliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）的刑事起诉书？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n现在，您先前作证称，您在2018年5月因法律账单产生了 $15,000 的费用；这是否正确？\n\n答：\n我当时支付了账单。那些账单已逾期。\n\n问：\n在不披露——的情况下，何时获得了法律意见？\n\n答：\n是在1月底或2月初非常晚的时候寻求的。\n\n问：\n该律师事务所是——\n\n答：\n是 Team 1 所在国家的一家律师事务所。\n\n问：\n您知道该律师事务所的名称吗？\n\n答：\n我一下子想不起来。\n\n问：\n您向该律师事务所支付了 $15,000，但您不知道它的名称？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您有该法律账单的发票吗？\n\n答：\n有。\n\n问：\n您是否在本诉讼中提交了该发票？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n没有其他问题了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\nChuff先生，请您擦拭讲台并更换麦克风罩。\n\nCHUFF先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\nGreim先生，您是否还有进一步询问？\n\nGREIM先生：\n法官阁下，我有一个问题。\n\n法庭：\n好的。您何不等讲台擦拭完毕，除非您想从律师席提问。\n\nGREIM先生：\n法官阁下，我可以直接用这个麦克风提问。\n\n法庭：\n好的。您何不稍等片刻，等Chuff先生。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWaller - 复询\n法庭：\n并且让我作出指示，今后请各位律师注意，每次离开讲台时，都需要将其擦拭干净。\n\n您可以询问。\n\n复询（继续）\n\n由 GREIM先生提问：\n\n问：\nWaller先生，只有一个问题。我们不会再展示它，但您看过您2017年11月1日笔记的第一页。您是否记得上面有关于希望立即获得信息的陈述？\n\n答：\n记得。\n\n问：\n那么，这是您与 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）先生的第一次会面，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\nGuo先生当时是否在那次会面中告诉您，他希望您寻找的信息？\n\n答：\n他只是笼统地希望找到这些信息。\n\nGREIM先生：\n没有其他问题。\n\n法庭：\n好的。下一位证人。Waller博士，您可以离席了。非常感谢。\n\n证人：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（证人离席）\n\nCLINE女士（克莱恩女士）：\n原告传唤 Yvette Wang（王燕萍）。\n\n法庭：\nWang女士可以到证人席。\n\n我面前有被告方为Wang女士准备的审判证物。我还有一个标有“Y. Wang Outline and Exhibits”的活页夹。我尚未查看该活页夹，但看起来它并非供我使用。我也没有原告方为Wang女士准备的审判证物。CLINE女士：那么，法官阁下，我们打算与Wang女士一同使用的唯一证物是原告证物1。法庭：好的。很好。这是您的活页夹吗，Greim先生？GREIM先生：可能是，因为我的一个活页夹上也有同样的标签。法庭：好的。我们会把它还给您。Wang女士，您可以在陪审团席就座。证人：好的。法庭：陪审团席中的证人席。我将请您保持站立，并举起右手。Fishman先生（菲什曼先生），请您为证人宣誓。YAN PING WANG（王燕萍），由原告传唤作为证人，在依法宣誓后，作证如下：书记员助理：请为记录陈述您的全名。证人：Yan Ping Wang，Y-a-n P-i-n-g W-a-n-g。法庭：Wang女士，您可以坐下。您可以——\n\n坐下。请坐。\n\n证人：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n请您尽量提高音量，因为隔着口罩有时难以听清证人的声音。此外，请尽量说得缓慢、清楚，以便我和法庭记录员听清。\n\n证人：\n好的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n请稍等片刻。\n\n证人面前的那个白色活页夹是否需要？\n\nCLINE女士：\n那不是我们的。\n\n法庭：\nCline女士，您可以走开。我将请我的法警助理移走该白色活页夹。\n\nGREIM先生：\n我来拿那个白色活页夹。\n\n法庭：\n该活页夹交还给被告方律师。\n\nCline女士，您可以询问。\n\nCLINE女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n直接询问\n\n由 CLINE女士提问：\n\n问：\nWang女士，您是在美国出生的吗？\n\n答：\n不是。\n\n问：\n您何时离开中国来到美国？\n\n答：\n2015年4月。\n\n问：\n您是美国公民吗？\n\n答：\n不，我不是。\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS3\nWang - 直接询问\n\n问：\n您是否已在美国申请庇护？\n\n答：\n是的，我申请了。\n\n问：\n您何时申请的？\n\n答：\n2017年末。\n\n问：\n您的庇护申请目前处于何种状态？\n\n答：\n正在等待批准。\n\n问：\n请向我们简要介绍一下您的教育背景。\n\n答：\n我在法国毕业，获得了两个硕士学位。\n\n问：\n您的硕士学位分别属于什么专业？\n\n答：\n一个是美国文化与文明；另一个是中美关系。\n\n问：\n您是否认识一名叫 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的人？\n\n答：\n是的，我认识。\n\n问：\n您最初何时见到郭先生？\n\n答：\n2008年。\n\n问：\n您是如何认识他的？\n\n答：\n我是在公司因业务工作认识他的。\n\n问：\n在哪一家公司的？\n\n答：\n在他家族的公司。\n\n问：\n您为他工作过吗？\n\n答：\n我为其家族工作。\n\n问：\n自那以后，您一直为其家族工作吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n目前，您与郭先生互动的频率大约如何？\n\n答：\n我会在需要时见他或与他交谈，是的。\n\n问：\n例如一天十次、一年一次，大约多频繁？\n\n答：\n例如每周数次，是的。\n\n问：\n您会如何描述——抱歉。您熟悉郭先生所做工作的性质吗？\n\n答：\n是的，我熟悉。\n\n问：\n您会如何向不认识郭先生的人描述他的工作？\n\n答：\n您可以重复一下问题吗？\n\n问：\n当然可以。\n\n您会如何向不认识郭先生的人描述他每天所做的事情？\n\n答：\n哦，是的。他是领导者——他领导着整个反中国共产党揭哨运动。自2017年初以来，他几乎每天都在做这件事，每一天。\n\n问：\n当您说“揭哨运动”时，请告诉我们您指的是什么。\n\n答：\n这是郭先生于2017年1月发起的一场运动。他开始揭露和揭哨中国高级政府官员、他们的腐败以及他们在海外的非法资产。因此，他试图揭露他们的腐败，并唤醒中国政权，包括唤醒西方世界。这项运动已持续至今四年。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWang - 直接询问\n\n问：\n您是否亲眼见证过郭先生揭露中国共产党内部腐败的努力？\n\n答：\n是的，我见证过。\n\n问：\n您能否从2017年开始，更详细地描述一下这些努力？\n\n答：\n可以。从2017年1月开始，郭先生有生以来第一次开始站在摄像机前接受采访，进行直播采访和播出。此后四年间，他一直进行各种电台节目、播出和直播，在其社交媒体上累计大约超过10,000小时。此前是在 Twitter 和 YouTube 上，后来 Twitter 和 YouTube 封禁了他，随后他的家人创建了第二个社交媒体平台，此后他几乎每周都在该平台上播出。之前是每天播出，现在是每周播出，例如每周两三次。\n\n问：\n他播出的内容是什么？\n\n答：\n他只是谈论翻译或口译，揭露有关中国政权、中国共产党高级政府官员腐败、他们的交易和伎俩的内幕信息，然后解释他们如何在世界各地活动，以及那些腐败的政府官员如何也腐蚀了整个西方世界。\n\n问：\n您是否有任何理由相信郭先生实际上支持中国共产党？\n\n答：\n没有。这已经——\n\nGREIM先生：\n法官阁下，我反对询问该证人的意见。\n\n法庭：\n驳回。\n\n由 CLINE女士提问：\n\n问：\n让我再问一次。您是否有任何理由相信郭先生实际上支持中国共产党？\n\n答：\n没有，我从不相信。这很荒谬。\n\n问：\n您为什么这么说？\n\n答：\n因为郭先生一直是中国政权最大的异见人士，并且领导着整个揭哨运动。他实际上正在牺牲——他的家族牺牲了在中国大陆价值超过十亿的资产。他的家人曾被监禁，他的同事、其家族的同事和雇员也曾被监禁。\n\n法庭：\nWang女士，请容我提醒您，请说慢一点，好吗？\n\n证人：\n好的，先生。\n\n法庭：\n我将有关该意见的证词作为非专家意见证词予以采纳，因为我认为已奠定充分基础以提供非专家意见证词，但请限于其范围之内；显然，我将允许就该意见的基础进行交叉询问。\n\n继续吧，Cline女士。\n\n由 CLINE女士提问：\n\n问：\n您本人对中国共产党的看法是什么？\n\n答：\n他们是邪恶的。\n\n问：\n您为什么这么说？\n\n答：\n他们阻断了中国大陆14亿人民的整个法治、民主和言论自由。\n\n问：\n您本人是否曾与中国共产党有关联？\n\n答：\n我以前是，但我已与他们彻底切断关系。\n\n问：\n为什么？\n\n答：\n有超过9,000万中国人——中国大陆人。他们是中国共产党党员，9,000万，九零。然后，大学和学院中大多数优秀学生都被鼓励，甚至被要求加入该党，而对中国共产党知之甚少。因此，9,000万中国共产党党员中，99.9%都是好人，都是普通工人，都是普通人。他们只是工人，只是工人，是的。他们是领薪的人，而只有极少数中国高级政府官员非常腐败，然后他们绑架了全体中国人民和中国这个国家，损害他们，并伤害全世界。\n\n因此，只要我离开这个政权之外，并开始认识到这一点，我就觉醒了，所以我与——切断关系。\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWang（王）—直接询问\n\n完全地。\n\n法庭：\n王女士，再次请您尽量说慢一些。\n\n证人：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我理解，身处法庭这一环境中会感到有些陌生。请您慢慢来。我们有时间。请慢慢来，并放慢速度回答问题。\n\n证人：\n是的，法官阁下，是的。\n\n法庭：\n那么，您刚才说的是90 million还是19 million？\n\n证人：\n90，九零，million，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n由 Cline 女士（克莱恩女士）询问：\n\n问：\n是否曾有一段时间，有人向您介绍 French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）和 Michael Waller（迈克尔·沃勒）？\n\n答：\n是的。那应该是在2017年秋季。\n\n问：\n是在何种情况下向您介绍他们的？\n\n答：\n我第一次在一次会议上被介绍给 Wallop 女士和 Waller 先生，当时他们试图向 Guo 先生（郭先生）介绍并出售一处房地产。那是第一次会议。\n\n问：\n您说的是一处房地产吗？\n\n答：\n是的，一所房子。\n\n问：\n您是否出席了与他们的一次会议？\n\n答：\n是的，我出席了那次会议。\n\n问：\n好的。此后您是否参加过其他会议？\n\n答：\n是的，之后还有几次其他会议，是的。\n\n问：\n请您尽可能回忆并描述一下，在第一次有关房地产的会议之后的下一次会议上发生了什么？\n\n答：\n第一次会议之后，我记得我前往了华盛顿哥伦比亚特区和 Virginia（弗吉尼亚州）。Wallop 女士开车带我在弗吉尼亚州各处查看一些房屋和房地产，我们至少花了半天多的时间看房。此后，我记得从某个时候起，她开始与 Waller 先生一起向 Guo 先生和我介绍他们的调查公司及其能力。对此还有几次其他会议。\n\n问：\nWaller 先生和 Wallop 女士如何介绍他们的调查服务业务？\n\n答：\n他们向 Guo 先生和我介绍自己，说他们是全国最优秀、最专业、最合格的调查公司之一。他们甚至提到他们曾为政府机构工作，例如 CIA（中央情报局）或其他机构。Wallop 女士还手写了一些客户的姓名。据他们所说，那些客户是来自中东或 Russia（俄罗斯）的王室成员，以及一些大客户，以此作为向 Guo 先生和我提供的参考。总而言之，他们来找我们，并将自己介绍为全国最优秀的调查公司之一。\n\n问：\n您为什么认为他们是在讨论其调查能力？\n\n答：\n我理解，他们希望 Guo 先生或 Guo 先生的其他一些客户雇用他们。他们想获得这项业务。这是我的理解。\n\n问：\n但目的是什么？您是否理解 Guo 先生为什么可能会对他们的服务感兴趣？\n\n答：\n我知道，长期以来，Guo 先生一直非常努力地调查中国高级腐败政府官员及其资产。因此，我理解，Wallop 女士和 Waller 先生来找 Guo 先生，是试图让 Guo 先生或相关客户聘请他们的公司，调查中国政权的腐败问题。\n\n问：\n目的是什么？调查中国政权内部腐败的意义是什么？\n\n答：\n目的是调查中国高级腐败政府官员及其非法腐败资产，这些资产被他们藏匿在美国和世界各地，以便调查和找到他们，然后向有关当局报告，并鼓励或请求政府在可能的情况下对他们展开正式调查，甚至对他们提起起诉，或者将他们监禁。因此，主要目标是让他们受到惩罚。\n\n问：\n让他们受到惩罚？\n\n答：\n正是如此。\n\n问：\n您是否听说过一家名为 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）的公司？\n\n答：\n是的，听说过。\n\n问：\nEastern Profit 是否与您和 Guo 先生同 Wallop 女士及 Waller 先生讨论的调查有关？\n\n答：\nEastern Profit 这家公司最终作为客户签订了这份调查协议。\n\n问：\n那么，Eastern Profit 是如何参与进来的？\n\n答：\nEastern Profit 被提出作为其中一家公司，其负责人也受到中国共产党迫害。他们的银行账户和资产也被中国政权冻结。\n\n问：\n是否是您就这项研究——拟议中的研究——联系了 Eastern Profit？\n\n答：\n是的，是我。\n\n问：\n您是如何联系 Eastern Profit 的？\n\n答：\nWallop 女士和 Waller 先生向我介绍了这家公司，即一家调查公司。随后，Guo 先生和我都认为这是一家很好的公司，对吧，而且其人员来自华盛顿，声誉很好，是非常得体的绅士和女士，对吧，我们觉得我们终于找到了合适且有资质、能够在我们的运动中帮助我们的调查公司。\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang（王）—直接询问，第243页\n\n因此，我开始四处寻找，寻找某个当事方、某家公司或某个愿意加入这项调查项目并成为其中一部分的个人。随后，Eastern Profit 进入了我们的视野。\n\n问：\n您与 Eastern Profit 的谁进行沟通？\n\n答：\nHank Han 先生（汉克·韩）。\n\n问：\n您理解他与 Eastern Profit 有何关系？\n\n答：\n据我理解，Han 先生是 Eastern Profit 的负责人和代理人。\n\n法庭：\n请您为记录拼写一下他的姓名，可以吗？\n\n证人：\n可以，法官阁下。Hank 先生，H-a-n-k，Han，H-a-n。H-a-n 是姓氏。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n由 Cline 女士询问：\n\n问：\n王女士，他除了 Hank 之外，还有中文姓名吗？\n\n答：\n是的，他有。\n\n问：\n您也可以为我们拼写一下吗？\n\n答：\n当然可以。他的中文姓名是 Chunguang Han（韩春光），拼写为 C-h-u-n-g-u-a-n-g，姓氏为 H-a-n。\n\n问：\n您与 Han 先生就该研究提案进行的首次沟通是什么？\n\n答：\n我给他打电话，简要告诉他，我们可能找到了一家很好的公司，一家很好的调查公司，他们非常有能力，并且可能能够帮助我们调查中国腐败政府官员；我问他是否有兴趣参与其中？\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang（王）—直接询问，第243页\n\nHan 先生大致说，听起来很好，对吧，你们终于找到了能帮忙的人。我们在电话中没有分享太多细节，随后决定当面会谈细节，因为这本应保密。\n\n问：\n您和 Han 先生是否当面会面讨论了这项调查？\n\n答：\n是的，我们会面了。\n\n问：\n请您向我们描述一下那次会面。\n\n答：\n会面是在我办公楼的大堂。Han 先生来了，我们当然用普通话简短交谈，因为他不会说英语。因此，我向他介绍，我提到了这家调查公司的两名负责人，他们来自华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，是由 Guo 先生一位非常可靠且值得信赖的朋友介绍的。我们曾数次见过这两名负责人，我们相信这家调查公司非常好，并且他们能够帮助我们调查中国高级政府官员、他们的腐败行为及其腐败资产。\n\n随后，Han 先生当然信任我们，他说，让我想办法。你继续去谈，对吧，谈判一份合同和一个项目，确定你们如何推进；我需要想办法找一个当事方或一家公司，当然还包括资金保证金，因为我确实向他提到，合同要求支付$1 million作为保证金。\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang（王）—直接询问，第243页\n\n因此，Han 先生说，不，让我想办法为这个项目筹到钱，你继续推进并获取更多细节。这就是第一次谈话。\n\n问：\n好的。此后，他最终是否回来再次与您讨论该研究项目？\n\n答：\n是的，他回来了。\n\n问：\n请向我们描述那次谈话。\n\n答：\n他给我打电话，我忘了是哪一天。就是说，他打电话给我，大致表示他们同意参与。因此，他对我说，Yvette（伊薇特），你一直在处理这件事，而且你英语说得好，对吧，你明白这些；你获授权推进这份合同和这个项目，我会处理付款事宜，我们同意参与。\n\n问：\n好的。那么，为了让我们都清楚，您是否理解 Han 先生代表 Eastern Profit 授权您与 Waller 先生和 Wallop 女士谈判该协议？\n\n答：\n正确。\n\n问：\n那么，您实际上是否这样做了？\n\nL4KKEAS3\nWang（王）—直接询问\n\n答：\n是的，我这样做了。\n\n问：\nEastern Profit 和 Strategic Vision（战略愿景）最终是否签订了合同？\n\n答：\n是的，他们签订了。\n\nCline 女士：\nChuff 先生（查夫先生），请调出 PX 1。\n\n问：\n王女士，该证物应当出现在您面前的屏幕上。\n\nCline 女士：\nChuff 先生，请将该协议滚动至末尾，以便王女士能够看到。\n\n由 Cline 女士询问：\n\n问：\n那么，王女士，我想先问您：您是否认出这是 Strategic Vision 与 Eastern Profit 之间的合同？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\nCline 女士：\nChuff 先生，请回到第1页，并向下滚动至第四段。\n\n问：\n那么，这里在第四段中，合同载明如下：“承包商将按照客户自行决定选择的主题进行高质量的原创研究，并编制报告，以发现、制止和预防犯罪或对无辜民众造成的其他伤害为目的。”您看到我读的这一部分了吗？\n\n答：\n是的，看到了。\n\n问：\n您如何理解发现、制止和预防犯罪或对无辜民众造成的其他伤害？据您理解，这是在说什么？\n\nL4KKEAS3 Wang（王）—直接询问，第243页\n\n答：\n目的是尽可能调查并找出与中国高级腐败政府官员及其腐败资产有关的证据、证明和原创调查——当然是高质量的——信息。而那些资产被他们藏匿在国际上、美国以及世界其他地区。我们想要找到那些信息，报告这些信息，调查他们，请求政府调查并将他们监禁，以拯救中国人民，也就是这里所指的无辜民众。\n\nCline 女士：\n请滚动到第5页。\n\n问：\n王女士，在该页第二段中，合同提到$1 million的保证金。您看到了吗？\n\n答：\n是的，看到了。\n\n问：\n您是否理解 Eastern Profit 必须就该协议支付一笔保证金？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\nCline 女士：\n请向下滚动至第三段。\n\n问：\n有一段以“subsequent”一词开头。您看到该段了吗？\n\n答：\n是的，看到了。\n\n问：\n第二句话写道：“双方理解，客户可以指示其他实体向承包商付款，且该等付款将被视为由\n\n1 “承包商。”\n\n2 您看到了吗？\n\n3 答。\n是的，看到了。\n\n4 问。\n事实上，是否确实发生了这种情况？是否有另一实体代表 Eastern Profit（东方利润）向该承包商付款？\n\n5 \n\n6 答。\n是的，正确。\n\n7 问。\n您知道代表 Eastern Profit 支付定金的实体名称吗？\n\n8 \n\n9 答。\n是一家名为 ACA（ACA公司）的公司。\n\n10 问。\n您是否参与过与 ACA 就从其处取得款项进行沟通？\n\n11 \n\n12 答。\n我没有参与那一部分。\n\n13 问。\n您是否知道 Strategic（Strategic公司）事实上是否从 ACA 收到了那一百万美元？\n\n14 \n\n15 答。\n是的，我相信是这样。\n\n16 问。\nWallop 女士（沃洛普女士）或 Waller 先生（沃勒先生）是否曾问过您，为什么是 ACA 而不是 Eastern 存入了 $1 million？\n\n17 \n\n18 答。\n没有，他们没有问。\n\n19 问。\n当他们看到款项不是来自 Eastern 时，他们是否拒绝接受该笔付款？\n\n20 \n\n21 答。\n没有，他们没有拒绝。\n\n22 问。\n他们是否曾告诉您，由于定金来自 ACA，Strategic 将不会履行合同？\n\n23 \n\n24 答。\n他们没有提到过这一点。\n\n25 问。\n现在，我们来谈谈双方在协议项下的履行情况。\n\n1 协议。\n是否存在某些人员将成为该协议项下调查对象的情况？\n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 答。\n请您再说一遍？\n\n5 问。\n是的，抱歉，刚才问得很糟糕。\n\n6 该合同的部分目的是否是由 Strategic Vision（战略愿景）调查特定人员？\n\n7 \n\n8 正确。\n答。\n\n9 问。\nEastern 是否决定了其希望被调查人员的姓名？\n\n10 \n\n11 答。\n不是，这不是由 Eastern Profit 决定的。\n\n12 问。\n好的。\n由谁决定？\n\n13 答。\nGuo 先生（郭先生）提出了一些姓名，我也研究了一些姓名，我们共同整理出该名单。\n\n14 \n\n15 问。\n您是否知道是否向 Strategic 提供了一份姓名名单？\n\n16 \n\n17 答。\n抱歉，请您再说一遍？\n\n18 问。\n是的。\n该名单——即您和 Guo 先生共同整理的那些姓名——是否被提供给了 Strategic？\n\n19 \n\n20 答。\n正确。\n\n21 问。\n在向 Strategic 提供这些姓名之后，接下来发生了什么？\n\n22 \n\n23 法庭：\n抱歉。\n这些姓名是否被提供给了 Eastern Profit？\n\n24 \n\n25 证人：\n抱歉，法官阁下，请您再说一遍。\n\n1 您的问题是什么？\n\n2 法庭：\n该姓名名单是否被提供给了 Eastern Profit？\n\n3 \n\n4 证人：\n没有。\n该姓名名单只提供给了 Strategic Vision，法官阁下。\n\n5 \n\n6 法庭：\n好的。\n\n7 由 Cline 女士（克莱因女士）询问：\n\n8 问。\n那么，在向 Strategic Vision 提供这些姓名之后，接下来发生了什么？\n\n9 \n\n10 答。\nStrategic Vision 应当开始调查那些姓名。\n\n11 \n\n12 问。\n他们开始调查了吗？\n\n13 答。\n没有，他们没有。\n第二天，Wallop 女士和我坐下来时，我向她出示了姓名名单。\n\n14 她在其笔记本电脑上成功打开了载有姓名名单的文件。\n我和她在她位于 Virginia（弗吉尼亚州）的家中逐一查看了每个姓名。\n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 她接收了该名单，即姓名名单，然后本应立即开始进行调查。\n\n18 \n\n19 但是，不幸的是，第二天她给我打电话，告诉我她无法打开该文件。\n因此，她要求再提供一份姓名名单副本。\n\n20 \n\n21 \n\n22 问。\n您给了她第二份姓名名单副本吗？\n\n23 答。\n是的，我给了。\n\n24 问。\n您能否描述一下——仅作概括描述，不一定要说出姓名——姓名名单上的人员属于哪些类型？\n\n25 \n\n1 名单？\n\n2 答。\n姓名名单包括中国政府的副主席、中国某部委的国家安全部长，以及他们的家人，包括其妻子、子女、一些情妇和非婚生子女。\n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 问。\n在您提供第二份姓名名单之后，Strategic 是否曾提供书面报告，展示其调查结果？\n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 答。\n没有，他们没有。\n\n10 问。\n他们提供了什么？\n\n11 答。\n在我和 Guo 先生进行了几次类似追问和请求之后，他们终于来了，Waller 先生和 Wallop 女士终于来见我和 Guo 先生，并出示了一个文件夹，该文件夹在另一只 USB 闪存驱动器中，\n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 其中完全没有任何有价值、高质量的报告内容。\n基本上，第一只闪存驱动器里的内容毫无意义。\n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 \n\n18 问。\n当您和 Guo 先生看到第一只闪存驱动器的内容时，作何反应？\n\n19 \n\n20 答。\n该次会面发生在 New York（纽约）。\nWallop 女士和 Waller 先生来拜访我和 Guo 先生。\n\n21 \n\n22 他们带来一台他们称作“未使用笔记本电脑”的笔记本电脑。\n他们告诉我们，这台笔记本电脑从未连接过互联网，他们从未使用互联网，\n\n23 \n\n24 并且他们用那台笔记本电脑打开他们的闪存驱动器，开始打开他们的——我相信是一份 PDF 文件，而 Guo 先生\n\n25 王——直接询问，第243页\n\n非常失望，甚至非常震惊，因为我和他都发现其中根本没有任何调查交付成果内容。基本上，那只是关于他们计划如何开展工作的某种架构，里面的文字极为有限。\n\n因此，Guo 先生非常、非常震惊，也非常、非常失望。Waller 先生实际上开始出汗，他在出汗，脸变得非常红，然后他道歉，Wallop 女士也道歉。他们道歉，说他们与其在 Europe（欧洲）的团队负责人之间存在误解、沟通问题，并且他们发现这不是他们本应带给我们的报告。因此，那是一场午餐会面。基本上，他们两人再次道歉，一边出汗，并承认他们在调查报告上犯了错误。\n\n问。他们有没有把第一只闪存驱动器的一份副本留给您？答。没有。他们只把那台未使用笔记本电脑留给我们，然后带走了第一只闪存驱动器。15 16 17\n\n问。接下来发生了什么？\n\n答。在那次会面中，显然，Guo 先生和我都极其、极其失望。我们没有预料到，这会是来自这样一家优秀、专业调查公司的某种交付成果。因此，Waller 先生和 Wallop 女士一再道歉。他们说其团队手中有更多数据，然后 Waller 先生计划飞往 Europe 取回数据，据他所说，那些数据有 60 gigabyte 左右，然后尽快将那些数据带回给我们。19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1 他说，大约 60 gigabyte，然后尽快把那些数据带回给我们。\n因此，显然，Guo 先生和我无法再等待。\n\n2 我们立即问他，我们能否拿到那些数据。\n于是，Waller 先生如其所说飞往 Europe，然后将第二只闪存驱动器带回 New York。\n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 问。\n他是否将第二只闪存驱动器交付给您？\n\n7 答。\n是的，他交付了。\n\n8 问。\n该事发生在哪里？\n\n9 答。\n发生在 Penn Station（宾夕法尼亚车站）。\n那是在我们第一次会面、第一次令人失望的会面之后三、四天，\n\n10 因为他承诺会立即飞往 Europe 取回数据。\n所以三、四天之后，\n\n11 \n\n12 他说他回来了，并要求与我亲自见面，在 Penn Station 交付数据。\n他给了我一个叫 Chuck Bar（查克酒吧）的名称。\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 我相信 Penn Station 有一家酒吧。\n因此我去了那里并与他见面。\n他把第二只闪存驱动器交给了我。\n\n16 \n\n17 问。\n您和 Waller 先生是否当场在 Penn Station 的酒吧查看了第二只闪存驱动器？\n\n18 \n\n19 答。\n我们尝试在酒吧打开第二只闪存驱动器，但我不记得我们是否成功打开，因为其格式有些问题，\n\n20 我们无法用当时在 Penn Station 的笔记本电脑打开它。\n\n21 \n\n22 问。\n那么，后来是否有某个时候，您实际上能够查看第二只闪存驱动器的内容？\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 答。\n是的。\n\n1 问。\n那是在何处发生的？\n\n2 答。\n显然，我从 Waller 先生处拿到第二只闪存驱动器后，立即回来与 Guo 先生见面，然后 Guo 先生再也等不及了，\n\n3 所以我们使用他们那台未使用笔记本电脑，并打开了第二只闪存驱动器。\n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 问。\n第二只闪存驱动器上有任何内容吗？\n\n7 答。\n关于第二只闪存驱动器，我们查看了所有文件夹，其中一些是空的。\n\n8 其中一些确实有一些内容，但我们逐一查看后，发现要么是广告，要么是一些 Wikipedia（维基百科）内容，\n\n9 或者一些 Google（谷歌）公开信息，任何人，任何人都可以从互联网搜索到。\n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n12 甚至其中一些是俄语或某种语言，与我们想调查的人员根本没有关系。\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 所以，长话短说，完全是垃圾。\n\n16 问。\n驱动器上是否有合同所要求的任何财务法证报告？\n\n17 \n\n18 答。\n没有任何内容。\n\n19 问。\n驱动器上是否有任何当前追踪报告？\n\n20 答。\n没有任何内容。\n\n21 问。\n驱动器上是否有任何社交媒体报告？\n\n22 答。\n没有任何内容。\n\n23 问。\n当您看到第二只闪存驱动器上的内容时，您是否向 Strategic 说了什么；如有，说了什么？\n\n24 \n\n25 答。\n是的，我记得我立即通过 Signal（Signal）向 Wallop 女士发送了一条很长的短信，\n\n1 我们告诉他们，这些是垃圾，远远不是你们承诺交付的、合同中界定的高质量原创调查交付成果报告。\n\n2 这与之毫无关系。\n你们没有完成自己的工作。\n我们立即告诉了他们。\n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 问。\n他们如何回应？\n\n7 答。\n他们通过 Signal 回复了许多不同的短信，我相信你们有那些短信。\n主要是他们找了很多借口，\n\n8 给出不同理由，并试图就此蒙混过关，但我们不再相信了。\n\n9 \n\n10 \n\n11 问。\n此后，该合同如何处理？\n\n12 答。\n合同被终止。\n\n13 问。\nStrategic 是否曾向 Eastern Profit，或向您和 Guo 先生，提供协议所要求的任何交付成果？\n\n14 \n\n15 \n\n16 答。\n没有，绝无。\n\n17 问。\nStrategic 是否曾将定金退还给 Eastern Profit 或 ACA？\n\n18 \n\n19 答。\n没有，他们也从未这样做。\n\n20 CLINE 女士：\n我没有进一步的问题。\n\n21 法庭：\n好的。\n我们现在休息十分钟，进行下午中段休庭，然后恢复对 Wang 女士（王女士）的交叉询问。\n\n22 \n\n23 请于 3:55 返回。\n我们预计今天进行至 5:00。\n\n24 \n\n25 （休庭）\n\n1 法庭：\n请坐。\n\n2 我忘了要求您，Cline 女士，确保您清理讲台。\n我假定这已经完成。\n\n3 \n\n4 CLINE 女士：\n我忘了，法官阁下，我承认。\n\n5 法庭：\n但我确实希望完成此事。\n\n6 （停顿）\n\n7 CLINE 女士：\n我道歉。\n\n8 GREIM 先生（格雷姆先生）：\n我也还没有做，但我会做。\n\n9 法庭：\nWang 女士，提醒您，您仍在宣誓作证中，我还要指示您，请继续放慢语速讲话。\n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n12 Greim 先生，您可以开始询问。\n\n13 交叉询问\n\n14 由 GREIM 先生询问：\n\n15 问。\nWang 女士，下午好。\n\n16 您在直接询问中作证称，您现在已不再是 CCP 的成员，对吗？\n\n17 \n\n18 答。\n正确。\n\n19 问。\n您是否有退出 CCP 的辞呈或被 CCP 开除的通知？\n\n20 \n\n21 答。\n中国共产党没有这种程序。\n\n22 \n\n23 问。\n您何时不再是 CCP 的成员？\n\n24 答。\n从 2017 年起。\n\n25 问。\n2017 年的何时？\n\n1 答。\n从一月起。\n\n2 问。\n在 2017 年 1 月之后，您是否曾告诉其他任何人您是 CCP 成员？\n\n3 \n\n4 答。\n没有人问我。\n\n5 问。\nWang 女士，您的职业是什么？您在哪里工作？\n\n6 答。\n我在 New York 工作。\n\n7 问。\n好的。\n您在哪家公司工作？\n\n8 答。\n我为 Guo 先生的家族办公室工作。\n\n9 问。\n那是什么？\n\n10 答。\nGolden Spring New York Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）。\n\n11 问。\n您在 Golden Spring New York Ltd. 担任什么职位？\n\n12 答。\n我是该公司的总裁兼董事。\n\n13 问。\n并且，在本案中，您作为 Golden Spring 的总裁，已代表 Eastern Profit 签署书面质询答复，对吗？\n\n14 \n\n15 \n\n16 答。\n正确。\n\n17 问。\n并且，当我们在 2019 年 1 月和 2019 年 10 月对本案中的 Eastern Profit 进行证言录取时，您是 Eastern Profit 的证人，对吗？\n\n18 \n\n19 \n\n20 答。\n正确。\n\n21 问。\n现在，Eastern Profit 是否曾就您在本案中提供的服务向 Golden Spring 付款？\n\n22 \n\n23 答。\n没有。\n\n24 问。\n其是否曾就处理该研究协议的服务向 Golden Spring 付款？\n\n共243页\nL4KKEAS4\nWang（王女士）—交叉询问\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：为什么？\n\n答：Eastern Profit（东方利润公司）的银行账户被冻结了。\n\n问：这是香港的银行账户吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：是否有文件授权您作为 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉公司）的总裁，代表 Eastern Profit 行事？\n\n答：我相信有一份授权委托书。\n\n问：我们把它显示给您看。\n\n答：谢谢。\n\n问：这是 DX 24。\n\nGREIM 先生（格雷姆）：\n\n如果可以的话，请向下滚动。我想这只有几页。好了。我们不需要译文。\n\n问：这是授权委托书吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。该文件上是谁的签名？\n\n答：Han Chunguang（韩春光）先生。\n\n问：这是否就是您此前称为 Hank Han（汉克·韩）的同一人？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：他是在 August 30th, 2018 签署该文件的，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而那大约是在本诉讼开始后，哦，怎么说，大概五个月，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我们回过头来——我不希望您对此猜测。我们回到第 1 页。该文件中是否有这样一个部分——让我直接问您：您是否看到该协议中部载明授权委托书涵盖内容的地方？\n\n答：您是指第二段开始的部分吗？\n\n问：是的，女士。\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：因此，这是就 Eastern 和 SV（SV）之间的合同进行谈判，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：签署该合同？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：以及全面执行和维护 Eastern 在其与 SV 之间任何合同项下的权利，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：这里是否提及 ACA（ACA）与 Eastern Profit 之间的任何贷款协议？\n\n答：我没有看到。\n\n问：这并未列在第 1、2 或 3 项中，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您作证称，您与 ACA 向 Eastern Profit 的付款没有任何关系？\n\n答：在这笔贷款开始时，我并未参与。\n\n问：好的。我们稍后会回到这个话题。\n\n问：现在，在您的第一次证言录取中，您作证称，您在那次证言录取之前见过 Han Chunguang，对吗？您记得吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您是在纽约见到他的？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您说，他没有向您解释他与 Eastern Profit 的关系。您记得吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您不知道他的正式职务是什么，也不知道他的职责是什么，对吗？\n\n答：当时我不知道。\n\n问：那次证言录取是在 January 2019，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而这里的合同是在 2017 年年底谈判，并在 2018 年年初签署的，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您说，为准备您的第一次证言录取，您没有与他谈论有关 Eastern 的信息，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您说，是 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）先生告诉您 Han Chunguang 是 Eastern Profit 的负责人？\n\n答：我相信我在第一次证言录取中是这么说的。\n\n问：那是真的吗？\n\n答：我说错了。当时是因为我没有为第一次证言录取做好充分准备。\n\nL4KKEAS4\nWang（王女士）—交叉询问\n\n答：我的第二次证言录取是在同年 10 月底，在十个月之后。因此，如果我在时间顺序和细节描述方面说错了什么，我表示歉意。\n\n问：那么，您在 January 2019 的证言录取是在宣誓后作出的，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您被问及若干有关您本人亲身知悉情况的问题，对吗？\n\n答：是的，GREIM 先生。\n\n问：您是否尽一切努力在那次第一次证言录取中如实回答？\n\n答：GREIM 先生，英语不是我的母语。因此，我当时的英语水平，与 2019 年年底相比以及与现在相比，我可以说我在进步和成长。\n\n法庭：\n\nWang 女士，请您回答向您提出的问题。法庭记录员可以将问题重读一遍。\n\n证人：\n\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n（重读记录）\n\n证人：\n\n是的，我尽力了。\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问：事实上，在您的第一次证言录取中，您是否被问及，您是如何从 Guo 先生那里获悉 Han Chunguang 是 Eastern Profit 的负责人的？\n\n答：是的。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n\n我们把它调出来。这是 R5(a)。好的。我们调到第 97 页。稍微向上滚动一点。\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问：这里谈论的是 Han Chunguang，您看到您被问到——我知道只有一部分被高亮显示，我希望您从第 5 行开始——您看到您被问了这样一个问题：\n\n“问：他是高级职员、董事吗？\n\n“答：我不知道。\n\n“问：您知道他的职责和责任是什么吗？\n\n“答：我不知道。\n\n“问：您怎么知道他是负责人？\n\n“答：Guo 先生告诉我的。”\n\n问：接下来的问题是：\n\n“问：如果您看一下证物 3，我们可以把它调出来，您是否对这些回答中的任何一个具有亲身知悉？也许您可以仅指出您对哪些回答具有亲身知悉。”\n\n“答：关于什么的亲身知悉？”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而那是您在 January 2019 作出的真实且正确的证言，对吗？\n\n答：那是我当时所知的最佳情况。\n\n问：而且在第 99 页第 20 行，您再次被问到：\n\n“问：那么，在看到这些质询问题之前，您就知道 Han 先生是 Eastern Profit 的负责人吗？\n\n“答：哪个问题？\n\n“问：第二个。\n\n“答：再说一次，是的。这里，是的，有人告诉我他是负责人。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后您继续说：\n\n“答：他们对此作了更详细的探究。\n\n“问：所以，当您看到该问题并核实时，您必须被告知这一点？有人告诉您该信息，对吗？\n\n“答：是的。\n\n“问：所以您是被告知此事的。这些回答中的每一个都是如此吗？这正是我想弄清楚的。\n\n“答：是的。”\n\n我这样读也对吗？然后他们进一步追问：\n\n“问：所以，对于这些回答中的每一个——对于这些问题中的每一个——在您能够核实之前，是否都必须有人告诉您答案，对吗？\n\n“答：是的。”\n\n我仍然读得对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后的问题是：\n\n“问：现在，例如，谁告诉您第 2 题的答案？”\n\n答：\n\n“答：Guo 先生。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：您读得对。\n\n问：因此，您在这次证言录取中多次回答，是 Guo 先生告诉您 Han 是 Eastern 的负责人，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：截至 January 29，也就是您作出那次证言录取时，您没有会见或与 Eastern Profit 的任何雇员、高级职员或董事交谈过，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您不知道 Eastern Profit 是否有办公室，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您不知道 Eastern Profit 是否有任何雇员，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：在这个项目之前，您根本不了解 Eastern Profit；对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Guo 是告诉您有关 Eastern 情况的人，对吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区记录员公司）\n\n(212) 805-0300\n\n答：我当时记不清了。如果我作证说是 Guo 先生，那就是 Guo 先生。我会坚持我的证言。\n\n问：而且您第一次听到 Eastern Profit 这个名称，是从 Guo 先生那里听到的，对吗？\n\n答：我记不清楚。如果我作证并说是 Guo 先生，我会坚持这一点。\n\n问：而且在您前往 Virginia（弗吉尼亚州）与 French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）谈判之前，Guo 已经告诉您 Eastern Profit 这个名称；对吗？\n\n答：我记不清楚。如果我作证说是 Guo 先生，我会坚持这一点。\n\n法庭：\n\n不，Wang 女士，我们所要求的、律师所要求的是您今天的最佳记忆、您今天如实的回答，不是您会坚持什么，而是根据您今天所知，真相是什么。\n\n证人：\n\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n请继续。\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问：那么，让我问您：您今天的最佳记忆是否是，您第一次听到 Eastern Profit 这个名称，是从 Guo Wengui 那里听到的？\n\n答：不是。根据我今天现在所知的最佳记忆，我第一次听说 Eastern Profit 是从 Han 先生那里。\n\n问：再一次，您在 January 31, 2019 作为 Eastern Profit 的公司代表作证，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您是在宣誓后作证的，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n\n我们把 R12 调出来。实际上，我们调到第 14 页。这里我们得用几页。\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问：那么，在第 14 页第 15 行，您被问到：\n\n“问：为了完成这个项目，您向 Guo 先生要求了什么信息？\n\n“答：至少要知道谁是客户或谁是供应商。”\n\n到目前为止我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的，先生。\n\n“问：所以，当您问他谁是客户或供应商时，他说是 Eastern Profit；这样说对吗？\n\n“答：是的。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的，先生。\n\n“问：他什么时候告诉您有关 Eastern Profit 的情况——或者当时他告诉了您有关 Eastern Profit 的什么情况？\n\n“答：我不记得。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：然后我们跳到第 16 页。抱歉，第 15 页第 4 行：\n\n“问：在那之前，您以前听说过 Eastern Profit 吗？\n\n“答：我不记得我听说过那个。”\n\n第 7 行：\n\n“问：您今天坐在这里，您认为那可能是您第一次听说 Eastern Profit 吗？\n\n“答：您是指当时？您是指 2017 年 12 月那个时候？\n\n“问：是的。\n\n“答：是的。”\n\n到目前为止我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的，先生。\n\n问：然后，为澄清起见，第 18 行：\n\n“问：所以，据您所能回忆，那是您第一次听说 Eastern Profit？\n\n“答：是的。”\n\n我读得对吗？\n\n答：是的，先生。\n\n问：现在，Guo 在您前往 Virginia 之前不久告诉了您这件事，对吗？\n\n答：再说一次，我记不清楚，是 Guo 先生和 Han 先生告诉我的；但按照我今天现在的最佳记忆，我做了调查，而我的回忆是，那是 Han 先生。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n\n好的，我们显示 C1。请在播放前——\n\n问：您记得我们在 October 2019 完成了 Eastern Profit 公司代表的证言录取吗？\n\nL4KKEAS4\nWang（王女士）—交叉询问\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您当时也是在宣誓后如实作证的吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您记得我们对那次证言录取进行了录像吗？\n\n答：我相信是的。\n\n问：好的。现在我们将为您播放一段录像。\n\n“问：您最初得知 Eastern Profit 的存在，是在前往 Virginia 与 Wallop 女士签署合同之前不久；对吗？\n\n“答：是的。”\n\n那是您在 October 2019 的证言，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您之前告诉我们，您认为您在 January 和 October 2019 之间记起了许多事情，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且您的英语在 October 比在 January 2019 好得多？\n\n答：我相信是的。\n\n问：顺便问一下，您最初何时开始学习英语？\n\n答：我上大学时。\n\n问：那是在什么时候？\n\n答：那是在法国。我的第一外语是法语，第二语言主要是英语。\n\n问：您在美国生活了多久？\n\n答：从 2015 年至今。\n\n问：您在办公室里每天都与讲英语的雇员打交道吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Wang 女士，您作证称您完全不知道——让我直接问您。Wang 女士，您不知道 Eastern Profit 是否有投资者、资产、客户、投资、商业活动或银行账户；对吗？\n\nCLINE 女士（克莱因）：\n\n异议；无关。\n\n法庭：\n\n驳回异议。\n\n证人：\n\n我做了调查，Eastern Profit 确实有银行账户和资产。\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问：所以，您在 January 29 作证时并不知道他们有银行账户？\n\n答：当时我不知道。\n\n问：而那已经是本诉讼开始后的八个月。您仍然不知道他们有银行账户？\n\n答：当时我不知道。\n\n问：您不是大约一小时前刚刚作证称，Han Chunguang 告诉您 Eastern Profit 想要解冻其资产吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n他在2017年时就已经告诉过您这一点了，对吗？\n\n答。\n回到2017年？\n我不记得了。\n\n问。\n那么，我就问一下：\n韩春光（Han Chunguang）在2017年12月告诉您，东方盈利公司（Eastern Profit）希望从这份协议中得到什么？\n\n答。\n到那时，韩先生告诉我，东方盈利公司有可能成为该调查项目的一方，因为东方盈利公司的资产也被中国政府冻结了。\n\n问。\n所以您在——这次谈话确实发生过——您在2017年12月时就知道东方盈利公司有资产，对吗？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n对提问形式提出异议。\n\n法院：\n异议驳回。\n\n证人：\n到2017年底时，有人告诉我东方盈利公司有资产，但据我理解，我不确定那是指银行账户还是其他资产。\n\n问。\n那么，2019年1月时，您被问及所有这些事情了，不是吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n而您的回答是，您当时不知道？\n\n答。\n我当时不确定。\n\n问。\n您怎么确信，在您于2017年12月与韩春光交谈时，他与东方盈利公司有关？\n\n答。\n我相当确信。\n\n问。\n好的。\n我的问题是：您为何确信？\n\n答。\n因为他向我介绍自己时说，他是代表——东方盈利公司的代表。\n所以我相信他。\n\n问。\n所以，您获得该信息的依据是，他告诉您他是东方盈利公司的代表？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n当时还有其他人告诉您，他是东方盈利公司的代表——\n\n答。\n我相信——\n\n问。\n——吗？\n\n答。\n只有韩先生。\n\n问。\n在那之前，您认识韩春光吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n您是如何认识他的？\n\n答。\n我在中国大陆时认识他。\n\n问。\n您知道他何时来到美国吗？\n\n答。\n请您再说一遍？\n\n问。\n您知道他何时来到美国吗？\n\n答。\n您的意思是何时，对吗？\n\n问。\n移民，您知道他何时移民到美国的吗？\n\n答。\n我知道他也在2015年来到美国。\n\n问。\n他是与您同时来的吗？\n\n答。\n时间相近。\n\n问。\n东方盈利公司在本案中没有被转让任何其主张的权利，对吗？\n\n答。\n您的问题是什么？\n抱歉。\n\n问。\n东方盈利公司是否被转让了其在本案中主张的任何权利？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n对提问形式提出异议。\n\n证人：\n您的意思是签字，对吗？\n\n法院：\n异议驳回。\n\n证人：\n您的意思是签字；我理解得对吗？\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问。\n我的问题是：是否有人将其在本案中主张的权利转让给东方盈利公司？\n\n答。\n我仍然不理解您的问题。\n\n问。\n没关系。\n我们这样做。\n请展示 DX 68。\n好的。\n首先，您认得这份文件吗？\n\nGREIM 先生：\n丽贝卡（Rebecca），请您慢慢滚动浏览一下。\n\n问。\n您看到其中有若干问题和答案，一名叫扎卡里·格伦迪（Zachary Grendi）的律师有电子签名——继续——然后底部有一个签名。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n还有另一页吗？\n\n问。\n那么，这是您的签名吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n该签名是伊薇特·王（Yvette Wang），对吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n还有其他人对其进行了公证。\n您是在公证员面前签署的吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n是在 August 20, 2019？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n然后在核证中，您说：“我，伊薇特·王，声明我已阅读上述答复，该等答复是在律师协助下准备的；除非存在无意且未被发现的错误外，该等答复系基于、并因此必然受限于我所审阅的记录和信息，或基于我对某些事实的了解，或基于迄今在准备这些答复时发现的信息。”\n您保留作出修改的权利。\n最后，您说：“在受上述限制的前提下，我在伪证罪的痛苦和处罚下声明，就我所知、所获信息及所信，该等答复真实。”\n我读得对吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n好的。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n请转到第3页。\n再往上一点。\n是第2页。\n抱歉，您得往下。\n我想我错了。\n哦，在那里，最后一项。\n\n问。\n您看到上面写着：“如果第二次修正起诉状中的一项或多项东方盈利公司的请求权已被转让，请确定每项请求权的每一原始所有人，并确定任何请求权的任何受让人。”\n您看到了吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n然后上面写着：“第二次修正起诉状中的任何请求权均未被转让。”\n我读得对吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n那是真的吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n好的。\n我们继续，加快一点速度。\n王女士，在被介绍给他们之前，您从未见过弗伦奇·沃洛普（French Wallop）或迈克·沃勒博士（Dr. Mike Waller），对吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n现在，我想我听到您说，您首次见到弗伦奇·沃洛普是在一次前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的行程中；对吗？\n\n答。\n不对。\n\n问。\n不对？\n好，好。\n那么，您是否记得，您实际上是在郭文贵（Guo Wengui）的公寓里首次见到他们？\n\n答。\n我第一次见到他们是在纽约。\n\n问。\n对；是在郭文贵的公寓里？\n\n答。\n是在他家人的公寓里，是的。\n\n问。\n抱歉，那不是他的公寓吗？\n\n答。\n他的家人拥有一套公寓。\n\n问。\n您所说的他的家人拥有该公寓是什么意思？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n异议；缺乏基础。\n\n法院：\n异议驳回。\n\n问。\n您所说的他的家人拥有该公寓是什么意思？\n\n答。\n他本人和他的家人，整个家庭，拥有一套他们都住在那里的公寓。\n\n问。\n我明白了。\n我的意思是，其他人是谁？\n住在那里的其他家庭成员是谁？\n\n答。\n他的妻子。\n\n问。\n好的。\n还有谁？\n\n答。\n我想就这些。\n\n问。\n好的，好。\n所以他和他的妻子住在该公寓里？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n而他们是拥有该公寓的人？\n\n答。\n该家庭拥有它。\n\n问。\n好的。\n那么，抱歉，我不想在此纠缠不休，但我必须问您：除他的妻子外，还有谁拥有该公寓？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n异议；缺乏基础。\n\n法院：\n我允许该问题。\n\n答。\n他家族的公司拥有该公寓。\n他是该家族的所有人——他是该公司的所有人。\n\n问。\n我明白了，好的。\n所以，他家族拥有的公司拥有该公寓？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n我原本想稍后再谈这个；我们现在就谈。\n您数次提到郭的家族办公室或他的家族公司。\n郭——他是否有父母与他共同拥有这些东西？\n他的哪些亲属——让我具体一点。\n例如，他的哪些亲属拥有持有其房屋的公司？\n\nCLINE 女士：\n法官阁下——\n\n法院：\n除非您能纠正该问题，否则异议成立。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n那么，您知道吗，我就继续了。\n这可能与后面的某件事有关，但我想快速进行。\n\nGREIM 先生询问：\n\n问。\n那么，在——我就称之为郭的公寓，即 Sherry-Netherland——举行的会面是在何时？\n\n答。\n在2017年秋季。\n\n问。\n好的。\n那么，您是否记得——确实如此，不是吗，您实际上不知道弗伦奇·沃洛普、迈克·沃勒和郭先生之间的会面是在何时开始的？\n\n答。\n那是我第一次认识他们。\n\n问。\n好的。\n但您不知道实际会面是在何时开始的，对吗？\n\n答。\n我不知道。\n\n问。\n郭从未告诉您他为何在纽约与弗伦奇和迈克会面，对吗？\n\n答。\n当时他没有。\n\n问。\n好的。\n您说“当时”。\n您是什么意思？\n\n答。\n因为我被介绍到那次会面中，然后沃洛普女士和沃勒先生正在介绍郭先生在弗吉尼亚州的房子。\n所以我参加了那次会面；那是第一次。\n\n问。\n抱歉，您是说郭先生在弗吉尼亚州的房子吗？\n\n答。\n不，沃洛普女士和沃勒先生正在介绍一处位于弗吉尼亚州的房地产，一栋不知为何叫作 Evermay 的房子。\n他们试图将他们的房子卖给郭先生。\n\n问。\n好的。\n所以那是您首次见到沃勒博士和弗伦奇·沃洛普？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n您记得那是在何时吗？\n\n答。\n我记不太清楚；大概是2017年10月底或11月。\n我记不太清楚。\n\n问。\n您的证言是，那是在12月之前？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n所以，您的证言是，在12月之前的某个时候，您在弗吉尼亚州与弗伦奇·沃洛普和迈克·沃勒会面？\n对吗？\n\n答。\n不对。\n\n问。\n好的。\n\n答。\n在弗吉尼亚州，我只与沃洛普女士会面。\n我第一次去那里时，她带我去看那处房地产。\n我只见到了她，是她开车带我的。\n\n问。\n好的，但那不是您首次见到他们，对吗？\n\n答。\n那是——不是第一次，您说得对。\n第一次是在纽约，是的。\n\n问。\n但您第一次在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区见到弗伦奇，是为了看房地产，对吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n当时没有讨论调查项目，对吗？\n\n答。\n第一次时？\n没有。\n\n问。\n而您当时甚至不知道调查项目；对吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n而您直到12月底才开始参与该项目，对吗？\n\n答。\n在12月——我相信是在12月初，12月第一周或第二周，是的。\n\n问。\n在该项目的谈判期间，除与郭之外，您没有就该项目进行任何谈话，对吗？\n\n答。\n我在与沃洛普女士谈判。\n\n问。\n所以，在此之前——好的，而您是在12月底进行该谈判，对吗？\n\n答。\n大约在12月中旬和下旬，是的。\n\n问。\n所以，您是在12月中旬与沃洛普女士谈判？\n\n答。\n谈判是在12月底，我记不太清楚，应该是在12月第三周或第四周。\n\n问。\n在此之前，您就该项目进行的唯一谈话是与郭先生进行的，对吗？\n\n答。\n您的意思是调查项目？\n\n问。\n正确。\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n除郭先生外，您从未与其他任何人共同从事该项目，对吗？\n\n答。\n我当然也与郭先生、沃洛普女士和沃勒先生一起从事过该项目。\n\n问。\n好的。\n除沃洛普女士和沃勒博士外，您从未与郭先生之外的任何其他人共同从事该项目，对吗？\n\n答。\n正确。\n\n问。\n郭是与战略愿景公司（Strategic Vision）讨论在该协议下何为有价值事项的人，对吗？\n\n答。\n我也参与其中。\n\n问。\n好的。\n而您证称您是在12月中旬参与的？\n\n答。\n是的。\n\n问。\n郭确定了调查对象，对吗？\n\n答。\n他确定了一些名字。\n我也研究了一些名字。\n我们一起整理。\n\n问。\n郭先生是否批准了每一名调查对象？\n\n答。\n他不需要批准。\n\n问。\n您记得您在第一次证言录取时就这一主题作过证吗？\n\n答。\n我不记得了。\n\nGREIM 先生：\n请调出 R31。\n好的。\n\n问。\n所以，在第32页——我们从第32页开始——第5行，您被问道：\n“问：您理解‘鱼’是什么意思？\n“答：目标人物，人类。\n“问：但战略愿景公司并未确定任何需要调查的人，是东方盈利公司确定的，对吗？\n“答：正确。”\n截至目前，我读得对吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n我们向下移到第11行——抱歉，到了。\n现在，第33页第11行：\n“问：是谁确定了这些人？\n“答：郭先生。\n“问：郭先生从哪里获得他的信息？\n“答：我不知道。\n“问：您从未问过？\n“答：没有。”\n那是您的证言吗？\n\n答。\n是。\n\n问。\n郭先生向您提供了最初的调查材料包，内容是\n\n1 2017年12月，对吗？\n2 答。\n您是指那些姓名吗？\n是。\n3 问。\n而且他告诉您，如果协议签署了，就把它交付给 Strategic（Strategic），对吗？\n4 是这样，对吗？\n5 答。\n正确。\n6 问。\n是 Guo（郭文贵）告诉您签署该研究\n7 协议的，对吗？\n8 答。\n我自行签署了合同。\n9 问。\n我明白您确实签署了。不过，我要说的是，\n10 是 Guo 指示您签署研究协议的，对吗？\n11 答。\n指示？\n我不明白您所说的“指示”是什么意思。他\n12 命令我？\n不，他没有命令我。\n13 问。\n他叫您这么做了吗？\n14 答。\n没有，我审阅了合同，我谈判了条款，我认为\n15 已经可以进行，我签署了，我告诉了他。这就是\n16 流程。\n17 GREIM 律师：\n请出示 R33。\n18 问。\n再次说明，我们正在查看您于 2019年1月所作的证言，\n19 您在那里说您是在宣誓后作证。让我们\n20 看一下第176页。您看到：\n21 “问。\n她不同意您交给她的草案？\n22 “答。\n正确，正确。所以我不得不离开 Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），\n23 因为我周一有安排，当时是周日。所以我\n24 离开了——我本应在那天之前与她签署合同，\n25 但我没有签。\n\n第243页\n\nL4KKEAS4 Wang（王）—交叉询问\n\n1 “所以这就是为什么我有点，像是，我没有完成那\n\n2 个项目或那份合同。我不得不离开，但后来我\n3 意识到，而且 Guo 先生告诉我，他期待我签署该\n4 合同，一同最终确定合同。同时\n5 看起来，他似乎已经安排了付款。\n6 所以最终，款项进入了您的账户，但合同没有\n7 签署。”\n8 我刚才读得正确吗？\n9 答。\n正确。\n10 GREIM 律师：\n请出示 DX 16。请向下滚动\n11 这里。只向她出示这些页面。\n12 现在，Wang 女士，您认得这份文件吗？\n问。\n13 答。\n认得。\n14 问。\n这是什么？\n15 答。\n这是我与 Wallop 女士之间的 Signal 短信。\n16 问。\n顺便问一下，“French”一词下面的那些\n17 汉字是什么？\n18 我为您翻译：\n答。\n“点击这里进入您的设置。”\n19 问。\n好的，好。\n20 让我们看这份文件的最开始部分。您\n21 看到您对 French 说——这是在1月5日11:05——\n22 “你好。L 和 M 都告诉我，我们应该再次会面；\n23 我明天会在酒店大堂，或在您方便的地点。\n24 如果您愿意，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n25 我刚才读得正确吗？\n\n1 答。 是。\n2 问。 本段中的 L 和 M 是谁？\n3 答。 L 是 Lianchao Han（韩连潮）先生。M 是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）先生。\n4 问。 现在，Lianchao Han 是我们在您此前的\n5 直接询问中实际上没有怎么听到的名字。他是谁？\n6 答。 他是将 Wallop 女士和 Waller 先生介绍给\n7 Guo 先生的那位先生。\n8 问。 而且他是在代表 Guo 先生进行谈判，对吗？\n9 答。 我相信一开始是这样。\n10 问。 而且他也是告诉您应当再次与 French 会面的\n11 人之一，对吗？\n12 答。 正确。\n13 问。 顺便说一下，这里没有提到 Han Chunguang（韩春光），\n14 对吗？\n15 答。 没有。\n16 问。 您是来到 French Wallop（弗伦奇·沃洛普）家中签署的？\n17 答。 是，因为 Wallop 女士不想在\n18 公共场所与我会面。她邀请我到她家中。\n19 问。 在签署协议之前，您逐行通过电话读给\n20 Guo 听，不是吗？\n21 答。 不，我没有。\n22 GREIM 律师：\n请出示 Wang 1、R34。\n23 问。 您看到上面写着：\n24 “问。 是否曾向\n25 Guo 先生提供过这份文件的译文？\n\n1 “答。\n我曾向他口头翻译。\n2 “问。\n而且他说普通话？\n3 “答。\n正确。\n4 “问。\n所以您逐行阅读，并取得他对最终\n5 协议的同意，对吗？\n6 “答。\n正确。”\n7 我刚才读得正确吗？\n8 答。\n正确。这里，我需要的是关键条款——\n9 问。\n我——\n10 答。\n——不是整份协议。\n11 问。\n您必须向您的其他律师提出这一点。\n12 如果 Guo 坚持协议中的某项条款，您就只能\n13 接受；对吗？\n14 答。\n您是什么意思？我不明白您的问题。\n15 问。\n那么，让我这样问您：是否有一些事项——当\n16 您下来签署协议时，协议草案中是否有一些事项\n17 您不同意？\n18 答。\n正确。\n19 问。\n您是否与 Guo 先生讨论了那些事项？\n20 答。\n是，我讨论了。\n21 问。\n而且是否有一些事项是他坚持\n22 必须保留的？\n23 答。\n是。\n24 问。\n而当他坚持保留时，您就只能\n25 接受并签署，对吗？\n\n1 答。\n不完全是。\n2 问。\n好的。请出示证物——让我们看 R35。您\n3 记得其中一个问题涉及一百万美元保证金吗？\n4 答。\n正确。\n5 问。\n那么，在您2019年1月的证言中，您再次被问及\n6 该问题。我读给您听。\n7 “问。\n所以，最终，您同意了一百万美元保证金，\n8 对吗？\n9 “答。\n是的。作为项目经理，您知道，我提出了\n10 我的担忧；如果他坚持，那我就接受了。”\n11 我刚才读得正确吗？\n12 答。\n正确。\n13 问。\n那是真话，不是吗？\n14 答。\n这是关于保证金，不是关于合同。\n15 问。\n好的。那么，就保证金而言，他坚持，您就\n16 接受了，对吗？\n17 我是在款项汇出之后才知道这笔保证金，所以我\n答。\n18 不得不同意，因为事情已经发生了。\n19 问。\n但是，您作证说，“如果他坚持，那我就接受了”，\n20 对吗？\n21 答。\n如果他坚持，我需要那笔保证金。那已经发生了，\n22 在我签署合同之前。这就是我的意思。\n23 GREIM 律师：\n请往上移一点。如果\n24 您可以的话，请向上滚动。我们有第61页吗？\n25 问。\n让我问您：协议末尾就保证金产生的争议是什么？\n\n关于保证金数额曾有一个问题，不是吗？\n答。\n不是关于数额。数额很好。\n问。\n那么，让我们看第61页第17行。我们当时正在\n谈论协议的不同问题，而问题是：\n“问。\n保证金呢？他是否就\n保证金提出任何问题？\n“答。\n哦，您提醒了我。因为我清楚记得，当我\n与 Guo 先生审阅这份草案时，我指出，我说\n预先支付1 million保证金很多。因为我是\n项目经理，所以我觉得我应提醒他，这是一笔作为保证金支付的\n巨额款项。”\n我刚才读得正确吗？\n答。\n是。\nGREIM 律师：\n好的。请往下。然后您继续说：\n问。\n“答。\n我记得 Guo 先生说，Wallop 女士和 Mike，他们是\n值得尊敬的人，我信任他们。他们可靠，而且\n他们此前甚至在本合同中要求3 million作为保证金，\n现在他们减少了1 million，我们就保留这个。\n我记得那次谈话。”\n我刚才读得正确吗？\n答。\n正确。那次谈话是在 New York（纽约）发生的，甚至\n在我去 Virginia（弗吉尼亚州）之前。我第一次看到该\n\n1 合同草案时，就提出了我的问题。\n2 GREIM 律师：\n我请求删除。这并无待决\n3 问题。\n4 法庭：\n我准许。\n5 GREIM 律师：\n请出示该研究协议。现在\n6 请向下滚动。继续。那里，您可以停下。\n7 就停在那里。\n8 问。\n现在，Wang 女士，我认为您已经看过这份协议很多、\n9 很多次；我说得对吗？\n10 是。\n答。\n11 问。\n而且这是您与 Wallop 女士签署的协议，\n12 对吗？\n13 答。\n正确。\n14 问。\n让我问您，我们先前在本案中出示给 Strategic 的一份文件上\n15 看到了您的签名。那是您的签名吗？\n16 您不必——实际上，请继续向下滚动。让我们看\n17 一下。让我们看——这是证物68。\n18 您说那是您的签名，对吗？\n19 答。\n正确。\n20 问。\n好的。现在让我们回到研究协议。\n21 现在，您作证说，您是在\n22 Wallop 女士在场时签署这份文件的，对吗？\n23 答。\n正确。\n24 问。\n您是在这份协议上签署您自己的姓名吗？\n25 答。\nHan 先生授权我在协议上签署他的姓名。\n\n1 问。\n我明白了。那么，您今天的证言是，您在该协议上签署了 Han\n2 Chunguang 先生的姓名？\n3 答。\n经其授权，是。\n4 问。\n我认为这是口头授权，对吗？\n5 答。\n正确。\n6 问。\n您是否告诉 Wallop 女士，您正在签署 Han Chunguang 的\n7 姓名？\n8 答。\n我不记得。\n9 问。\n现在，Wang 女士，您在本案中始终坚持，您\n10 没有在那里书写 Han Chunguang 的姓名，不是吗？\n11 答。\n您问过我很多次。我害怕您指控我，说我\n12 伪造他的签名。\n13 问。\n好的。\n14 答。\n而我没有。\n15 问。\n不过，您今天是在告诉我真相，对吗？\n16 答。\n我一直都在说真相。Han 先生授权我\n17 在合同上签署他的签名。\n18 问。\n现在，就法庭先前提出的问题，您作证称，您从未将那15个姓名\n19 交给 Han\n20 Chunguang——抱歉，实际上您作证称，您从未将\n21 它们交给 Eastern Profit（东方利润公司），对吗？\n22 答。\n正确。\n23 问。\n那么，Waller 博士和 Wallop 女士告诉您的信息，\n24 您是否曾将该信息交给\n25 Eastern Profit？\n\n1 答。\n什么信息？\n2 问。\n那么，让我——好的，公平起见。\n3 Waller 博士或 Wallop 女士可能告诉您的任何有关合同的信息，\n4 您是否曾将其交给 Han\n5 Chunguang 先生？\n6 答。\n我告诉过他一些信息。\n7 问。\n好的。您告诉了他什么？\n8 答。\n例如，付款，对吗，保证金是1 million。\n9 问。\n好的。还有什么？\n10 答。\n以及调查中国政府官员，其中有些姓名 Han 先生也知道，例如\n11 国家副主席。\n12 问。\n等一下。我以为您说过，您没有\n13 向 Eastern Profit 提供姓名。\n14 答。\n没有，我没有。\n15 问。\n好的。那么，您为什么说 Han Chunguang 也知道\n16 其中一些姓名？\n17 答。\n因为那些是公开信息。\n18 问。\n那么，您知道 Han Chunguang 也知道这些姓名吗？\n19 答。\n我相信是。\n20 问。\n不过，您实际上是否与他分享过这些姓名？\n21 答。\n没有，我没有。\n22 问。\n现在，Waller 博士和 Wallop 女士是否实际上告诉过您\n23 他们研究的结果。正如我所理解的，结果并不令人满意；他们是否实际上告诉过您\n24 其研究\n25 结果？\n\n1 答。 在第一次会议上，那本应是报告\n2 会议，他们确实告诉我们，他们与我们团队之间存在沟通\n3 问题，他们就其失败向我们道歉。\n4 问。 现在，您没有将该信息告诉 Han Chunguang，对吗？\n5 答。 没有，我没有。\n6 问。 顺便问一下，Eastern Profit 的实际所有人是谁？\n7 答。 您是指现在吗？\n8 问。 就说现在，是。\n9 答。 是 Guo Mei（郭美）女士。\n10 问。 她是谁？\n11 答。 她是 Guo 先生的女儿。\n12 问。 在谈判本合同期间，Eastern Profit 的所有人\n13 是谁？\n14 答。 我发现也是 Guo Mei 女士。\n15 问。 在履行本合同时，\n16 Eastern Profit 的所有人是谁；答案相同，是 Guo Mei？\n17 答。 正确。\n18 问。 顺便问一下，她住在哪里？\n19 答。 她住在 U.S.（美国）。\n20 问。 她不住在 Hong Kong（香港）？\n21 答。 不。\n22 问。 她也是 Eastern Profit 的唯一董事，不是吗？\n23 答。 正确。\n\n第243页\nL4KKEAS4\nWang（王）—交叉询问\n1 问。\n而且在与本合同有关的所有期间，她都是唯一董事，\n2 不是吗？\n3 答。\n我相信是。\n4 问。\nGuo 先生从未告诉您，合同项下的研究结果将被报告回中国，\n5 对吗？\n6 答。\n我们讨论过这一点。\n7 GREIM 律师：\n那么，请出示 R38。这将是\n8 (a)。请再往上移一点。问题，这是第4行：\n9 “问。\n不过，您对他在做什么以及他为什么研究这些人的\n10 理解是什么？\n11 第9行的回答：\n12 “答。\n我不明白。您的问题是什么？\n13 “问。\n那么，您的理解是什么？\n14 “答。\n我的理解？\n15 “问。\n关于他为什么调查这些人。\n16 “答。\n哦，好的。他需要有关这些人的信息，\n17 以便举报并披露他们的犯罪行为。这样中国政府\n18 乃至其他国家的主管机关，都可以对这些腐败犯罪的\n19 中国官员采取行动。”\n20 截至目前，我读得正确吗？\n21 答。\n是。\n22 问。\n问题：\n23 “问。\n所以您的理解是，该研究将被报告\n24 回中国？\n25 “答。\n我不知道。”\n\n问：我理解得对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：而且你没有询问，也不知道郭文贵（Guo）将如何就研究对象进行举报，对吗？\n\n答：我没有适当地、故意地询问。\n\n问：故意地？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：所以你是故意没有问郭文贵他为什么——抱歉，他将如何使用这项研究，对吗？\n\n答：对。这可能是向中国作报告，或者向外国当局作报告，或者进行举报。\n\n问：但你并不知道？\n\n答：当时我不知道。可能是所有这些。我的意思是，那是我们——他的生活。这并不意味着我会专门问你如何处理那件事。\n\n问：嗯，你在直接询问中就这一切作了证。你最终是在何时得知郭先生将如何就研究对象进行举报的？\n\n答：这项研究并未成功。没有结果可处理。\n\n问：我明白了。嗯，我们就在这里实际谈谈这个问题。那么，在这份合同终止后，东方盈利公司（Eastern Profit）从未再雇用其他任何人进行研究，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：而且我理解，听起来郭文贵从未再雇用其他任何人从事他曾试图让战略愿景公司（Strategic Vision）从事的那类工作，对吗？\n\n答：我没有参与那件事。我不知道。\n\n问：嗯，你是纽约金泉公司（Golden Spring New York）的总裁，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：他的家族办公室？\n\n答：郭家族办公室。\n\n问：因此，在这份合同终止后，你不知道郭文贵为进行战略愿景公司本应在本案中进行的那类研究所作的任何其他努力？\n\n答：对。我是家族办公室的总裁；这并不意味着我应当知道郭文贵所有的个人事务和他的个人调查。就是这样。\n\n问：纽约金泉公司被指定负责这个项目，不是吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：郭先生是否还有其他家族办公室——是否还有其他像你这样的伊薇特在外面做你所做的事？我撤回这个问题，我撤回。你所知，郭先生是否还有其他家族办公室？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：中国金泉公司（China Golden Spring）呢？\n\n答：那是一家在香港的公司。\n\n问：你说“是一家”。它现在已经不存在了吗？\n\n答：它也被中国政府冻结了。\n\n问：也是在2017年，和东方盈利公司一样？\n\n答：是，大约在那个时候。\n\n问：它是否曾被解冻？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：而且，作为纽约金泉公司的总裁，你向香港金泉公司（Golden Spring Hong Kong）报告，对吗？\n\n答：我向香港金泉公司的所有人报告。\n\n问：那是谁？\n\n答：过去是、现在也是郭强（Qian Guo），Q-i-a-n-g G-u-o。\n\n问：好的。这是郭先生的儿子吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：他也使用Mileson这个名字？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：你知道他向谁报告吗？\n\n克莱恩女士（MS. CLINE）：反对；无关。\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：驳回。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：他向他父亲报告吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n法庭：格雷姆先生（Mr. Greim），在你方便的中断点；现在大约是下午5点。\n\n格雷姆先生：好的，那我们就停止吧。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n好的。我们今天休庭。明天上午9:30再次开始。所有人都应当最迟于9:30前在座位上就位并准备开始，因为我们届时将准时开始。各位下午好。\n\n另外，请处理证物，努力将其核对一致，以便我不会有同一份证物的多份副本，而每份副本都标有不同的证物编号。\n\n谢谢。\n\n（休庭至2021年4月21日上午9:30。）\n\n* * *\n\n询问索引\n\n询问对象： 页码\n\n格雷姆先生重新询问 229\n\n查夫先生（Mr. Chuff）再次交叉询问 364\n\n格雷姆先生重新询问 401\n\n王燕平（YAN PING WANG）\n\n克莱恩女士直接询问 403\n\n格雷姆先生交叉询问 426\n\n原告证物\n\n证物编号 接收\n\n18 382\n\n被告证物\n\n证物编号 接收\n\n7 271\n\n20至23 343\n\n23 382","key_entities":["Guo","Je","CCP","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA","Miles Guo","Kwok","MSS"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":364,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":68586,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-25","updated_at":"2026-08-24 00:16:31"}