{"id":"court_ctb_572_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":572,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2022-07-19","title":"[FILBD: HEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2020 04: 26 PM)** INDEX NO. 150141/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/202","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **[FILBD: HEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/19/2020 04: 26 PM)** INDEX NO. 150141/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/19/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 572-1 Filed 07/19/22 Entered 07/20/22 10:12:06 Page 1 of 14\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK**\n\n**SAMUEL DAN NUNBERG,**\n\nPlaintiff, **Index No.: 150141-2020**\n\n-against-\n\n**COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND**\n\n**GUO WENGUI, a.k.a. MILES KWOK,**  Defendant.\n\nPlaintiff Samuel Dan Nunberg (''Plaintiff'' or \"Nunberg\"), by and through his attorneys, Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP, as and for his Complaint against Defendant, Guo Wengui, also known as Miles Kwok (\"Defendant\" or Guo\"), respectfully alleges as follows:\n\n# **NATURE OF THE ACTION**\n\n1. Plaintiff Samuel Dan Nunberg brings this action to put a halt to malicious campaign of lies by Defendant Guo Wengui, in which Guo has engaged for the sole purpose of exacting revenge upon his political and personal rivals in the interest of personal gain, without any regard for the truth.\n\n2. Defendant Guo Wengui, also known as Miles Kwok, 1 is a Chinese multi-billionaire currently residing in a luxe, \\$68 million apartment in Manhattan overlooking Central Park, which he occasionally leaves for trips on his luxury yacht or to visit President Trump's private beach club, Mar-a-Lago. Guo, who styles himself as a political dissident and anti-corruption whistleblower-but has, himself, been accused of corruption in China including bribery, fraud, and\n\n<sup>1</sup> On information and belief, Guo utilizes a number of aliases for both business and legal affairs, including Kwok Ho Wan, Guo Haoyun, and Guo Wen Gui.\n\nembezzlement, and has, additionally, been sued by Chinese dissidents for alleged tortious acts and defamation, and has also been sued for assault, battery, and false imprisonment for allegedly kidnapping and repeatedly, violently raping a younger employee-frequently utilizes social media, as well as litigation, to attack, harass, and disparage those whom he views as enemies and who would dare to question his carefully cultivated public persona. <sup>2</sup>\n\n3. According to Guo himself, his \"activities have garnered significant attention from around the world. He has been interviewed by many leading newspapers worldwide, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other international publications.\" On information and belief, Guo's now-suspended Twitter account, @Kwokmiles, at one point had over half a million followers. Guo's currently active, public YouTube account, \"!115J'C:il\", has over three hundred thousand subscn°bers. Guo's currently active, public Instagram account, \"guowengui\", has over forty thousand followers.\n\n4. Utilizing his world-wide publicity, high profile, social media accounts, and seemingly endless financial means, Defendant Guo regularly uses his public platform and power to defame and harass his enemies.\n\n5. In this case, Guo set his sights on destroying Plaintiff Samuel Nunberg's reputation and livelihood by filing baseless litigation against him and slandering Nunberg with malicious, false lies which discredit Nunberg both personally and professionally.\n\n6. In reality, while Guo has disparaged Nunberg's personal and professional character with lies, upon information and belief, Guo is a massive debtor who faces legal judgments and a myriad of civil and criminal charges throughout the world. Upon information and belief, Guo and\n\n<sup>2</sup>As of the filing of this Complaint, Guo is the Plaintiff in eight active litigations in New York State courts alone.\n\nhis businesses have been implicated in coordinating massive fraudulent and corrupt schemes including, bribery, extortion, and even spying on suspected Chinese dissidents. Guo, who hides behind the veneer of 'human rights' and 'political asylum,' is also an alleged serial rapist in the United States.\n\n7. Plaintiff Nunberg seeks only to go about his daily and professional life without undue interference and harassment from Guo based upon Guo's petty, personal agendas.\n\n8. For the foregoing reasons, to be explained in further detail herein, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for defamation and defamation per se.\n\n# **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. Plaintiff Samuel Dan Nunberg is a natural person, a citizen of the State of New York, and an active member of the New York State Bar.\n\n10. Defendant Guo Wengui is a Chinese national currently residing in New York, New York. On information and belief, Defendant Guo maintained the now-suspended Twitter account \"@KwokMiles,\" and maintains the currently active YouTube account \"\\$15.X:il\". Guo frequently broadcasts videos to his YouTube account from his New York City luxury apartment. On information and belief, Guo filmed the video at issue in this case in his New York apartment.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Guo W engui because at all relevant times herein, he resided in the County of New York.\n\n12. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant resides in New York County, and the events underlying this action took place in New York County. N.Y. C.P.L.R § 503.\n\n#### **FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION**\n\n# I. **Guo Wengui Sues Bruno Wu and Roger Stone**\n\n13. In January 2018, Guo filed a lawsuit against Bruno Wu, also known as Zheng Wu/ Wu Zheng (''Wu\"), alleging a conspiracy as broad as it was baseless. Guo claimed, without a shred of evidence, that Wu, a Chinese businessman, had conspired with unnamed government officials, resulting in the Chinese government's seizure ofGuo's assets in China. Guo sought over a billion dollars in damages. *See Wengui v. Wu,* No. 18-cv-00845-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2018) (hereinafter, ''the SDNY Action\").\n\n14. Shortly after Wu filed a motion to dismiss the SDNY Action, Guo filed a voluntary dismissal.\n\n15. On or about March 15, 2018, Guo filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the \"Florida Action\") against Roger Stone, alleging various forms of defamation based upon statements that Stone made in September 2017 through January 2018. *See Wengui v. Stone,* No. 18-cv-20983 (JEM) (S.D. Fl. Mar. 15, 2018).\n\n16. Nunberg was not named, identified, or referenced in any way in either the SDNY Action or the Florida Action.\n\n17. On or about December 17, 2018, Stone and Guo entered into a settlement agreement in resolution of the Florida Action. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Stone issued a public apology to Guo, published in several major news publications, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, blaming his allegedly defamatory statements on information produced by Wu, using Nunberg as an intermediary.\n\n18. On information and belief, it was this statement that put Plainti:ffNunberg in Guo's crosshairs.\n\n# II. **Guo Harasses and Defames Nunberg**\n\n#### **a. Guo Files Baseless Litigation**\n\n19. Shortly after Stone issued his negotiated-upon public statement blaming his prior defamation on Wu and Nunberg, Guo filed a new lawsuit against Nunberg and Wu in New York State Court. *See Wengui v. Nunberg,* No. 162069/2018 (Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2018) (hereinafter, \"the State Action.\")\n\n20. In this new lawsuit, Guo restated all of his prior claims against Wu from the dismissed SONY Action, and tacked on defamation claims against both Wu and Nunberg based entirely on *Roger Stone's* previous public statements, for which Guo had *already sued and settled.*\n\n21. Incredibly, Guo now alleged, out of thin air, that Nunberg was part and parcel of the Chinese government conspiracy, along with Wu, that resulted in Guo's property being seized by the Chinese government in 2014 and 2015. Based on these preposterous fictions, Guo made a litany of claims against Nunberg, including violations of the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and \"conspiracy to defame,\" which is a non-existent claim under New York Law.\n\n22. From the beginning, it was clear that Guo's claims were factually absurd, legally deficient, time-barred, and baseless. The suit was brought for the sole purpose of harassing Wu and punishing Nunberg as an associate of Wu.\n\n#### **b. Guo Defames Nunberg**\n\n23. On January 10, 2019-just three weeks after filing the baseless action against Nunberg-Guo posted a lengthy (ninety-three minutes) public video to his YouTube page, at http\n\n24. As of the date of this writing, the video is still publicly available, active, and has\n\nbeen viewed over 50,000 times and \"liked\" over one hundred times.\n\n25. In the video, which contains numerous rambling and bizarre claims against a\n\nmyriad of Guo's enemies, Guo made the following defamatory statements,3 starting around the\n\nsixteen-minute mark and ending just before the eighteen-minute mark:\n\nRight now, what is the game Wu Zheng<sup>4</sup>is playing? We sued Sam, Sam Nunberg. Sam Nunberg is the guy who builds border walls for President Trump. He is President Trump's campaign advisor. Roger Stone apologized. He said that fake news came from Sam Nunberg and We Zheng. That is the guy. But Sam Nunberg immediately wants to sign a legal contract with Wu Zheng, because he is a licensed attorney. He said that he and Wu have attorney client relationship. If it is attorney client relationship, when the judge asks him, the judge cannot ask anything said between him and Wu, absolutely not. ...\n\nAnother thing is that Sam Nunberg helped Bruno Wu, made arrangement with Elliott Broidy, made arrangement with the Justice Department, helped Jho Low lobby, and helped smoothing the thing over. So on this issue, even their attorney-client relationship cannot be protected. *It is already a criminal matter.*\n\n26. Here, Guo is referring to the highly publicized corruption scandal involving the\n\nMalaysian state investment fund lMDB (\"the Fund\"). The scandal focused on Jho Low, a\n\nMalaysian financier accused of embezzling billions of dollars from the Fund. The matter was\n\nbeing investigated by the United States Department of Justice.\n\n27. Back in March 2018, the Wall Street Journal had reported that Elliott Broidy, a\n\nwell-known venture capitalist and republican fundraiser, had allegedly been in talks with Jho Low\n\n<sup>3</sup>Guo's video is in Chinese. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is a chart containing the statements in their original Chinese, alongside the English translations. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is an affidavit of accuracy as to the translations.\n\n<sup>4</sup>Wu Zheng is Bruno Wu.\n\nto intervene on Low's behalf with the Justice Department, to stop the probe into Low and the Fund, in exchange for \\$75 million for Broidy and his wife. A Justice Department official was also named as a participant in the scandal.\n\n28. On information and belief, despite many publications and news articles about the Broidy/lMDB scandal between the time the story broke and the date ofGuo's video, not a single report mentioned any connection with Nunberg. The reason for that is clear: Nunberg had no involvement whatsoever with Jho Low, Elliott Broidy, or the Justice Department's investigation into the Fund.\n\n29. Given the considerable, publicly available information regarding the scandal, and given the dearth of any connection to Nunberg, and given the reality that Nunberg had no involvement with Broidy or lMDB (and, in fact, has never even met Elliott Briody), Guo's statements were patently false, Guo knew they were false, and he made them for the express purpose of defaming Nunberg.\n\n30. On information and belief, Guo is no stranger to making up false claims about those whom he opposes, based upon the several defamation suits filed by other individuals against Guo.\n\n31. By falsely accusing Nunberg of trying to wrongfully interfere with a Justice Department investigation-essentially, corruption and obstruction-Guo defamed Nunberg.\n\n32. By falsely accusing Nunberg of lobbying a government agency on behalf of a foreign principal, Guo has accused Nunberg of committing a federal crime, which is slander per se. *See* 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.* (unregistered agent of a foreign principal punishable up to \\$10,000 fine and five years in prison).\n\n33. Moreover, Guo's direct statement that \"it is already a criminal matter\" is also slander per se.\n\n34. Later in the same video, around the fifty-one minute mark, Guo stated:\n\n[O]ur country trusts conmen. Only conmen can survive ..... Why did Sam Nunberg go to a Jewish [club/synagogue] to spew big lies, saying he saved 60,000 Jews. This is totally ridiculous. If you ever have any common sense, how could he have saved 60,000 people? Jewish people would remember every person that gave them a loaf of bread. In this aspect, Jewish people did very well.\n\n35. Nunberg is the descendent of Holocaust survivors; his family escaped from Auschwitz, one of the largest of the Nazi death camps, where over a million Jews were brutally murdered. Nunberg and his family are strong supporters of Israel.\n\n36. Nunberg attended a highly selective Modem Orthodox Jewish day school for his high school education and still attends synagogue in New York City.\n\n37. Guo's absurd and entirely fabricated claim that Nunberg lied about having saved the lives of 60,000 Jews is beyond insulting; it is accusing a member of the Jewish faith of essentially lying to and manipulating his fellow Jews with respect to one of the most serious and devastating atrocities in their cultural history.\n\n38. Once again, Guo's statement was false, he knew it was false, and he made the statement for the sole purpose of harming Nunberg.\n\n# **c. Goo's Baseless Suit** is **Dismissed**\n\n39. In or around July 2019, Nunberg's attorneys reached out to Guo's attorneys to request they dismiss the baseless RICO/Defamation State Action against Nunberg. Nunberg' s attorneys pointed out the myriad factual and legal deficiencies with Guo's claims.\n\n40. In response, Guo offered to dismiss the RICO claims against Nunberg only if Nunberg would agree to implicate Wu in the defamation claim. Nunberg refused.\n\n41. Eventually, under threats of frivolous litigation sanctions, Guo relented in part, and dismissed the RICO claims against Nunberg. However, he refused to dismiss the defamation claims which, once again, were entirely based on publications by Roger Stone, over which Guo had already sued and settled\n\n42. After Guo refused to dismiss the defamation claims, Nunberg was forced to file a motion to dismiss the claims with prejudice ( as they were so baseless that amendment would be futile).\n\n43. On December 18, 2019, The Supreme Court of New York, Hon. Lynn R. Kotler, granted Nunberg's motion and dismissed the entirety ofGuo's claims. The Court found that Guo \"wholly failed to meet [the] pleading burden,\" as there were ''no facts about when and where either Nunberg or Wu made these false statements about the plaintiff, nor are the particular words either defendant used asserted in the complaint. . . . Indeed, without any facts about when the statements occurred, the court cannot find that his cause of action was timely commenced.\"\n\n# **m. Damages**\n\n44. As a direct and proximate result of Guo's defamation of Plaintiff, including his allegations that Nunberg, a barred attorney, violated federal law and tried to use his position as an attorney to cover up \"criminal acts\", Plaintiff has suffered irreparable reputational harm and diminished business opportunities.\n\n45. As a direct and proximate result of Guo's defamation of Plaintiff, including his allegation that Plaintiff made false claims about saving thousands of Jewish lives, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable reputational harm and diminished business opportunities.\n\n# **AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation** - **Slander Per Se)**\n\n46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein.\n\n47. Under New York law, a false allegation of serious criminality is considered defamatory per se. *See Knutt v Metro Intern., S.A.,* 91 AD3d 915,916 [2d Dept 2012]. Similarly, statements that ''tend to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession\" are considered defamation per se. *Liberman v Ge/stein,* 80 NY2d 429, 435 [1992].\n\n48. On January 19, 2019, Guo posted a public video on YouTube.com, on his personal YouTube account, \"fltSCft\", stating: \"Sam Nunberg helped Bruno Wu, made arrangement with Elliott Broidy, made arrangement with the Justice Department, helped Jho Low lobby, and helped smoothing the thing over. So on this issue, even their attorney-client relationship cannot be protected. *It is already a criminal matter.\"*\n\n49. These statements are false: PlaintiffNunberg never made any arrangement with Elliott Broidy (in fact has never met Broidy), never helpd Jho Low Lobby, and never made any arrangement with the Justice Department concerning either Broidy or Low.\n\n50. Defendant Guo knew that these statements were false; there were ample public news reports about the Broidy/Low scandal, none of which mentioned any involvement or connection with Nunberg.\n\n51. Defendant Guo knew that the statements were false, and deliberately made them for the purpose of wrongfully damaging Plaintiffs reputation.\n\n52. In accordance with the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,*  unregistered lobbying on behalf of a foreign agent is a crime punishable by up to \\$10,000 fine and five years in prison.\n\n53. Guo therefore knowingly, falsely accused Nunberg of a serious federal crime, which constitutes defamation per se.\n\n54. Additionally, Guo's statement that \"even their attorney-client relationship cannot be protected[,] *It is already a criminal matter,\"* is a direct false allegation of criminality as well as an allegation that Nunberg used his professional status as an attorney to cover up the alleged crime, which is a statement that would tend to injure Plaintiff in his profession.\n\n*55.* Guo's statements were made on a public internet platform, available essentially around the globe, and which has been viewed tens of thousands of times over. Guo, as a virtual stranger to Nunberg making false claims to a worldwide, public audience, had no privilege or authorization to make such false claims.\n\n56. Guo's statements have damaged, and continue to damage, Nunberg's personal and professional reputation.\n\n57. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, in the form of an order directing Guo to remove the defamatory video and issue a correction/apology.\n\n58. Plaintiff further seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event no less than \\$1,000,000, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.\n\n#### **AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation** - **Slander)**\n\n*59.* Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein.\n\n60. Under New York law, an action for defamation requires the following elements: (1) publication (2) to a third party (3) of a false statement about the plaintiff, (4) without privilege or authorization. \"A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of the community.\" *Knutt v Metro Intern., S.A.,* 91 AD3d 915, 916 [2d Dept 2012].\n\n61. On January 19, 2019, Guo posted a public video on YouTube.com, on his personal You Tube account, \"\\$13Jt:!l\", stating: \"Why did Sam Nunberg go to a Jewish (club/synagogue) to spew big lies, saying he saved 60,000 Jews. This is totally ridiculous. If you ever have any common sense, how could he have saved 60,000 people? Jewish people would remember every person that gave them a loaf ofbread.\"\n\n62. Guo' s statements are false, and he knew them to be false, as they appear to have been fabricated by him out of thin air.\n\n63. At no point did Plaintiff ever claim to his synagogue, congregation, or any Jewish organization to have saved 60,000 Jews.\n\n64. Guo's statement was made on a public internet platform, available essentially around the globe, and which has been viewed tens of thousands of times over. Guo, as a virtual stranger to Nunberg making false claims to a worldwide, public audience, had no privilege or authorization to make such false claims.\n\n65. Guo's claim-that Nunberg, a descendent of Holocaust survivors and strong supporter of Israel, would \"spew big lies\" to his fellow Jews about having saved 60,000 Jews undoubtedly ''tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion.\"\n\n66. Guo's defamatory statements have damaged, and continue to damage, Nunberg's personal and professional reputation and business opportunities.\n\n67. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, in the form of an order directing Guo\n\nto remove the defamatory video and issue a correction/apology.\n\n68. Plaintiff further seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event no less than \\$1,000,000, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.\n\n# **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n**WHEREFORE,** for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendant as follows:\n\n- (i) On the first cause of action for Defamation Slander Per Se, a judgment against Defendant Guo awarding Plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event no less than \\$1,000,000, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees, as well as injunctive relief, in the form of an order directing Guo to remove the defamatory video and issue a correction/apology;\n- (ii) On the second cause of action for Defamation Slander, a judgment against Defendant Guo awarding Plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event no less than \\$1,000,000, plus prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees, as well as injunctive relief, in the form of an order directing Guo to remove the defamatory video and issue a correction/apology; and\n- (iii) Any such further relief the court deems just and proper.\n\n#### **JURYDEMAND**\n\n14\n\nPlaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.\n\nDated:\n\nNewYork,NY February 19, 2020\n\n# **NESENOFF** & **MILTENBERG, LLP**  *Attorneys for Plaintiff*\n\n# By: */4'* ~ **7.** *'1/tdt\"\"\"9*\n\nAndrew T. Miltenberg, Esq. Adrienne Levy, Esq. Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP 363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 736-4500 amiltenberg@nmllplaw.com alevy@nmllplaw.com","body_zh":"[归档于：纽约县书记官 02/19/2020 04:26 PM] 索引号：150141/2020 NYSCEF 文件编号：3 收到 NYSCEF：02/19/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 572-1 归档于 07/19/22 录入于 07/20/22 10:12:06 第 1 页，共 14 页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nSAMUEL DAN NUNBERG，\n\n原告， 索引号：150141-2020\n\n-针对-\n\n起诉状及陪审团审判要求\n\nGUO WENGUI，又名 MILES KWOK， 被告。\n\n原告 Samuel Dan Nunberg（以下简称“原告”或“Nunberg”），由其代理律师事务所 Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP 代表，针对被告 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（以下简称“被告”或“Guo”），谨就其起诉状陈述如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 原告 Samuel Dan Nunberg 提起本诉讼，旨在制止被告 Guo Wengui 恶意散布谎言的行径；Guo 从事此类行径的唯一目的，是在完全不顾事实真相的情况下，为了个人利益向其政治和个人对手实施报复。\n\n2. 被告 Guo Wengui（又名 Miles Kwok）1 是一名中国亿万富翁，目前居住在曼哈顿一套俯瞰中央公园、价值 6,800 万美元的豪华公寓中，他偶尔会离开该公寓乘坐豪华游艇出行，或前往 Trump（特朗普）总统的私人海滩俱乐部 Mar-a-Lago（海湖庄园）。Guo 自诩为政治异见人士和反腐败吹哨人——但他本人在中国被指控犯有腐败罪行，包括行贿、诈骗和\n\n1 据悉，Guo 在商业和法律事务中使用多个化名，包括 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭浩雲）、Guo Haoyun（郭浩云）以及 Guo Wen Gui（郭文贵）。\n\n职务侵占，此外，他还因涉嫌侵权行为和诽谤被中国异见人士起诉，并因涉嫌绑架并多次对一名年轻雇员实施暴力强奸而被控人身侵犯、殴击及非法拘禁——他经常利用社交媒体以及诉讼手段，攻击、骚扰和贬损那些被他视为敌人且敢于质疑其精心塑造的公众形象的人。2\n\n3. 据 Guo 本人称，他的“活动引起了全世界的极大关注。他曾接受全球许多主流报纸的采访，包括 New York Times（《纽约时报》）、Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）以及其他国际出版物。”据悉，Guo 目前已被封禁的 Twitter（推特）账号“@Kwokmiles”曾一度拥有超过 50 万名关注者。Guo 目前处于活跃状态的公开 YouTube 账号“郭文贵”拥有超过 30 万名订阅者。Guo 目前处于活跃状态的公开 Instagram 账号“guowengui”拥有超过 4 万名关注者。\n\n4. 被告 Guo 利用其全球知名度、高知名度、社交媒体账号以及看似无穷无尽的财务资源，经常利用其公共平台和权力对其敌人进行诽谤和骚扰。\n\n5. 在本案中，Guo 将目标对准了原告 Samuel Nunberg，企图通过对其提起毫无根据的诉讼，并以恶意的虚假谎言对 Nunberg 进行口头诽谤，从而毁掉 Nunberg 的声誉和生计，这些谎言在个人和职业层面上都严重损害了 Nunberg 的信誉。\n\n6. 事实上，尽管 Guo 用谎言贬损了 Nunberg 的个人和职业品格，但据悉，Guo 是一名巨额债务人，在世界各地面临着法律判决以及无数的民事和刑事指控。据悉，Guo 及其\n\n2 截至本起诉状提交之日，仅在纽约州法院，Guo 就作为原告参与了八起正在进行的诉讼。\n\n企业涉嫌串谋策划巨额欺诈和腐败计划，包括行贿、勒索，甚至对疑似中国异见人士进行间谍刺探。躲在“人权”和“政治庇护”外衣之下的 Guo，在美国还被指控为一名连环强奸犯。\n\n7. 原告 Nunberg 仅希望过正常的日常生活和职业生活，不受 Guo 基于其琐碎个人目的所带来的不当干涉和骚扰。\n\n8. 基于上述理由（详见后文说明），原告就诽谤及显见诽谤寻求禁令救济和金钱赔偿救济。\n当事人\n\n9. 原告 Samuel Dan Nunberg 是一名自然人，为 New York（纽约州）公民，且为 New York State Bar（纽约州律师协会）的执业会员。\n\n10. 被告 Guo Wengui 是一名中国公民，目前居住在 New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）。据悉，被告 Guo 曾持有目前已被封禁的 Twitter 账号“@KwokMiles”，并持有目前处于活跃状态的 YouTube 账号“郭文贵”。Guo 经常在其纽约市的豪华公寓向其 YouTube 账号直播视频。据悉，Guo 是在其纽约公寓中拍摄了本案涉案视频的。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n11. 本法院对被告 Guo Wengui 具有对人管辖权，因为在本文所述的所有相关时间内，他均居住在 County of New York（纽约县）。\n\n12. 本法院为适当地点的审判地，因为被告居住在纽约县，且作为本诉讼基础的事件发生在纽约县。见 N.Y. C.P.L.R § 503。\n适用于所有诉由的共同事实\nI. Guo Wengui 起诉 Bruno Wu 和 Roger Stone\n\n13. 2018 年 1 月，Guo 对 Bruno Wu（又名 Zheng Wu/吴征，以下简称“Wu”）提起诉讼，指控其参与了一场既广泛又毫无事实根据的阴谋。Guo 在没有任何证据的情况下声称，中国商人 Wu 与未具名的政府官员串谋，导致中国政府查封了 Guo 在中国的资产。Guo 索赔超过十亿美元。参见 Wengui v. Wu, No. 18-cv-00845-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2018)（以下简称“SDNY 诉讼案”）。\n\n14. 在 Wu 就 SDNY 诉讼案提交驳回起诉动议后不久，Guo 提交了自愿撤诉申请。\n\n15. 2018 年 3 月 15 日或前后，Guo 在 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida（美国佛罗里达南区联邦地区法院）对 Roger Stone 提起诉讼（以下简称“佛罗里达诉讼案”），依据 Stone 在 2017 年 9 月至 2018 年 1 月期间发表的言论，指控其构成各种形式的诽谤。参见 Wengui v. Stone, No. 18-cv-20983 (JEM) (S.D. Fl. Mar. 15, 2018)。\n\n16. 在 SDNY 诉讼案和佛罗里达诉讼案中，Nunberg 均未以任何方式被点名、确认身份或提及。\n\n17. 2018 年 12 月 17 日或前后，Stone 与 Guo 达成和解协议以解决佛罗里达诉讼案。根据该和解协议，Stone 向 Guo 发表了公开道歉，该道歉刊登在包括 The New York Times（《纽约时报》）、The Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）和 The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）在内的数家主流新闻出版物上，Stone 将其涉嫌诽谤的言论归咎于 Wu 通过 Nunberg 作为中间人所提供的信息。\n\n18. 据悉，正是该声明将原告 Nunberg 置于了 Guo 的攻击目标之中。\nII. Guo 骚扰并诽谤 Nunberg\na. Guo 提起毫无根据的诉讼\n\n19. 在 Stone 发表经协商达成的公开声明并将先前的诽谤归咎于 Wu 和 Nunberg 后不久，Guo 在纽约州法院对 Nunberg 和 Wu 提起了新的诉讼。参见 Wengui v. Nunberg, No. 162069/2018 (Sup. Ct., Dec. 21, 2018)（以下简称“州诉讼案”）。\n\n20. 在这起新诉讼中，Guo 重复了他先前在已被驳回的 SDNY 诉讼案中对 Wu 的所有指控，并完全基于 Roger Stone 先前已由 Guo 提起诉讼并达成和解的公开言论，对 Wu 和 Nunberg 追加了诽谤指控。\n\n21. 令人难以置信的是，Guo 现在凭空捏造，指控 Nunberg 与 Wu 一同参与了中国政府的阴谋，导致 Guo 的财产在 2014 年和 2015 年被中国政府查封。基于这些荒谬的虚构情节，Guo 对 Nunberg 提出了多项指控，包括违反 Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act（《反勒索与受贿组织法》，即 RICO 法案），以及在纽约州法律下并不存在的“串谋诽谤”指控。\n\n22. 从一开始就显而易见的是，Guo 的主张在事实上荒谬绝伦，在法律上存在缺陷，已过诉讼时效，且毫无依据。提起该诉讼的唯一目的就是骚扰 Wu，并惩罚作为 Wu 关联人员的 Nunberg。\nb. Guo 诽谤 Nunberg\n\n23. 2019 年 1 月 10 日——即在对 Nunberg 提起毫无根据的诉讼仅三周后——Guo 在其 YouTube 页面（网址为 http...）上发布了一段长达 93 分钟的公开视频。\n\n24. 截至撰写本文之日，该视频仍可公开访问、处于有效状态，已被观看超过 50,000 次，并获得超过 100 次“点赞”。\n\n25. 在该视频中，Guo 对其众多敌人发表了大量语无伦次且荒诞不经的指控，大约从第 16 分钟开始到第 18 分钟前结束，Guo 发表了以下诽谤性言论 3：\n\n现在，吴征 4 正在玩什么花样？我们起诉了 Sam，Sam Nunberg。Sam Nunberg 是那个为 Trump 总统建边境墙的人。他是 Trump 总统的竞选顾问。Roger Stone 道歉了。他说假新闻来自 Sam Nunberg 和吴征。就是那个人。但是 Sam Nunberg 立刻想和吴征签署一份法律合同，因为他是执业律师。他说他和吴之间是律师与客户关系。如果是律师与客户关系，法官问他的时候，法官就不能过问他和吴之间说过的任何事情，绝对不行。……\n\n另一件事是，Sam Nunberg 帮了 Bruno Wu，与 Elliott Broidy 进行了安排，与司法部进行了安排，协助 Jho Low（刘特佐）进行游说，并协助摆平此事。所以在这个问题上，连他们的律师与客户关系都不能受到保护。这已经是刑事案件了。\n\n26. 在这里，Guo 指的是涉及马来西亚国家投资基金 1MDB（一马公司，以下简称“该基金”）这起备受瞩目的腐败丑闻。该丑闻的焦点是 Jho Low（刘特佐），一名被指控从该基金挪用数十亿美元的马来西亚金融家。该事件当时正受到 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）的调查。\n\n27. 早在 2018 年 3 月，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）就曾报道，著名风险投资家兼共和党筹款人 Elliott Broidy 据称曾与 Jho Low 进行接洽，\n\n3 Guo 的视频为中文。作为证据 A 附于本诉状后的是一份载有中文原话及英文译文的对照表。作为证据 B 附于本诉状后的是一份关于翻译准确性的宣誓书。\n\n4 吴征即 Bruno Wu。\n\n代表 Low 向司法部进行干预，以叫停针对 Low 和该基金的调查，以此换取给 Broidy 及其妻子的 7,500 万美元报酬。一名司法部官员也被点名为该丑闻的参与者。\n\n28. 据悉，尽管在消息爆出至 Guo 发布视频期间，有大量关于 Broidy/1MDB 丑闻的出版物和新闻报道，但没有任何一篇报道提及与 Nunberg 有任何关联。原因显而易见：Nunberg 与 Jho Low、Elliott Broidy 或司法部针对该基金的调查完全没有任何牵涉。\n\n29. 鉴于有关该丑闻的大量公开信息，鉴于完全没有任何与 Nunberg 的关联，并鉴于 Nunberg 与 Broidy 或 1MDB 没有任何牵涉（事实上，他甚至从未见过 Elliott Broidy）的事实，Guo 的言论完全是虚假的，Guo 明知其为虚假言论，且发表这些言论的明确目的就是诽谤 Nunberg。\n\n30. 据悉，基于其他个人针对 Guo 提起的数起诽谤诉讼，Guo 对其反对者编造虚假指控绝非罕见之举。\n\n31. 通过诬指 Nunberg 企图不当干预司法部调查——实质上即腐败和妨碍司法——Guo 诽谤了 Nunberg。\n\n32. 通过诬指 Nunberg 代表外国委托人向政府机构进行游说，Guo 指控 Nunberg 犯有联邦罪行，这构成了显见口头诽谤。参见 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.（未注册的外国委托人代理人可被处以最高 10,000 美元罚款及五年监禁）。\n\n33. 此外，Guo（郭文贵）直接声称“这已经是刑事案件”的言论亦构成自证性口头诽谤（slander per se）。\n\n34. 随后在同一视频中，约第51分钟处，郭文贵陈述道：\n\n“[我]们国家信任骗子。只有骗子才能生存……为什么Sam Nunberg（萨姆·农伯格）要去一个犹太[俱乐部/犹太会堂]大肆撒谎，说他救了6万名犹太人。这完全是荒谬的。如果你有一点常识，他怎么可能救了6万人？犹太人会记住每一个给过他们一条面包的人。在这方面，犹太人做得非常好。”\n\n35. 农伯格是大屠杀幸存者的后裔；其家族逃离了奥斯威辛集中营（Auschwitz），纳粹最大的死亡集中营之一，在那里有超过一百万犹太人惨遭残忍杀害。农伯格及其家族是以色列的坚定支持者。\n\n36. 农伯格高中就读于一所极难录取的现代正统犹太日制学校，且至今仍在纽约市的犹太会堂参加礼拜。\n\n37. 郭文贵关于农伯格就拯救6万名犹太人生命一事撒谎的荒谬且纯属捏造的说法不仅是侮辱性的；这是在指控一名犹太教信徒在涉及其文化史上最严重、最具毁灭性的暴行之一方面，实质上对其犹太同胞进行欺骗与操纵。\n\n38. 再次重申，郭文贵的陈述是不实的，他明知其不实，且他发表该陈述的唯一目的就是为了伤害农伯格。\n\nC. 郭文贵毫无根据的诉讼被驳回\n\n39. 大约在2019年7月，农伯格的律师联系了郭文贵的律师，要求他们撤回针对农伯格的毫无根据的《诈骗影响和腐败组织法》（RICO）/诽谤之州法院诉讼。农伯格的律师指出了郭文贵的主张存在无数事实与法律缺陷。\n\n40. 作为回应，郭文贵提出，仅在农伯格同意在诽谤主张中牵涉吴征（Bruno Wu）的前提下，才撤回针对农伯格的RICO主张。农伯格予以拒绝。\n\n41. 最终，在面临滥诉制裁的威胁下，郭文贵做出了部分妥协，撤回了针对农伯格的RICO主张。然而，他拒绝撤回诽谤主张，而这些主张再次完全基于罗杰·斯通（Roger Stone）的言论出版物，郭文贵此前已就此提起诉讼并达成和解。\n\n42. 在郭文贵拒绝撤回诽谤主张后，农伯格被迫提出附带不可再起诉条件的驳回起诉动议（with prejudice）（因为这些主张毫无根据，修改起诉书亦属徒劳）。\n\n43. 2019年12月18日，Supreme Court of New York（纽约州最高法院）Lynn R. Kotler（林恩·R·科特勒）法官阁下批准了农伯格的动议，并驳回了郭文贵的全部诉讼请求。法院认定郭文贵“完全未能履行[其]诉答举证责任”，因为“关于农伯格或吴征何时何地发表这些针对原告的不实言论并无任何事实，起诉书中亦未指明两名被告所使用的具体言词……事实上，在没有任何关于言论何时发生的事实的情况下，法院无法认定其诉由的提起未超过诉讼时效”。\n\nIII. 损害赔偿\n\n44. 作为郭文贵诽谤原告（包括其指控具备执业资格的执业律师农伯格违反联邦法律并试图利用其律师身份掩盖“犯罪行为”）的直接和近因后果，原告遭受了无法弥补的声誉损害以及商业机会的减少。\n\n45. 作为郭文贵诽谤原告（包括其指控原告就拯救数千名犹太人生命做出虚假陈述）的直接和近因后果，原告遭受了无法弥补的声誉损害以及商业机会的减少。\n\n第一项诉因（诽谤——自证性口头诽谤）\n\n46. 原告重复并重新主张上述每一项指控，如同在此已获完全陈述。\n\n47. 根据纽约州法律，对严重犯罪行为的虚假指控被视为自证性诽谤。参见 Knutt v Metro Intern., S.A., 91 AD3d 915, 916 [2d Dept 2012]。同样，“倾向于在行业、商业或职业中损害他人”的陈述被视为自证性诽谤。Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 435 [1992]。\n\n48. 2019年1月19日，郭文贵在其YouTube个人账号“郭文贵”上，在YouTube.com上发布了一段公开视频，声称：“萨姆·农伯格帮了吴征，与Elliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）做好了安排，与司法部做好了安排，帮Jho Low（刘特佐）游说，并帮忙摆平事情。所以在这个问题上，连他们的律师-委托人特权关系都不能受到保护。这已经是刑事案件了。”\n\n49. 这些陈述是不实的：原告农伯格从未与埃利奥特·布罗伊迪做出任何安排（事实上从未见过布罗伊迪），从未帮刘特佐游说，也从未就布罗伊迪或刘特佐与司法部做出任何安排。\n\n50. 被告郭文贵明知这些陈述是不实的；关于布罗伊迪/刘特佐丑闻有大量的公开新闻报道，其中均未提及与农伯格有任何牵涉或关联。\n\n51. 被告郭文贵明知该陈述不实，仍蓄意发表，目的在于非法损害原告的声誉。\n\n52. 根据《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agent Registration Act，22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.），代表外国代理人进行未登记的游说活动属于犯罪行为，最高可处以10,000美元罚金及五年监禁。\n\n53. 因此，郭文贵明知且虚假地指控农伯格犯有严重的联邦罪行，这构成了自证性口头诽谤。\n\n54. 此外，郭文贵声称“连他们的律师-委托人特权关系都不能受到保护，这已经是刑事案件了”，这既是对犯罪行为的直接虚假指控，也是在指控农伯格利用其执业律师身份掩盖所指控的罪行，该陈述倾向于损害原告的执业声誉。\n\n55. 郭文贵的陈述发表在公开的互联网平台上，基本上全球可见，且已被观看了数万次。郭文贵作为与农伯格素不相识之人，向全球公众观众做出虚假指控，并不享有发表此类虚假指控的任何特权或授权。\n\n56. 郭文贵的陈述已经且持续损害农伯格的个人和专业声誉。\n\n57. 据此，原告请求禁令救济，形式为命令郭文贵删除诽谤视频并发布更正/道歉声明。\n\n58. 原告进一步请求获得在审理中确定的损害赔偿金额，但在任何情况下不得低于1,000,000美元，外加判决前利息、律师费、开支、诉讼费用及杂费支出。\n\n第二项诉因（诽谤——口头诽谤）\n\n59. 原告重复并重新主张上述每一项指控，如同在此已获完全陈述。\n\n60. 根据纽约州法律，诽谤之诉需具备以下要件：(1) 发表 (2) 向第三方 (3) 关于原告的不实陈述，(4) 未享有特权或授权。“诽谤性陈述是指倾向于使某人遭受仇恨、蔑视或厌恶，或在社区相当数量人群心目中引发对其不良或恶劣评价的陈述。”Knutt v Metro Intern., S.A., 91 AD3d 915, 916 [2d Dept 2012]。\n\n61. 2019年1月19日，郭文贵在其YouTube个人账号“郭文贵”上，在YouTube.com上发布了一段公开视频，声称：“为什么萨姆·农伯格要去一个犹太[俱乐部/犹太会堂]大肆撒谎，说他救了6万名犹太人。这完全是荒谬的。如果你有一点常识，他怎么可能救了6万人？犹太人会记住每一个给过他们一条面包的人。”\n\n62. 郭文贵的陈述是不实的，且他明知其不实，因为这些言论似乎完全是他凭空捏造的。\n\n63. 原告在任何时候都从未向其所在的犹太会堂、会众或任何犹太组织声称过拯救了6万名犹太人。\n\n64. 郭文贵的陈述发表在公开的互联网平台上，基本上全球可见，且已被观看了数万次。郭文贵作为与农伯格素不相识之人，向全球公众观众做出虚假指控，并不享有发表此类虚假指控的任何特权或授权。\n\n65. 郭文贵的主张——即作为大屠杀幸存者后裔和以色列坚定支持者的农伯格，会就拯救6万名犹太人一事对其犹太同胞“大肆撒谎”——无疑“倾向于使人遭受仇恨、蔑视或厌恶”。\n\n66. 郭文贵的诽谤性陈述已经且持续损害农伯格的个人和专业声誉以及商业机会。\n\n67. 据此，原告请求禁令救济，形式为命令郭文贵删除诽谤视频并发布更正/道歉声明。\n\n68. 原告进一步请求获得在审理中确定的损害赔偿金额，但在任何情况下不得低于1,000,000美元，外加判决前利息、律师费、开支、诉讼费用及杂费支出。\n\n判决请求\n\n为此，基于上述理由，原告请求判令被告承担如下责任：\n\n(i) 就自证性口头诽谤之第一项诉因，判令被告郭文贵向原告支付在审理中确定的损害赔偿金额，但在任何情况下不得低于1,000,000美元，外加判决前利息、诉讼费用和律师费，并给予禁令救济，形式为命令郭文贵删除诽谤视频并发布更正/道歉声明；\n\n(ii) 就口头诽谤之第二项诉因，判令被告郭文贵向原告支付在审理中确定的损害赔偿金额，但在任何情况下不得低于1,000,000美元，外加判决前利息、诉讼费用和律师费，并给予禁令救济，形式为命令郭文贵删除诽谤视频并发布更正/道歉声明；以及\n\n(iii) 法院认为公正且适当的任何其他进一步救济。\n\n陪审团审判请求\n\n原告特此请求对所有可由陪审团审理的事项进行陪审团审判。\n\n日期：2020年2月19日\n地点：纽约州纽约市\n\nNESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP（内森诺夫与米尔滕贝格有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n\n签署人：/s/ Andrew T. Miltenberg\n\nAndrew T. Miltenberg, Esq.（安德鲁·T·米尔滕贝格，律师）\nAdrienne Levy, Esq.（阿德里安娜·利维，律师）\nNesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP\n363 Seventh Ave, 5th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\n(212) 736-4500\namiltenberg@nmllplaw.com\nalevy@nmllplaw.com","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Kwok","RICO","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3535,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-19 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-19","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:43:15"}