{"id":"court_sdny_10_4","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":10,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-03-29","title":"SDNY ECF 10","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Docket #23-mj-02007\nPlaintiff, :\n-against- :\nYANPING WANG, : New York, New York\nMarch 22, 2023\nDefendant.\n--------------------------------:\nPROCEEDINGS BEFORE\nTHE HONORABLE SARAH NETBURN\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nAPPEARANCES:\nFor Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nBY: JULIANA N. MURRAY, ESQ.\nMICAH F. FERGENSON, ESQ.\n1 St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nFor Defendant: LIPMAN LAW, PLLC\nBY: ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ.\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\nFor Defendant: CHAUDHRYLAW, PLLC\nBY: PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\nTranscription Service: Marissa Mignano Transcription\nPhone: (631) 813-9335\nE-mail:marissamignano@gmail.com\nProceedings recorded by electronic sound recording;\nTranscript produced by transcription service\n\nINDEX\nE X A M I N A T I O N S\nRe- Re-\nWitness Direct Cross Direct Cross\nNone\nE X H I B I T S\nExhibit Voir\nNumber Description ID In Dire\nNone\n\n1\n2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, this is\n3 matter of United States v. Yanping Wang. Case is\n4 number 23-mj-2007.\n5 Starting with the Government, could you\n6 please state your appearance for the record.\n7 MS. MURRAY: Good morning, Your Honor.\n8 Juliana Murray and Micah Fergenson on behalf of the\n9 United States.\n10 THE COURT: Thank you.\n11 MR. LIPMAN: Good morning, Your Honor.\n12 Alex Lipman of Lipman Law PLLC and my colleague\n13 Priya Chaudhry of ChaudhryLaw PLLC here for the\n14 defendant, Yanping Wang.\n15 THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Wang, can you\n16 sorry -- go ahead.\n17 MS. CHAUDHRY: The defendant is present\n18 seated between us and being assisted by a Mandarin\n19 interpreter.\n20 THE COURT: Thank you.\n21 Ms. Wang, is your interpreter device\n22 working okay?\n23 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. It's okay.\n24 THE COURT: Okay. If at any point you have\n25 difficulty hearing through the interpreter, please\n\n1 let us know. Okay?\n2 THE DEFENDANT: Understood.\n3 THE COURT: All right. So in preparation\n4 for this proceeding, I've reviewed the pretrial\n5 services report that was prepared about two weeks\n6 ago, maybe a week ago, when the defendant was\n7 initially here. And I have the transcript from\n8 March 15th when the defendant was presented before\n9 Judge Parker, which I've reviewed.\n10 I understand that Judge Parker set\n11 conditions for the defendant's release, required\n12 that the conditions be satisfied before she be\n13 released. And I understand that we are here\n14 potentially for a Nebbia hearing. Nobody has\n15 submitted anything else to me, so I don't know\n16 anything else than now what I've shared with you.\n17 MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. So we\n18 received a call last night from defense counsel,\n19 yesterday evening. They provided a number of\n20 potential cosigners. We've received documents for\n21 five of those and interviewed four and had not\n22 gotten to the point where we had two cosigners that\n23 we approved.\n24 So last evening, defense informed us that\n25 they wanted what they referred to as a Nebbia\n\n1 hearing. I understood the defense was going to file\n2 something for the Court overnight, but we just\n3 notified arraignment and arranged for defendant to\n4 be produced. So I will leave it to defense what\n5 they want to cover here today.\n6 THE COURT: Okay. Can I ask you just to\n7 move the microphone --\n8 MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry.\n9 THE COURT: -- directly in front of you.\n10 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, the reason we are\n11 here is because the Government has unreasonably, in\n12 our view, refused to approve the cosigners we\n13 proposed. So, as the Government said, we gave them\n14 more than five names. We gave them something like\n15 nine names, and they interviewed -- they have\n16 documents for five. They interviewed four. They've\n17 rejected all of them.\n18 And the reason we're here is because we are\n19 going to ask Your Honor to either approve the people\n20 we've proposed or change the bail conditions in such\n21 a way that Ms. Wang can satisfy the bail conditions\n22 and be released. So if I may just start before, as\n23 an initial map, right, since Your Honor has reviewed\n24 the pretrial report, Your Honor can see that the\n25 pretrial recommendation is much more -- much less --\n\n1 THE COURT: Let me stop you for one second.\n2 MR. LIPMAN: Yeah.\n3 THE COURT: I'm not really inclined to\n4 overrule my colleague who heard bail arguments and\n5 set a bail condition. So I'm not sure that's what I\n6 want to do, if that's what you're asking me to do.\n7 If you're asking me to consider the reasonableness\n8 of the proposed sureters I understand under the law,\n9 I can do that.\n10 I don't know anything about what that\n11 standard of review is, and I don't have any names or\n12 documents, so I don't know that that's something I\n13 can do from the bench.\n14 MR. LIPMAN: Well, Your Honor, let me set\n15 the stage for this, and maybe that'll help.\n16 THE COURT: Okay.\n17 MR. LIPMAN: Ms. Wang is a political\n18 refugee from China. She is a part of a movement of\n19 people who are opposing the Chinese Communist Party.\n20 And it's a pretty big movement. And because of her\n21 participation in the movement as a very senior\n22 person, she cannot return to China. If she did, she\n23 would be arrested at the airport and probably\n24 executed within days.\n25 So she's here. She lost her family in\n\n1 China. Her husband was required to divorce her.\n2 She has a son she hasn't seen in something like nine\n3 years because she's not allowed to be in contact\n4 with him. Her father died without seeing her. She\n5 can't contact her brother anymore. She used to, but\n6 all of the family members have been arrested at one\n7 point or another and told to cut off all contact\n8 with her. Okay?\n9 So the only people with whom she has\n10 contact are people who are part of this movement or\n11 in some way related to the main defendant in this\n12 case. The Government is well aware of this. When\n13 we actually agreed to the $5 million bond and two\n14 cosigners, when we did that we understood that the\n15 Government understood, and we had a conversation\n16 about it, that the people who would cosign for her\n17 are not going to be family members.\n18 Her only friends are people who are in this\n19 circle, and they're willing to sign for her, and\n20 they think that they have moral suasion over her.\n21 THE COURT: Sorry. She's been living in\n22 the United States since 2017; is that correct?\n23 MR. LIPMAN: She has.\n24 THE COURT: And in those six years, she\n25 hasn't befriended anybody who's not within that\n\n1 movement?\n2 MR. LIPMAN: What she does is she works,\n3 and then she goes home, and then she works. And her\n4 entire life, during this entire time, has been\n5 moving from her apartment to where she works and\n6 back. She actually -- the answer is that her entire\n7 world is people -- people in this -- people in this\n8 community. We did have one person who is a very\n9 well-known individual in the United States who is\n10 not part of that -- is not Chinese, and he\n11 volunteered to post a property worth two and a half\n12 million dollars to secure her bond.\n13 We proposed that if he were -- if he were\n14 to do two and a half million dollars of his\n15 property, and she confessed judgment on her\n16 apartment, that's three and a half million dollars.\n17 They have $130,000 in cash that they seized from her\n18 apartment. And then there is an account with\n19 approximately, I want to say, 4- to 500,000 dollars\n20 in it.\n21 We proposed to put all of that together for\n22 $4 million security for the bond and then so that\n23 they could, you know, approve the people that they\n24 had interviewed, and they refused. So we are at a\n25 point now where they won't approve the people we\n\n1 proposed because they are either not connected to\n2 her or too poor or connected with the main defendant\n3 and that kind of short circumstance. There's\n4 nothing we can do.\n5 THE COURT: Sorry. They rejected the\n6 $2.5 million property from somebody else because\n7 that person was not connected?\n8 MR. LIPMAN: No, not because he was not\n9 connected. He is a very well-known individual, and\n10 he has his own legal problems. He wasn't going to\n11 cosign the bond. He was just going to put up the\n12 property to secure her bond, and they rejected him\n13 because they said that he was a convicted felon,\n14 which, frankly, that's not -- neither here nor\n15 there. There is no requirement that incapacitates\n16 somebody who is convicted felon from securing\n17 somebody else's bond.\n18 THE COURT: And that person was prepared to\n19 basically hand over the deed to the Government?\n20 MR. LIPMAN: Correct, he was prepared to\n21 confess judgment on his property.\n22 Now, we now -- potentially, we might have\n23 other people who might be willing to do something\n24 like that, but the key issue here is this: The\n25 three people that they interviewed -- there are\n\n1 three people they interviewed they have no issues\n2 with, as far as I can tell, just as far as I can\n3 tell. And they won't approve them.\n4 First, they told us that they won't approve\n5 them because they don't have enough assets. Okay?\n6 So then we had subsequent conversations in which\n7 they said, well, the other problem is that they are\n8 too remote from her. They don't have moral suasion\n9 over her. Well, they think that they do, which is\n10 why they're doing this.\n11 And, by the way, Your Honor, even if they\n12 don't have the $5 million to stand behind this bond,\n13 they are financially responsible people. They would\n14 be ruined if the bond -- she defaulted on the bond.\n15 One of them is a lawyer. We offered another lawyer\n16 who is -- who is a -- we gave them the name. They\n17 didn't run it down because they told us straight\n18 away that he won't work.\n19 But we offered an IT professional -- I\n20 think two IT professionals, if memory serves.\n21 THE COURT: Two what professionals?\n22 MR. LIPMAN: IT.\n23 THE COURT: IT.\n24 MR. LIPMAN: We offered -- they interviewed\n25 one of the lawyers. He is not rich now, but he does\n\n1 have his own practice. He is a financially\n2 responsible person, and the bond is secured with a\n3 confession judgment on her apartment. She's going\n4 to be at home with an ankle monitor. She's confined\n5 to her apartment. She can't leave it unless she\n6 comes to visit us.\n7 How do we get out of this?\n8 THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the\n9 Government. Thank you.\n10 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the Government's\n11 view is that this proceeding is premature. There is\n12 a process for the Government to interview and\n13 evaluate the qualifications of potential cosigners.\n14 As Your Honor noted, a week ago, Judge Parker\n15 imposed conditions, and she agreed with both the\n16 Government and Pretrial that those conditions needed\n17 to be met before Ms. Wang could be released.\n18 One of those conditions was two qualified\n19 cosigners on a $5 million bond. The reason that\n20 we're here today, as I understand, is because the\n21 defense is unhappy with the Government's\n22 determination that various of the names that they\n23 provided are not qualified.\n24 There are a couple of points I want to\n25 make, and I don't want to get into the details of\n\n1 the individual because Your Honor doesn't have the\n2 information in front of you right now. But as an\n3 example, the individual who is willing to pledge the\n4 2.2 million in property, defense never provided us\n5 with the address for the property. So we weren't\n6 able to run it down to find out how much equity was\n7 in the property, what was the mortgage, what was the\n8 source of funds used for the property.\n9 And that prominent individual who they said\n10 owned the property is an individual who is very\n11 involved in the fraud in this case. And this is a\n12 billion-dollar fraud that was spearheaded by an\n13 individual known as Ho Wan Kwok or Miles Guo. The\n14 individual who was going to pledge the property has\n15 been involved in several organizations that are\n16 alleged to be instrumentalities of the fraud. And\n17 Ms. Wang is the chief of staff for Mr. Guo. She\n18 runs all of his companies.\n19 A couple of the individuals, we did advise\n20 defense counsel, we couldn't even in good faith\n21 interview as potential cosigners. One of the\n22 lawyers that Mr. Lipman mentioned is the outside\n23 counsel for three of the different entities that\n24 operated this fraud scheme. His law firm had an\n25 escrow account that held tens of millions of dollars\n\n1 of fraud scheme funds over the course of the charged\n2 conspiracy. That is not a person that we feel\n3 comfortable, even if he has the financial means to\n4 cosign a bond for the defendant.\n5 We have expressed a willingness to work\n6 with defense on potential cosigners, particularly in\n7 light of their claims. Which we understand that\n8 Ms. Wang doesn't have family here, so the moral\n9 suasion angle might be different.\n10 But we can't be in a position where Judge\n11 Parker made a very reasoned judgment on the facts,\n12 and the Government agrees that in light of the\n13 substantial flight risk that Ms. Wang creates, in\n14 light of both her political asylum status, the\n15 strength of the Government's evidence, the amount of\n16 time she's facing, and her global network of Miles\n17 Guo supporters who clearly are willing to put their\n18 necks out and sign a bond, even though some of them\n19 have only met her once or twice or only speak with\n20 her a couple of times.\n21 In light of that substantial flight risk,\n22 we need to be assured that we have qualified\n23 cosigners on this bond. That's all we're doing. It\n24 is a process wherein for every cosigner that we\n25 evaluate, we request information, we request\n\n1 documents, we conduct an interview, we make an\n2 evaluation, and we engage in dialogue. And if we\n3 think that person isn't qualified, we ask for\n4 another name.\n5 In this case, we have been given names in\n6 the abstract without even having their documents.\n7 Defense has pushed us to approve them in the\n8 abstract. With respect to the $2.2 million property\n9 that they proposed would secure the bond, for\n10 example, we received a call. They said they had an\n11 individual, didn't name the individual at first, who\n12 would put up 2.2 million in property. We asked for\n13 the address. They said, \"We'll get it to you. Will\n14 you just agree in principle today?\"\n15 Your Honor, again, we have a process of\n16 going through this, and we are not slow rolling this\n17 by any stretch. We have spent a substantial amount\n18 of time in the last week running down each of the\n19 names and interviewing the people that defense\n20 counsel has brought before us.\n21 If defense is in a position where they want\n22 to argue that the Government's assessment is\n23 unreasonable, then under the statute under 18 U.S.C.\n24 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), for the Court to approve or\n25 determine the appropriateness of an unapproved\n\n1 surety, the Court needs to have before it all of the\n2 documents and assets and evidence underlying that\n3 surety's financial situation because the standard is\n4 that the Court can, on its own, approve that surety\n5 if such surety has a net worth which has sufficient\n6 unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail\n7 bond.\n8 So we're happy to keep working with\n9 defense. We would like to do that to see if there\n10 are potentially qualified cosigners. But if we get\n11 to a point where defense feels there aren't, the\n12 next step would be for the defense to gather\n13 together the supporting materials for proposed\n14 cosigners, submit them to the Court, and then if the\n15 court makes its own independent evaluation that\n16 those people have $5 million in unencumbered assets\n17 sufficient to support the bond, then I think their\n18 application would appropriately be before the Court.\n19 THE COURT: Thank you.\n20 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, what the\n21 Government just said, essentially, is this: We\n22 interview these people, make a judgment about\n23 whether they're appropriate or not, but the only\n24 questions that they need to actually answer are,\n25 number one, is this a financially responsible\n\n1 person, and, two, do they have moral suasion over\n2 the defendant.\n3 THE COURT: But why wouldn't the assessment\n4 of whether somebody was a financially responsible\n5 person include the responsible part? Meaning if,\n6 for instance, the lawyer that you proposed is, in\n7 the Government's light, at least involved on some\n8 level with the fraud, even if that person has\n9 assets, then that person is not responsible in the\n10 Government's light.\n11 MR. LIPMAN: Well, that person --\n12 THE COURT: And so if you want to make an\n13 application to the Court, that's one thing. But\n14 that's not an unreasonable position for the\n15 Government to take.\n16 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in that situation,\n17 regardless of what the Government thinks he did or\n18 didn't do, he would be on the hook for $5 million.\n19 And the idea of a financially responsible person is\n20 a little bit of an interesting question. The people\n21 that they refuse to -- they interviewed three\n22 people, one a lawyer, two -- I think they're both IT\n23 professionals. They don't have a problem with those\n24 issues -- with those people.\n25 What they said to us is, these people don't\n\n1 have enough assets. Well, you know what? They\n2 don't have enough assets. But if Ms. Wang were to\n3 default on the bond, they would be in serious\n4 financial troubles. And they understand that.\n5 THE COURT: Right. Unless they fled.\n6 MR. LIPMAN: But there's no -- even they do\n7 not suggest that. They're completely unrelated to\n8 her or to the main defendant. I mean, they are\n9 people who know her and are willing to cosign a bond\n10 for her, but even the Government doesn't claim\n11 there's any issue with them, that they're going to\n12 flee or anything like that. One of them is a lawyer\n13 practicing in Chicago. He's not going anywhere,\n14 Your Honor. He's not making a ton of money, but\n15 he's not going anywhere.\n16 And one of them is an IT professional who's\n17 actually not Chinese, and he's willing to cosign\n18 bond. Again, he's not a rich person, but his\n19 financial life would be ruined if Ms. Wang were to\n20 default on the bond. And he understands that, and\n21 he thinks that he's willing to sign.\n22 And by the way, he spoke with his wife\n23 before he agreed. They both agreed to do so. So\n24 these people making serious, serious commitment,\n25 they all understand what's going on. They are\n\n1 financially responsible. They're not related to the\n2 fraud in any way whatsoever.\n3 THE COURT: And so what relief are you\n4 seeking today?\n5 MR. LIPMAN: What I'm asking the Court to\n6 do is to do one of two things: Either direct them\n7 to accept the three people being interviewed with\n8 whom they didn't have -- about whom they didn't\n9 have -- they didn't have an issue with them other\n10 than they told us that these people were not\n11 sufficiently rich, or alternatively, that you alter\n12 the bail conditions in such a way that we could\n13 actually reasonably meet.\n14 Because if the requirement is that somebody\n15 cosigns a bond over who has moral suasion over\n16 Ms. Wang, all of those people are in Mr. Guo's\n17 orbit, and none of them are going to work. Her best\n18 friend is his daughter. She can't sign. She can\n19 sign for other reasons, maybe, but she can't sign.\n20 We proposed her. They rejected him. They have good\n21 reasons for doing it -- or I don't know if they are\n22 good reasons. They say they have good reasons for\n23 doing it.\n24 But they rejected her best friend's\n25 boyfriend as a cosigner. They rejected another\n\n1 person who works Mr. Guo as a cosigner. We asked\n2 them. There are people who -- she was a senior\n3 person in this organization. She interacted with\n4 several senior people. We asked -- we gave them the\n5 names, we said how about this person, that person.\n6 No, no, no, because they're involved in the fraud or\n7 they're involved in the movement or they're involved\n8 in this, involved in that.\n9 Well, what are we supposed to do? We found\n10 three people they interviewed who are financially\n11 responsible, willing to sign, and did not even --\n12 they don't claim are involved in defrauding anyone.\n13 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I just may\n14 briefly respond to that point. I do want to note I\n15 don't believe there's any issue that's ripe for the\n16 Court at this point procedurally or under the law.\n17 And I don't think that the first prong of relief\n18 that Mr. Lipman suggested is appropriate, for the\n19 Court to force the Government to approve cosigners.\n20 That is not the legal standard.\n21 The three individuals Mr. Lipman just\n22 mentioned, I want to note, while we said we could\n23 get comfortable with them as financially responsible\n24 persons, all three of those individuals are victims\n25 of the fraud. They all invested in various of the\n\n1 different fraudulent arms of this scheme. The fact\n2 that they are willing to sign a bond and they have\n3 potential means to support some portion, by no\n4 stretch, 5 million, but some portion of that bond is\n5 independent of the other prong of the assessment,\n6 which is moral suasion.\n7 If they sign the bond, what influence do\n8 they have over Ms. Wang appearing in future court\n9 appearances to protect the assets and the $5 million\n10 debt that could be imposed on people she and her\n11 coconspirators have already victimized in the course\n12 of this fraud?\n13 We have valid bases to have not accepted\n14 the cosigners who have been presented. We have a\n15 process for reviewing and approving cosigners. And\n16 if there are certain people the defense wants to\n17 bring to the Court's attention, they need to provide\n18 the supporting documentation and make an argument,\n19 and the Court can make an independent investment.\n20 THE COURT: Okay. I think --\n21 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, just very briefly,\n22 these people understand what they're doing. They're\n23 members of a movement of people who are dissidents\n24 and are opposing Chinese Government, communist\n25 party. Ms. Wang is a very well-known person. They\n\n1 know who she is. They understand the allegations.\n2 One of them specifically asked me, before he agreed\n3 to do it, to send him the complaint, which I did.\n4 And he took time to review the complaint before he\n5 gave me permission to contact the Government. Okay?\n6 So they know what they're doing. They\n7 understand that the Government used them as victims.\n8 They are prepared to sign.\n9 THE COURT: Okay. I tend to agree with\n10 Ms. Murray that there is not an issue before the\n11 Court. I'm certainly not going to direct people I\n12 don't even know -- I haven't even had names, much\n13 less any information. I'm not going to direct the\n14 Government to accept these miscellaneous John Does\n15 as sureties. That's not how this works. And I\n16 don't believe sufficient time has elapsed that\n17 justifies revisiting Judge Parker's bail conditions.\n18 What I'd like to do is, first, direct you,\n19 Mr. Lipman. It sounds like you haven't given all\n20 the information to the Government specifically with\n21 respect to this person who has property that they\n22 might post. You know, they need to do their job. I\n23 take Ms. Murray at her word that they are not slow\n24 walking this. They are making every effort to\n25 locate somebody that the Government is comfortable\n\n1 with. But you do need to provide information so\n2 that they can do their job too. So you need to get\n3 that information to the Government as soon as\n4 possible.\n5 I'd like to set a date for an appropriate\n6 motion based on what you are proposing. And I guess\n7 the question, Mr. Lipman, is when do you want that\n8 motion to be filed? I think it does need to be\n9 filed with supporting documents and all of the\n10 information necessary, and I think it'll just be\n11 assigned to the judge who's on duty here. That\n12 judge will need to review the information as well.\n13 So I don't know how long it'll take you to\n14 assemble the paperwork that you would need to\n15 assemble to satisfy the Court that the person that\n16 you're proposing that you allege the Government has\n17 rejected is inadequate and the Court should order\n18 the Government to accept that person.\n19 So I want to give you enough time to make a\n20 motion that's appropriate and supported, but also to\n21 continue working with the Government, because I\n22 don't hear the Government saying they don't see a\n23 way out of this morass. They just need additional\n24 information. And it may be as you began,\n25 Mr. Lipman, you know, there's a million-dollar\n\n1 property. There's a 2.2, 2.5 million dollar\n2 property of somebody else. There's a half a million\n3 dollars in a bank that's frozen. It may be that the\n4 Government can work with you to cobble something\n5 together.\n6 But, for instance, if you have a\n7 $2.5 million house in the Hamptons that has $100,000\n8 in equity in it, and the rest is owned by a bank,\n9 then that's not going to be helpful for your client.\n10 You need to get that information to the Government.\n11 They just have no idea.\n12 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, just to be clear,\n13 in the case of this famous individual, the\n14 Government says they didn't provide us the\n15 information. They knew who it was, and the question\n16 was not what the property was. The question was\n17 were they going to approve him at all. And they\n18 didn't. They said -- they told us they ran it up\n19 the flag pole, couldn't do it.\n20 It wasn't because the property wasn't\n21 appropriate that they turned it down. It wasn't\n22 because there was not enough equity in it. It was\n23 because they don't like who it is. And the problem\n24 that we have and the reason we are in this courtroom\n25 today, Your Honor, is because their criteria keeps\n\n1 shifting. First, there was an understanding, an\n2 explicit understanding -- I told them right away,\n3 look, there are no sisters. There are no brothers.\n4 There are no aunts. Okay? It's going to be\n5 somebody else.\n6 They said, \"All right; we understand that.\"\n7 So we gave them names. These people are not rich\n8 enough. Okay. Now they're telling you that they\n9 also don't have moral suasion. Well, you knew that\n10 before when I first gave you the names. I feel like\n11 we're not getting anywhere because things are\n12 shifting. And I think what they're doing is they're\n13 deliberately trying to keep her in in order to put\n14 pressure on her so that she becomes their friends,\n15 your Honor. I think that's what's really going on\n16 here.\n17 Friday. We'll file on Friday or tee it up\n18 on Friday?\n19 MS. CHAUDHRY: We'll file on Friday.\n20 MR. LIPMAN: We can file on Friday, Your\n21 Honor.\n22 THE COURT: Okay.\n23 MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, we will\n24 continue working with them, but at a minimum, it\n25 would be helpful to us if the Court could at least\n\n1 admonish them to work with us in good faith.\n2 THE COURT: I'm not going to admonish them\n3 because I don't believe that they are not working\n4 with you in good faith. So I'm happy to have your\n5 application. I hope nothing that's in the\n6 application is information that you haven't provided\n7 to the Government, because what I'm hearing from the\n8 Government, and I don't really need to get into the\n9 sandbox to figure out who's right or who's wrong\n10 here, is that they haven't received all the\n11 information that they need from you. So I hope that\n12 you continue to provide that to them.\n13 I'll direct the Government to expeditiously\n14 respond to the proposals and to make a good faith\n15 assessment of those folks. I'm not going to\n16 admonish you that you haven't done that yet, but\n17 that's certainly your obligation, and I expect you\n18 to do so. So this motion is going to be filed on\n19 Friday.\n20 When would the Government like to file its\n21 opposition?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Without knowing what this\n23 motion is going to look like, Your Honor, it's a\n24 little difficult to say.\n25 THE COURT: How about if you file it\n\n1 Wednesday, and we set a conference for the following\n2 Friday?\n3 MR. FERGENSON: That seems reasonable, Your\n4 Honor.\n5 THE COURT: Okay. So there's going to be\n6 something filed on Friday, which is March 24th.\n7 There's going to be an opposition filed on\n8 Wednesday, which, if my calculation is right, is\n9 March 29th.\n10 Is that right, Ms. Fletcher?\n11 THE DEPUTY CLERK: That's right.\n12 THE COURT: And then I will work with, I\n13 believe, Judge Lehrburger, who will be hearing this,\n14 for a date for the conference, which will be held on\n15 March 31st.\n16 If between now and March 31st, the parties\n17 are able to work this out, which is my hope, you\n18 should obviously notify the Court as soon as\n19 possible. And I do think the parties can figure out\n20 a way to come up with a resolution here for this\n21 issue. This is not the first time the Government\n22 has faced complications of this sort, so I'm\n23 confident you can figure something out. But\n24 obviously, if you can't, then the Court will see you\n25 the following Friday.\n\n1 All right. Anything further?\n2 MR. FERGENSON: No, thank you, Your Honor.\n3 MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.\n4 MS. CHAUDHRY: Your Honor, did we have a\n5 time for next Friday?\n6 THE COURT: We don't.\n7 MR. LIPMAN: Okay.\n8 THE COURT: We'll set it once -- it's going\n9 to be Judge Lehrburger.\n10 MS. CHAUDHRY: Thank you.\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n1 C E R T I F I C A T E\n2\n3 I, Marissa Mignano, certify that the foregoing\n4 transcript of proceedings in the case of\n5 UNITED STATES v. YANPING WANG, Docket #23-mj-02007,\n6 was prepared using digital transcription software and\n7 is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.\n8\n9\n10 Signature ___________________________\n11 Marissa Mignano\n12\n13 Date: March 27, 2023\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5645,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-29","updated_at":"2026-07-06 17:58:07"}