Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Guo Wengui With Bannon Cited Sued Strategic Vision Now Closing Arguments Cite Faction

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 30 – Guo Wengui's Eastern Profit Corporation sued Strategic Vision US LLC, in a sealed complaint.  

 On October 5, 2020 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman held a proceeding. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here and below.

 On March 31 after Steve Bannon got a pardon from then-President Trump, Judge Liman held another conference, and Inner City Press again covered it.

  As the parties prepared to go to (bench) trial, Eastern Profit's lawyer asked to go into a sealed courtroom. Judge Liman asked for her proffer and she said that a certain witness - whom she left unnamed - may well invoke the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate oneself, that there are criminal issues in the air.

Inner City Press has now published the complaint on Patreon here; the talk of the centrality of the witness and the looming but not current criminal issues point in one direction.

  On April 30, Judge Liman held closing arguments, and Inner City Press live tweeted:

 Eastern is going first.  Eastern's lawyer: What were we obligated to do? Well, the monthly fee was tied to the work flow. We didn't have to pay regardless of performance by Strategic.

 Judge Liman has asked, What if the Court were to find that Strategic breached by failing to provide the research on the timetable specified & to also find that Eastern breached by failing to make the $750,000 payment, according to Strategic, due in Feb 2017?

Eastern's lawyer: The Virginia statute here says private investigators have to have a license. And Strategic retained private investigators.

 Eastern's lawyer: We heard testimony about retaliation by the CCP against Mr. Guo and his family members. And about the meeting in his apartment.

 Eastern's lawyer: We heard about Facebook taking down Mr. Guo's account. We heard about the Red Notice against him. We heard about Mr. Broidy...

Eastern's lawyer: It was already public record that Guo still had connections with the CCP, that the CCP allowed his family to visit him in New York, and a minister visited him in NY - Strategic knew all this before they entered the contract. So, no fraud.

 Eastern's lawyer: They knew about his alleged movement of money from Hong Kong. Even if Strategic now argues for adverse inferences, they already knew it. There is no reliance.

Judge Liman: Ms. Cline, I'm giving you a five minute warning. Eastern's lawyer Joanna Cline: Thank you, your Honor. Strategic breached the contract, and they breached it first. We ask that they pay $1 million.

Judge Liman: Mr. Greim?

Strategic's lawyer Greim: When Guo was testifying about the research agreement, he said William was involved - that makes sense, given that ACA was the funder. The case law Eastern cites has nothing to do with restitution. It is not on point.

Strategic's lawyer: Guo at his deposition laughed when asked if his bodyguard and cook Han attended the meeting.

Strategic's lawyer: Guo waffled to the court, claimed he couldn't know if it was his voice or not. He took the Fifth - he only wanted to clip one faction

  Also after the trial, which Inner City Press covered often exclusively, on April 28 Judge Liman ruled: "Eastern moves to strike the following exhibits on various grounds: DX37, see Fed. R. Evid. 901, 1002; DX35, DX76A, and DX114, see Fed. R. Evid. 403, 801, 901, 1002; and lines 765:17 and 765:19-766:6 of the trial testimony of Sasha Gong as impermissible expert testimony. Dkt. No. 354. Strategic moves to strike the following exhibits as hearsay: PX44, PX47, PX50, and PX59. Dkt. No. 353. The Court receives PX44, PX47, and PX50 as prior inconsistent statements. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). The Court overrules the objection to the trial testimony of Sasha Gong: the objection is untimely and the testimony is permissible lay opinion testimony. The Court reserves judgment on Strategic’s objection to PX59 and on Eastern’s objections to DX37, DX35, DX76A, and DX114." Watch this site.

On April 19, the bench trial began and Inner City Press was there, alone in the courtroom gallery, while Strategic's Ms. French Wallop was cross examined about, among other things, trying to charge Eastern for Hermes gifts. The day ened with J. Michael Waller, who was named on sign board carried by dogged demonstrators on Worth Street, where they'd been when Bannon was arraigned. Inner City Press live tweeted, here
 and below.

On April 22, in the afternoon, Guo remained on the witness stand, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment, until the end. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

Now on April 23, Strategic Vision through counsel has moved to strike from the record several documents used by Eastern during its cross examination of Sasha Gong: "Strategic Vision moves to strike several exhibits proffered by Eastern Profit during  its cross-examination of Strategic witness Sasha Gong.  First, PX-59 purports to be a Stanford Internet Observatory Cyber Policy Center  report, “Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter  Takedown.” The attached certification indicates that it was a special prepared by the Center,  but it establishes none of the elements of a business record under FRE 803(6). It is not a  report of regular business activity (i.e., the decision of yet another party, Twitter, to allegedly  conduct a special investigation and reach a decision, and Twitter’s purported reasons and  basis for doing so) for which it is being offered. It was not prepared by someone with actual  knowledge of the activity, or with information transmitted by someone who has knowledge.  It was not kept or made in the course of a regular business activity. Certainly, the witness  had no knowledge of the report. PX-59 is hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  It also is an opinion by a collection of authors (Carly Miller, Vanessa Molter, Isabella GarciaCamargo, Renée DiResta), none identified as an expert in this case, about the views of  Stanford, the CCP, and the cyber policy community. Strategic did not challenge the  authenticity of the article as a Center report, but it should not be admitted.  Second, Strategic moves to strike certain exhibits authored by Sasha Gong, including  PX-44 (Article in Wall Street Journal by Sasha Gong entitled How China Managed to Muffle  the Voice of America), PX-47 ( Op-Ed by Sasha Gong entitled Spineless Federal  Bureaucrats Caved to Chinese Pressure to Censor Voice of America. Now They Deny It), and  PX-50 (Daily Caller Op-Ed by Sasha Gong entitled A Former RNC Finance Chair and His  Role in Malaysia’s Development Fund Scandal). These are hearsay offered for the truth of  the matter asserted when the author herself explained that her beliefs about Guo  fundamentally changed after the articles were written. As to the comments in the final  article, the evidence at trial established that the subject did not plead guilty to anything other  than that he did not register under FARA in connection with advocacy for a Malaysian  national." Complete letter on Patreon here.

From April 22: Q: Mr. Guo, do you live in the Sherry Netherland Hotel?

Guo: I invoke my privilege under the 5th Amendment.

 Q: Mr. Guo, is it true that video recording in your apartment, that you did not make, appeared on the Internet?

 Guo: It was at the very beginning, on some Twitter from the CCP, in China.

Q: You received a subpoena for all video or audio of your meetings with Chinese officials, but did not provide this one?

Guo: I don't know where that video is now. I have never seen it all the way through.

 Q: Is that the video where you say Chinese officials tried to kidnap you and take you back to China?

Guo: We met for many hours. That was just a little bit of what happened. They said they have a lot of resources and organizations in the US that can have me killed

Q: Isn't it true that during this meeting, your wife made dumplings for the Chinese officials?

Guo: Yes.

Q: Then you walked the group out of the building. Guo: I did.

Judge Liman: Please explain how he can invoke the 5th Amendment when Strategic's counsel ask about a transcript Mr. Guo has already adopted?

Mr. Klein: He said, my name is there. He did not say, I said that.

Judge Liman: He was represented by counsel, by you.

 Mr Klein: He was answering on another topic, we're invoking only as to certain topic areas. He can confirm it is on the page. I view it as tethering to certain topical areas. Judge Liman: Let me explore the limits of your invocation...

 Judge Liman: We'll leave it open, and if I determine there is no good faith invocation, we'll come back.

Q: Mr. Guo, you said, "I will not make any decisions before the 19th National Congress." That's what you said to Mr Ping, no? Guo: I was repeating what I said

 Q: You said, I am not against the Party, neither have I said I am for the Party, right? Guo: That is different than what I said. They wanted me to say I am for the CCP. I refused.

 Q: Mr. Guo, have you attacked Mr. Bob Fu online? Guo: I have never attacked anyone. There were a million online attacking me. Why would I retaliate against all of them. It is the strategy of the CCP, unrestricted warfare.

Q: Mr. Guo, have you encouraged your followed to harass Sasha Gong? Guo: Absolutely impossible. Q: Have you accused Sasha Gong of being a Communist spy? Guo: It was after she called me a spy. Then I retaliate. Q: Bob Fu is a pastor? Guo: No, a CCP member.

 Q: Mr Guo, isn't a large part of your work attacking dissidents in this country? Guo: This is purely a lie. 99% of my time is against the CCP, exposing them, their deeds in Xinjiang, Tibet, exposing the truth about the virus...

 Q: Mr. Guo, you said you wanted to go back to China after showing merit Guo: I don't recall that. Q: You wanted to get research and evidence to take out one faction of the CCP, correct? Guo: Absolutely impossible

 Judge Liman: We'll take our break... Then we'll have our last witness.

 [Sasha Gong, here]

Back on April 21, at the end of the day, Guo himself took the stand. Here is Inner City Press' thread of that:

Outside the SDNY  courthouse there are two dozen Guo supporters. A witness in this case wrote in and characterized them as thugs "surfing" Chinatown looking for people to beat up. Yet in the gallery as the trial began there was only Inner City Press

  Previous: Lawyer for Eastern Profit Corporation Limited says Mr. Guo is a "real dissident," and that it will be proved at this trial. Accuses Strategic Vision US LLC of falsely claiming Guo *supports* Xi.

Eastern Profit Corporation Limited wants a judgment of $1 million and that Strategic's claims be stricken.

  The case, in which Guo is also known as Miles Kwok and in which now SDNY criminal subject Stephen K. Bannon is also listed, is Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision US LLC, 18-cv-2185 (Liman)


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]