You are on page 1of 95

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

11
12

CR 14-196 CRB

v.

13 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, aka

RAYMOND CHOW,
14

Defendant.
15

16
17
18
19

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND


MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE
PROSECUTION

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

J. TONY SERRA #32639


CURTIS L. BRIGGS #284190
GREG M. BENTLEY #275923
506 Broadway
San Francisco CA 94133
Telephone: 415/986-5591

27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

Attorneys for Defendant


KWOK CHEUNG CHOW

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

2
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

iii

4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

5 STATEMENT OF FACTS

6 ARGUMENT

THE PRESENT INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE


THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE RAYMOND CHOW WAS
DISCRIMINATORY IN INTENT AND EFFECT

A.

I.

10

Discriminatory Intent
1.

Chows Life Story Was Worth Millions: Discriminatory Intent Is


Evident From A Long Pattern of Unprofessional Law
Enforcement and Prosecutorial Misconduct
9

2.

Success As Ghee Kung Tong Dragonhead Provoked the


Government: Chows Rise In Popularity As Positive Community
Leader and Media Popularity Brought About This Investigation
and Prosecution
13

11
12
13
14
15

B.

Discriminatory Effect

14

16

II.
17

MR. CHOW IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO INVESTIGATE HIS


SELECTIVE PROSECUTION CLAIM

18 CONCLUSION

19

19 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

21

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

19

28

ii

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 23

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

4 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)

5 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

6 Esmail v. Macrane (7th Cir. 1995) 53 F.3d 176

9, 18

7 Indiana State Teachers Ass'n v. Board of School Commissioners (7th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d 1179,

1181

18

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
10

11 Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)

12 United States v. Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456, 464-465


13 United States v. Bass (2002) 536 U.S. 862, 864
14 United States v. DeTar (9th Cir. 1987) 832 F.2d 1110.
15 United States v. Marshall (9th Cir. 1976) 532 F.2d 1279
16 United States v. McWilliams (9th Cir. 1984) 730 F.2d 1218, 1221

3, 8, 19
8, 14
8, 9
3, 19
18

17 United States v. United States District Court, Central District of California, 717 F.2d 478 (9th

Cir. 1983)

3, 19

Wayte v. United States, (1985) 470 U.S. 598

3, 19

18
19

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U.S. 356

20

Codes and Statutes

21
22 Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326

15

23 United States Constitution


24

First Amendment

1, 7-9, 18, 19

25

Fifth Amendment

2, 3, 9, 18

26

Fourteenth Amendment

2, 3, 7, 9

27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

iii

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page4 of 23

1 J. TONY SERRA #32639

CURTIS L. BRIGGS #284190


2 GREG M. BENTLEY #275923

506 Broadway
3 San Francisco CA 94133

Telephone: 415/986-5591
4

Attorneys for Defendant


5 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

11
12

CR 14-196 CRB
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION; MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

v.

13 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, aka

RAYMOND CHOW,
14

Defendant.
15

Date: August 21, 2015


Time: 10:30 p.m.
Dept: Hon. Joseph C. Spero

16 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:


17
18

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the date and at the time indicated above, KWOK

19 CHEUNG CHOW, through counsel, will and hereby does move this Court for an order
20 dismissing the Indictment filed against him due to the Governments politically tainted selective
21 prosecution or, at a minimum, for an order to compel this discovery shedding light on the
22 spurious charging decisions made by the United States Attorney in this matter.
23

The instant prosecution must be dismissed because Chow was targeted and selectively

24 prosecuted for associating with the Ghee Kung Tong, a fraternal organization in San Francisco,
25 the Chinese Free Masons, his outspoken and open dialogue relating to past criminal activity and
26 ties, and his increasing legitimate political influence. This prosecution is in violation of his right
27 to free assembly and free speech guaranteed under U.S. Const. amends. I and XIV, and the
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28 Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V.

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page5 of 23

Defendant requests such information that would reveal the true motivations behind

2 prosecuting Chow, who maintains factual innocence versus those political figures whose
3 conduct was criminal according to the FBI. Finally, Chow asks for an evidentiary hearing so that
4 persons with knowledge regarding the decision to prosecute certain individuals can be
5 questioned as consistent with the Confrontation Clause. The charging decision must be justified.
6

This motion is predicated on the non-exhaustive and select files and records herein,

7 including relevant excerpts from discovery pursuant to paragraph 15 of the Protective Order
8 issued in this case1, and on the following memorandum of points and authorities and declaration
9 of counsel.
10

Dated: August 3, 2015


/s/CURTIS L. BRIGGS
J. TONY SERRA
CURTIS L. BRIGGS
GREG M. BENTLEY
Attorneys for Defendant
KWOK CHEUNG CHOW

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
1

Attached as Exhibit 1.
2

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page6 of 23

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

2
3

To the extent that you're going to exercise your discretion, it's easier to do that
when it hasn't seen the light of day. It is harder to ignore if you're the government
when it was all over the news.''~Melinda Haag, United States Attorney

Even a formerly notorious gang leader turned community leader is entitled to exercise

5 his First Amendment right to free assembly in any lawful organization without retaliation, is
6 entitled to exercise his free speech and talk to the press and media, and should not be prosecuted
7 due his or her positive political support from the communityin fact reform should be rewarded.
8 Raymond Chow was selectively prosecuted for exercising his constitutional right to associate
9 with the Ghee Kong Tong, his participation and self promotion in the media, as well as his
10 increasing political influence which was perceived as at threat to the establishment. Mr. Chow
11 was denied such Constitutional protection and, accordingly the Indictment against him must be
12 dismissed. U.S. v. Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456, United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., Cent. Dist. of
13 Cal., 717 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1983), U.S. v. Marshall (9th Cir. 1976) 532 F.2d 1279, Wayte
14 v. U.S. (1985) 470 U.S. 598. However, should that argument not prevail, defense further asserts
15 that such evidence is discoverable pending appeal under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
16 Fourteenth Amendments and applicable case law, including Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
17 (1963); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995); and their progeny, to the extent that such
18 evidence contains material and exculpatory information. Once those with knowledge of the
19 charging decision are identified, the Court should order a hearing so that those persons can be
20 questioned to fully investigate this defense. Anything less is a denial Chows Constitutional
21 rights and it would be injurious to the public to further suppress the truth about this case to the
22 citizens of San Francisco.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

23
24

Federal authorities descended on Chinatown with massive highly funded federal

25 surveillance resources specifically targeting the American-Chinese threat with no actual


26 suspicion of criminality. They were armed only with racist assumptions.2 The timing was
27 serendipitous for the Government because massive resources were required to investigate Chow
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
2

See Exhibit 2(a) and 2(b).


3

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page7 of 23

1 as there was no evidence of criminal conduct on his part. Instead of walking away from the
2 table the Government doubled-down as has become the pattern when it comes to Chow. It was
3 about the same time Chow debuts on a well known television documentary discussing his past
4 as a gang leader and flaunting his freedom as his revenge to the Government. He did so because
5 he needed the money and he hoped to build his public image in preparation of selling his movie
6 rights.
7

Surveillance began shortly thereafter leading to a full scale operation in 2009 which,

8 according to discovery, it appears was solely for political reasons as evidenced by the fact that
9 the only FBI documentation from that time period relates to Chows political success. The
10 investigation stagnated quickly and is characterized by literally years of attempting to lure Chow
11 into breaking the law to no avail.3 In fact, the agent provocateurs were never able to get Chow
12 to knowingly engage in any criminal conduct. Two years into the operation the government
13 brought in a new UCE and focused on Chow associates to advance their objectives. Four years
14 later and still bankrolled by the taxpayer, Government has admitted that the political corruption
15 investigation instigated contrary to the desire of the Government; what it has not admitted is that
16 it resulted in snagging at least a dozen bottom feeding political types. These well known locals
17 were inching each other out of the way for the next bundle of cash.
18

Despite widespread reporting in the press, not one politician implicated actually had

19 enough respect for themselves, the community, or our democratic process, to come forward and
20 admit involvement. Each of these public servants were allowed to progress through the
21 November 2014 election process unscathed because of a protective order issued in this case.
22 Instead the public was allowed to stew in the indicted parties alleged culpability after a blast of
23 media headlines, while people who actually were in a position to do damage while betraying the
24 public trust remained namelessall in the context of what was sold as a public corruption and
25 organized crime investigation.
26

These investigations consisted of electronic, physical, and aerial surveillance, wiretaps,

27 body wires, covert audio and video recording in apartments and vehicles, confidential human
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
3

See Exhibit3: Section A.


4

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page8 of 23

1 informants, boating trips, Las Vegas trips, numerous fake identities, real estate investors, the
2 restaurant industry, over two million dollars in faux money laundering, and over $50,000 in
3 payments to local elected and appointed public officials. The FBI shipped truckloads of fake4 stolen liquor and cigarettes across the country, contracted murder for hire on fake people, and
5 agents paraded around with $20,000 watches posing as nouveau multi-cultural La Cosa Nostra.
6 Yet, despite all of what the Government claimed to be damning evidence against all the
7 defendants, the reality is that the evidence was at least as damning to the unindicted politicians
8 and in Mr. Chows case, the whereabouts of anything incriminating is still a mystery.
9

As the indictments came in, it became clear that certain individuals, starting with Mr.

10 Chow, were targeted for their perceived political allegiances, political and communal
11 association with the Hung Moon Ghee Kong Tong, while others were not indicted due to their
12 political affiliations, potential of disruptive fallout, social connections and more. Another
13 illustration is the fact that the Government successfully engaged both Senator Yee and Mayor
14 Ed Lee in bribery scandals, yet only indicted Yee who was Lees opponent and who posed the
15 threat of diverting Chinatown political support away from Ed Lee and David Chiu. It has yet to
16 be established, but appearances are such that the United States Attorney was complicit with
17 local politicians to rid Chinatown of any alternate voices including Chow.
18

The Government is targeting Chow for exercising his First Amendment right to free

19 assembly and free association with the Ghee Kong Tong. The Ghee Kong Tong is over 150
20 years old, and was formed by Chinese immigrants to help other immigrants find housing, work,
21 support and was, for many, the only means of survival in America. The San Francisco Ghee
22 Kong Tong is a federally recognized non-profit corporation with a mission to support the well23 being of the community and promote Chinese culture. The organization is a community-based
24 organization, and Chow is the Dragonhead, akin to the President of the organization. His
25 dedication is noteworthy, as he uses his position in his Tong to enhance community welfare
26 despite his own personal financial hardships.
27

Mr. Chows individual right to come together with other members of the Chinese

LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28 community in San Francisco and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas, is

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page9 of 23

1 recognized as a human right, political right and civil liberty, and he attended hundreds of
2 community events a year starting in 2006.
3

Despite Mr. Chow dedicating his life to helping the community, speaking as a part of

4 gang prevention workshops, and promoting Chinese culture ideals, the government has been
5 mounting the present attack on Chow dating back to at least 2008. In a 2008 docudrama,
6 Gangland, Chow spoke out in an unbridled manner, explaining his past, but with the inability
7 to annunciate past tense in English, Chow stated I run this city among other attestations. This
8 was an affront to the city, an insult to San Francisco politicians. His attitude was cavalier and at
9 times brash, and defense contends that discovery, if necessary, will reveal a systematic attempt
10 to entrap and selectively prosecute Mr. Chow because of his past criminal activity as replayed
11 time and time again on Gangland, and present affiliation and association with the San
12 Francisco Ghee Kong Tong.
13

In fact, the indictment and the press releases from the Government that followed show an

14 extremely high price paid for any person even remotely connected to Chow; including three
15 African-Americans who were slanderously branded Chinese Freemason racketeers in exchange
16 for an extremely unusual non-cooperation agreement and light sentence, relatively speaking. 4 In
17 Senator Yees case, he was identified by the prosecution to the media as someone who was
18 involved in organized crime merely because he issued an accommodation to Chows
19 organization during this investigation.
20

Further evidence of the targeting of Mr. Chow is the effect of the selective prosecution in

21 this case. There is a bewildering yet fitting theme that came to light when looking at those who
22 were implicated and charged, and those who were not. It is clear that among the indicted
23 defendants and those implicated yet not charged, those who skirted charges were part of the
24 political in crowd, individuals who were all at one time appointed, connected, extremely
25 closely associated with Melinda Haag, Gavin Newsom, Willie Brown, Annemarie Conroy, or
26 Diane Fienstein, creating the appearance and potential reality that the integrity of those decisions
27 to indict, or not indict, was undermined by either de facto improper influence or the United
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
4

See Document 855 on this docket.


6

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page10 of 23

1 States Attorneys perceived negative socio-political consequences by the unindicted persons


2 known political allies. This is not the first time Melinda Haag has been accused of political
3 interference since she took the position in 2010 as stated by members of Congress:
4
5
6

"We are very concerned to learn earlier this week that, despite the U.S. Attorney's request
for permission from the Justice Department to proceed with indictments, this request was
recently denied without explanation, despite the backing of both the FBI and the U.S.
Attorney's Office. We are deeply concerned that political pressure may be a factor and are
formally requesting an investigation into the circumstances of the Justice Department's
actions with regard to this case." Rep. Frank Wolf and Rep. Lamar Smith. 5

7
8

With less than four years as head prosecutor of the Northern District at the time of this

9 indictment, the stench of political corruption undermining the integrity of the charging process
10 against Mr. Chow is intolerable. It has taken far less to ignite countries into chaos and civil war,
11 and people get seriously injured over systemic corruption in prosecutions dictated by politics
12 world-wide. The result is never fair. This Defendant requests such information that would shed
13 light and justify the disparity in prosecution and also to send a message to the community that
14 democracy still has a pulse, albeit weak.
15

A prosecutor's discretion is subject to constitutional constraints. One of these

16 constraints, imposed by the Equal Protection Component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
17 Amendment, is that the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an unjustifiable
18 standard as that which the Government applied in the present proceedings. For the foregoing
19 reasons, in addition to granting discovery, the present Indictment must be dismissed.
20

ARGUMENT

21

I.
THE PRESENT INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE RAYMOND
CHOW WAS DISCRIMINATORY IN EFFECT AND INTENT

22
23
24

The Indictment against Mr. Chow must be dismissed on grounds of selective prosecution
25

because of the Governments discriminatory effect and intent in deciding to prosecute Mr.
26

Chow. The United States Attorney indicted Mr. Chow in retaliation for the exercise of his right
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
5

See Exhibit 5.
7

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page11 of 23

1 to free assembly and speech guaranteed under U.S. Const. amends. I and XIV. Although the
2 First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled,
3 in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449
4 (1958), that the freedom of assembly was protected by the First Amendment and further held in
5 Roberts v. United States Jaycees stated that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected
6 by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide
7 variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." Roberts v.
8 United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984). A First Amendment without the right of assembly
9 would leave a major gap in a framework of freedoms designed to allow us all to participate fully
10 in the marketplace of ideas, as first set forth nearly 100 years ago in Abrams v. United States,
11 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919). This uncontroverted right of assembly reaches into political and
12 cultural organizations, including Chinese tongs, including the Ghee Kong Tong.
13

A defendant seeking relief on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence

14 of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. To succeed on a claim of selective


15 prosecution, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) similarly situated person have not been
16 prosecuted (United States v. Bass (2002) 536 U.S. 862, 864), and (2) that he was selected for
17 prosecution on the basis of an impermissible ground, such as race, religion or the exercise of a
18 constitutional right. United States v. DeTar (9th Cir. 1987) 832 F.2d 1110.
19

Moreover, United States v. Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456, 464-465 explains that:

20

[A] prosecutor's discretion is "subject to constitutional constraints." One of these


constraints, imposed by the equal protection component of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment,, is that the decision whether to prosecute may
not be based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary
classification. A defendant may demonstrate that the administration of a criminal
law is 'directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons ... with a mind
so unequal and oppressive' that the system of prosecution amounts to a practical
denial of equal protection of the law.

21
22
23
24

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356, 373. (internal citations omitted)
25
26

A. Discriminatory Intent

27

To show discriminatory intent, Chow must demonstrate that he was selected for

LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28 prosecution on the basis of an impermissible ground, such as race, religion or the exercise of a

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page12 of 23

1 constitutional right. United States v. DeTar (9th Cir. 1987) 832 F.2d 1110. The intent of
2 selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause "where the decision to prosecute is
3 made either in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right, such as the right to free
4 speech or to the free exercise of religion." Esmail v. Macrane (7th Cir. 1995) 53 F.3d 176, 179.
5

In the present case, the Government targeted Chow, in violation of his First Amendment

6 rights, in light of his assembly and ongoing association with the political and community based,
7 San Francisco Chinese organization, known as the Ghee Kong Tong thus violating U.S. Const.
8 amends. I and XIV., and U.S. Const. Amend. V.
9

Specific reasons the Government targeted Chow are because he was attempting to profit

10 off of his life story though book and movie rights; because he appeared on Gangland and
11 members of the prosecution team interpreted this as an insult; because Chow was promoted to
12 Dragonhead of the Ghee Kung Tong and quickly developed respect; because Chow attempted to
13 administrate Chinatown Market Night more effectively than others had done so before; because
14 Chow generated political support and momentum as is evidenced by legitimate demonstrations
15 organized by Chow at City Hall, which caused such resentment it led politicians like David Chiu
16 to wear a body wire to try to set Chow up.

1. Chows Life Story Was Worth Millions: Discriminatory Intent Is Evident


From A Long Pattern of Unprofessional Law Enforcement and Prosecutorial
Misconduct

17
18
19

The story is simple: in 1991 Congress called on the United States Attorney to rid this

20 country of Peter Chong and Raymond Chow.6 Almost twenty-five years later, both men are
21 free, and the government stands incompetent after having essentially spent nearly three decades
22 torching through countless millions of taxpayer dollars with nothing to show for it but a solid
23 lack of confidence in our public servants. The Government was so fixated on prosecuting Chow
24 that they produced a blockbuster of their own: Operation Whitesuit. With not one crime
25 occurring without the undercover agents invention, financing, and urging, it was a giant flop.
26 The actors did not know their lines as evidenced by the actual recordings. Every FBI Agent and
27 United States Attorney who took part in the downward departure of Raymond Chow in 2002
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
6

Senate Hearing 102-306.


9

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page13 of 23

1 and the attempted imprisonment of Peter Chong which failed for good in 2007 is now the butt of
2 the next generations jokesnot exactly a success story for prosecutorial discretion and
3 professionalism in the execution of an operation.
4

In a combination of jealousy and pride, qualities usually not associated with entire

5 massively funded bureaucracies, Chows potential Hollywood success was too much for FBI
6 and Northern District leadership. One of the first items of Chows in the latest prosecution that
7 was surreptitiously taken by a confidential informant and turned over to the FBI were the audio
8 recordings Chow used to memorialize his life story7. There was hardly a conversation between
9 Chow and the undercover agent that did not involve Chow discussing his book. 8 Even in late
10 2010, before the undercover agent finally found someone in Chinatown who was associated with
11 Chow and was willing to commit a crime behind Chows back at the undercovers direction, the
12 FBI recorded not one mention of a crime in contemplation anywhere near Chow but he never
13 missed an opportunity to discuss his book and movie deal and newfound political clout in
14 Chinatown. It was Senator Yee, in an unrelated part of the case, explaining what a magnet
15 Chow was for law enforcement, that said his sources claimed the FBI felt like Chow was
16 kicking sand in their face by trying to sell the rights to his story and that Chow needed to lay
17 low if he wanted the heat off. 9
18

Raymond Chows life story represented, in the eyes of some agents and prosecutors, a

19 failure on their part. One aspect of that failure was the calamity of allowing Chow to beat the
20 United States Attorney and the FBI in a 52 count highly publicized RICO prosecution. Then the
21 regrettable mistake of allowing Chow out of prison more than a decade sooner than scheduled in
22 exchange for his assistance in prosecuting Peter Chong who successfully won his appeal and
23 was released (not coincidentally) in 2007. Salt in the wound stung even more after two failed
24 deportation attempts. One other aspect of the smoldering ashes of pride was the failure to keep
25 Chow poor enough to be susceptible to invitations to engage in crime via cash kick backs by
26
7

Exhibit 2: Section C.

Exhibit 2: Section D.

Exhibit 2: Section E.

27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

10

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page14 of 23

1 undercover agents because even this was frustrated when they underestimated the discipline and
2 commitment Chow had to living a law abiding life.
3

Among the prosecutors who failed in their objectives with Chow were Brian Stretch and

4 William Schaefer among others. Brian Stretch, who is on record saying that Chows conduct in
5 2002 was exemplary and that he agreed that Chows S-Visa should have been processed as
6 early as 2005, was thrust into a jet stream of upward mobility at the U.S. Attorneys Office on
7 the back of actions the office took prosecuting Chow before it became apparent they failed in
8 2007. In fact, in the wake of the latest swipe the Government is taking to satisfy their fetish with
9 Chow, with Chow in custody, Stretch will ascend to the highest position replacing Melinda
10 Haag in September.10
11

One of the aspects of Chows circumstances that was never justified, likely because it

12 was inescapably embarrassing, is why those individual prosecutors worked so hard to prevent
13 the government from following through with their agreement to give Chow an S-Visa and a new
14 identity in the mid-2000's. At the time, their objective was to likely keep Chow in Chinatown so
15 that Chongs supporters could attempt to kill him, and they could be embroiled in a larger RICO
16 case than before so they could save face and usher in a new wave of promotions.
17

The best indicator that Chows incarceration or death was a fixation of the Government

18 is that the chance to get rid of Chow, or to assist Chow, or to ignore Chow, was always at the
19 Governments disposal and they could have easily given him his new identity but instead while
20 Chow sued two times in two years in federal court to get out of Chinatown and on with his new
21 life, the Government, Brian Stretch specifically, stood fast and kept Chow close by. In the
22 process they diminished the United States Government in the eyes of those considering
23 cooperation with law enforcement, an already highly controversial but relied on practice in the
24 federal system, and they violated principles of Natural Law in regard to their treatment of Chow.
25 It was a gamble but it was worth it to put away the kingpin Peter Chong. It was worth it until
26 Schaeffer, a fading light after the deal was cut to free Chow in 2002, and Stretch, now in his
27 management chair with city wide views, had to explain to their colleagues how they let Chow
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
10

See Exhibit 7.
11

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page15 of 23

1 and Chong get away as they watched Chow on Gangland with a thick Cantonese accent
2 exclaiming to the audience I run this city.
3

Not only was releasing Chow early in exchange for Peter Chongs conviction difficult to

4 justify on its face, but especially so shortly after Peter Chong was freed as one of the biggest
5 one that got away gangsters of all time. He flew as a free man home to China in 2007. As the
6 Government had realized, it had essentially chased its tail for decades; Chong was settling in to
7 a first-class plane ride home with complementary refreshments.
8

Chow, tired of being indigent and not allowed to work, confined to the Bay Area due to

9 an ICE ankle monitor, began to promote his life story as a means of financial success. 11 Part of
10 what Chow did was to become highly visible as an ex-gang leader who survived even the FBIs
11 grasp in Gangland for a mere $2,000. He spoke of his sexual exploits, narcotics trafficking,
12 and yet he developed a cult following and celebrity status. Teenagers love Chow. Unlike the
13 FBI, he is pop culture icon.
14

As people speculated about his criminal activities which were actually non-existent,

15 Chow devoted his free time to community service. It was not long before Chow was intervening
16 in racial violence, feeding the poor, helping people get drug treatment, and perhaps the biggest
17 grain of sand in the governments eye was his passionate and devoted and well covered in the
18 press lecture series to school children. While Mayor Ed Lee and United States Attorney
19 Melinda Haag were cosponsoring anti-bullying campaigns, co-authoring letters to the public,
20 and hosting Batman in Gotham City to help one child, it was Chow who was the real life super
21 hero because he had the strength and reputation to stand toe-to-toe with the population that
22 needed assistance helping many; and unlike the United States Attorney, Chow was getting
23 results.12
24

Without actual meaningful discovery it will never be known, but it can be speculated

25 because of the amount of Government resources devoted to tracking Chows Hollywood


26 progress that the agents and prosecutors who wanted to save face, were all but ignited into fury
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

11

Exhibit 2: Section G.

12

Exhibit 8..

28

12

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page16 of 23

1 every time they saw Chow on the news, nicely dressed, speaking to children about the ills of
2 gangs and drugs. Chow was doing more to keep the community safe than the Government. That
3 does not bode well for bureaucratic survival.
4 2.
5

Success As Ghee Kung Tong Dragonhead Provoked the


Government: Chows Rise In Popularity As Positive Community Leader
and Media Popularity Brought About This Investigation and Prosecution

As the United States Attorneys Office and the FBI were marinating in the aftermath of

7 their charging decisions over the Chong debacle, the semi-elite ruling class of San Francisco
8 took note of Chows rise to success as a community leader. It was through no fault of Chows,
9 as revealed in this investigation, that the FBI could not solve the very public assassination of the
10 previous Dragonhead of the Chinese Freemasons. This stung as badly as the Golden Dragon
11 Massacre years before because it was widely televised. Chows attendance as the only person in
12 white at the funeral, sparked public discussion, which inevitably made the FBI look as though
13 they were incompetent because how else could they not catch Chow. Due to a lack of
14 understanding of cultural traditions, the Government had to explain how Chow could flout their
15 authority while indigent and on an ankle monitor. Every time they turned around, Chow was on
16 television and getting stronger and stronger. The fact that they named this Operation Whitesuit
17 is telling as to the resentment the FBI has towards Chow going back to the former Dragonheads
18 funeral due to Chows homage in a white suit.
19

Chow finally took over the ailing Market Night in 2009. This is what pushed the

20 Government from saturated surveillance to provocateur. Chow and his dutiful Tong members
21 went to other market nights and observed, took notes, and began to implement changes which
22 led to success. This was too much for local politicians. Gavin Newsom pulled funding from
23 Market Night because of Supervisor David Chius public fit which amounted to nothing more
24 than a child crying for their favorite blanketin his case the support of his constituents. Chius
25 desperation and fear, not of Raymond Chow himself, but of the political support he was gaining,
26 is evident from the FBI and media reports surrounding Market Night. 13
27

Chow was administering Market Night even though Chow only took $1 a year as pay.

LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
13

See Exhibit 3.
13

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page17 of 23

1 Newsom was very public about pulling funding. But it was young ex-prosecutor supervisor,
2 David Chiu, who showed just how low the FBI and the local politicians would stoop to get
3 Chow out of their way by wearing a bodywire and secretly trying to provoke Chow into
4 threatening him at a public anniversary banquet .14 Much can be said about the establishments
5 all out fear and paranoia by reviewing the numerous FBI reports addressing Chows political
6 clout. Chius resentment of Chows ability to get people to turn out to lawfully demonstrate is
7 telling, and it is exactly the perverse mentality of political entitlement that made this group of
8 San Franciscos leadership think it would be okay not to indict the in crowd; apparently
9 thinking it would go without question by a judge or at least one defense team out of twenty-nine.
10

B. Discriminatory Effect

11

To demonstrate the discriminatory effect of a prosecution, a defendant must also

12 demonstrate that similarly situated person have not been prosecuted. (United States v. Bass,
13 (2002) 536 U.S. 862, 864). The discriminatory effect of the present prosecution is shown in the
14 fact that other similarly situated individuals, who are operating in a (more in this case) culpable
15 manner, have not been charged with Chow.
16

Generally, the FBI violated a federal law known as the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7321-

17 7326 (2015), by allowing dozens of undercover agents to make official campaign contributions
18 to mayoral candidates in 2011, brazenly usurping congressional will. 15 The FBI then targeted
19 mayorial candidates and political persons and, in fact, bribed them, bought guns from them, and
20 caught at least one district attorney candidate laundering campaign donations back and forth
21 with Senator Leland Yee. Yet, as an ultimate affront to justice, Melinda Haag carved out from
22 prosecution those who committed crime and have more overwhelming evidence against them
23 than many of the charged defendants, particularly Chow.
24

Specifically, the FBI alleged in discovery that Ed Lee took substantial bribes in exchange

25 for favors and that Human Rights Commissioners, Nazly Mohajer and Zula Jones, hustled in
26 these bribes for the Mayor. The United States Attorney asked for a RICO charge on Keith
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

14

/ Exhibit 2: Section H

15

5 U.S.C. 7321-7326

28

14

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page18 of 23

1 Jackson and Leland Yee for similar conduct. Lee, Mohajer, and Jones remain unindicted. Zula
2 Jones, already the subject of a previous federal investigation which ended up being thrown out
3 by a sympathetic judge, is reported by the FBI explaining that Willie Brown taught Ed Lee how
4 to do business: You pay to play here. We got it. We know this. We are the best at this game uh
5 better than New York. We do it a little more sophisticated than New Yorkers. We do it without
6 the mafia.16
7

Sharmin Bock, an Alameda County District Attorney, was also given an unexplainable

8 pass. She was picked up on the wiretap on multiple occasions conspiring with Leland Yee to
9 exchange donations to defeat campaign finance limits while she was running for District
10 Attorney.17 She remains unindicted and, in fact, she is still a prosecutor. One of the unindicted
11 parties stated If you need some help in Alameda, we can use her you know. She is a fucking
12 DA.18
13

Sululagi Palega, a director of the MTA, formed a bond with UCE 4599. During a

14 meeting at Waterbar Restaurant on the Embarcadero, Palega agreed to provide numerous


15 weapons to the undercover agent so that the agent could protected his illegal narcotics
16 business.19 Palega sold at least one firearm to the man who the FBI claims was allegedly an
17 Italian Mafioso.20 Prior to the sale taking place, Palega used a City of San Francisco car to come
18 and go from a meeting at Town Hall with UCE 4599 at which Palega provided an update on his
19 ability to procure assault rifles, hand grenades, and ammunition. 21 He handed the UCE a Sees
20 Candy box with a gun in it and said Enjoy the candy. 22 He remains unindicted.
21
22
16

Exhibit 2: Section J

17

Exhibit 2: Section K

18

Exhibit 2: Section L

19

Exhibit 2: Section M

20

Exhibit 2: Section N

21

Exhibit 2:Section O

22

Exhibit 2: Section P

23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

15

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page19 of 23

Reverend Amos Brown23, Reverend Arnold Townsend24, Derf Butler25, Malia Cohen26,

2 and London Breed27 were all implicated in dramatic pay to play schemes including calling into
3 doubt the efficiency and real purpose of the One Stop Career Center in the Fillmore. Derf Butler
4 is reported as saying "Okay, however you want it, its fine with me. Cause you know the main
5 thing is we get someone that understands its pay to play. 28 Butler, an ex-felon at the heart of
6 several controversies, is a close associate of London Breed who is a supervisor in a district
7 where young children join gangs and are murdered before they can ever pay to play. Butler
8 allegedly takes Breed shopping for clothes and touts himself as something akin to a pimp
9 explaining to Jackson that you have to teach an official how to be corrupt. 29
10

If what was reported by the FBI is true about Arnold Townsend, vice-president of the

11 NAACP during this investigation, Townsend was unapologetically on the payroll of CHS-11 for
12 Townsends apparent political influence. Not only were they not investigated to the point they
13 were indicted, Breed and Cohen were allowed to misrepresent the extent of their involvement in
14 this investigation. Breed totally unscathed claiming she had met with the agent once or twice but
15 knew he was a hustler ended up being thick as thieves. 30
16

Contrary to other similarly situated individuals who have not faced prosecution, Chow

17 was operating at all times in a lawful manner. People like Zula Jones are not first time offenders
18 and they have already been implicated in similar conduct which is rumored to have resolved as a
19 result of judicial misconduct in the local courts. Mohajar reportedly called the UCE and
20 explained the process by which she launders Ed Lees campaign money before she realized she
21
23

Exhibit 2: Section Q

24

Exhibit 2: Section R

25

Exhibit 2: Section S

26

Exhibit 2: Section T

27

Exhibit 2: Section U

28

Exhibit 2: Section S

29

Exhibit 2: Section T

22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28
30

Anonymous Source.
16

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page20 of 23

1 had called the wrong number.31 That is how one acts when they are above the law. Ed Lee was
2 not even elected into office before he was reported to the United States Attorney as conducting
3 campaign money laundering in two separate incidents. He took over $20,000 from federal
4 agents in his first four months in office and hit the ground running as mayor with an enormous
5 amount of reported gifts including paid trips across the world. According to Jones and Mohajar,
6 Ed Lee knew he was taking money illegally.32

Moreover, defense asserts that discovery, if produced, will reveal that Annemarie

8 Conroy used her position of influence to cull political figures out of the prosecution, and
9 selectively prosecute others. Conroy is the U.S. Attorney in charge of External Affairs and is the
10 Law Enforcement Coordinator, and she was appointed as a San Francisco Supervisor by Gavin
11 Newsom. She went to work for Willie Brown, and London Breed was her assistant while she
12 helped Brown part out Treasure Island.
13

The Government is retaliating against Chow for not fading into the shadows or placing

14 himself in a position to be incarcerated for life, but rather exercising his right to free speech; the
15 Government should be assisting reformed criminals and not tempting them, if not for any other
16 reason than to reinforce behavior that makes society safer instead of the other way around.
17 Defense asserts that it has been the vendetta of the Government to keep Mr. Chow behind bars
18 for the rest of his life. In 2006, he was arrested and charged with extortion, incarcerated for ten
19 months, and thereafter released. ICE tried to deport him twice since 2002 to no avail. Defense
20 asks for an unredacted ICE file as part of this discovery order. Rarely is an American-Asian
21 arrested that they are not asked about Raymond Chow. The Government has never lost its lust
22 for him.
23

Presently, despite a life dedicated to his community, reforming the youth of Chinatown,

24 and lawful activity as the Dragonhead of the Ghee Kong Tong, the Government is targeting and
25 prosecuting Mr. Chow and the vindictiveness can be out of the prosecutors voice at the
26 detention hearing as quotes were exaggerated and misrepresented. This vindictiveness can be
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

31

Exhibit 2: Section V

32

Exhibit 2: Section V

28

17

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page21 of 23

1 seen at every step of the prosecution from seating all arrestees in a circle around Chow in the
2 war room when booking codefendants, to having Chow housed farther than any in-custody
3 codefendant, to requiring judicial intervention just to see his discovery. When asked if Chow
4 could trade the original manuscript of his life story seized by the FBI for a copy due to
5 sentimental reasons about his lifes work, the prosecution rejected the request. See United
6 States v. McWilliams (9th Cir. 1984) 730 F.2d 1218, 1221 (personal vindictiveness on the part
7 of the charging prosecutor would support a claim of discriminatory prosecution); Esmail v.
8 Macrane (7th Cir. 1995) 53 F.3d 176, 179 (selective prosecution is also actionable "where the
9 power of government is brought to bear on a harmless individual merely because a powerful
10 state or local official harbors a malignant animosity toward him); Indiana State Teachers Ass'n
11 v. Board of School Commissioners (7th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d 1179, 1181 (where people identical
12 in relevant ways are treated differently, the disadvantaged person can state an equal protection
13 claim).
14

Protection against selective prosecution not only safeguards important individual rights

15 but also buttresses the integrity of the justice system itself. Abuse of prosecutorial power
16 undermines public confidence in the justice system and alienates groups within society.
17 Therefore, the judicial system has a stake in discouraging improper selective prosecution and
18 should do so both by granting a remedy in the rare case in which a defendant establishes a
19 constitutional violation and by airing allegations of selective prosecution. 33 This is the rare
20 case. Chow is reformed. There is no danger in allowing him to go free.
21

The governments actions amount to selective prosecution and the Superceding

22 Indictment must be dismissed accordingly.

II.

23

MR. CHOW IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY


TO INVESTIGATE HIS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION CLAIM

24
25
26

The Governments actions regarding this prosecution, standing alone, requires dismissal

27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

33

Poulin, Anne Bowen, Prosecutorial discretion and selective prosecution: enforcing


protection after United States v. Armstrong .
18

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page22 of 23

1 of the present Indictment. However, in the alternative, discovery of all records relating to the
2 governments decision to commence federal prosecution against Mr. Chow must be disclosed to
3 Defense counsel. United States v. Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1996). . U.S. v.
4 Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456, United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., Cent. Dist. of Cal., 717 F.2d
5 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1983), U.S. v. Marshall (9th Cir. 1976) 532 F.2d 1279, Wayte v. U.S. (1985)
6 470 U.S. 598. The Government refuses to disclose this information.
7
8

CONCLUSION
Every single American needs an efficient, fair, healthy, and effective federal law

9 enforcement agency, and in the bigger picture, and that is true even if the citizen is a criminal
10 defendant, or a criminal defense attorney, or a prosecutor, or a judge, and it is contrary to every
11 citizens best interest to allow political meddling with FBI investigations. This is abusive and
12 disrespectful of those line agents who risk their lives day in and day out and to those who place
13 an extreme degree of importance on professionalism and integrity.
14

Politics free prosecutions are critical to Assistant United States Attorneys who are not on

15 the political fast track, but the AUSAs who work eighty hour weeks and sacrifice time away
16 from their children so that they can put the real bad guys in jail. The devastating effect of the
17 interoffice pressure to maintain a high profile prosecution while defense attorneys and press
18 criticize your every move, combined with the knowledge that there was a certain level of
19 injustice by your own management in determining who to prosecute, undermines the morale of a
20 prosecutor in ways that are completely foreseeable by anyone with a pulse. Placing your
21 subordinates in the firing line of public opinion in a case such as this is a cowardly bureaucratic
22 move that completely counteracts the stated mission of the United States Attorneys Office.
23 Instead of treating it as an institution of distinction the reputation of the office was treated like
24 waste.
25

In this case, we have organization with some of the most well educated, well trained, and

26 well paid, public servants, and saving political allies in such an obvious way seemed acceptable
27 for not even one person has stepped forward to apologize to the public. The fact that no one
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28 stood up and said that what was happening here is wrong; the fact that at no point did anyone

19

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883 Filed08/04/15 Page23 of 23

1 become concerned that these unindicted parties could continue to hurt the public; the fact that
2 the Government handed every defendant the incriminating evidence it took to write this motion
3 and at the same time the Government will undoubtedly oppose and protest in response; suggests
4 our society is following in the footsteps of Greece and Rome. However, our politicians are our
5 gladiators and the animals they fight are the laws which were put in place to protect us, and we
6 just watch as spectators, unfortunately, and our silence is interpreted by the powers that be as
7 cheering.
8

For the reasons set forth herein, Defense counsel respectfully urges this Court to assist in

9 steering San Francisco and the nation back on track and to dismiss the present charges against
10 due to the Governments egregious violations.
11
12

Dated: August 3, 2015


Respectfully submitted,

13
14
15
16

/s/CURTIS L. BRIGGS
J. TONY SERRA
CURTIS L. BRIGGS
GREG M. BENTLEY
Attorneys for Defendant
KWOK CHEUNG CHOW

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

20

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883-1 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 1

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

I, CURTIS BRIGGS, declare:

I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and before this court, and I

4 am one of the attorneys of record for defendant KWOK CHEUNG CHOW.


5

It is my information and belief that the facts and statements set forth in the

6 accompanying document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are
7 based upon a review of all the discovery provided in the case, interviews with my client, my
8 own investigation, and further information and belief.
9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this

10 declaration is executed on August 3, 2015, at San Francisco, California.


11

S/
CURTIS BRIGGS

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

21

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document883-2 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

11
12

CR 14-196 CRB

v.

PROPOSED ORDER

13 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, aka

RAYMOND CHOW,
14

Defendant.
/

15
16

Upon request of defendant and good cause appearing,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Indictment filed against Kwok Cheung Chow is

18 dismissed or in the alternative, all communications regarding the charging decisions shall be
19 produced within seven days.
20

DATED:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES
506 BROADWAY
SAN FRANCISCO
(415) 986-5591
Fax: (415) 421-1331

28

HON. JOSEPH C. SPERO


U. S. District Court Judge

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page1 of 7

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
6
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

) No. CR 14-0196 CRB


)
Plaintiff,
) PROTECTIVE ORDER
)
v.
)
) SAN FRANCISCO VENUE
KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, a/k/a Raymond
)
Chow, a/k/a Hai Jai, a/k/a Shrimpboy;
)
LELAND YEE, a/k/a Senator Leland Yee;
)
GEORGE NIEH, a/k/a Heng Nieh;
)
KEITH JACKSON;
)
KEVIN SIU, a/k/a Dragon Tin Loong Siu;
)
ALAN CHIU, a/k/a Alan Shiu;
)
KONGPHET CHANTHAVONG, a/k/a Joe, )
a/k/a Fat Joe;
)
XIAO CHENG MEI, a/k/a Michael Mei;
)
BRANDON JAMELLE JACKSON;
)
MARLON DARRELL SULLIVAN;
)
RINN ROEUN;
)
ANDY LI, a/k/a Andy Man Lai Li;
)
LESLIE YUN, a/k/a Leslie Yuncheung;
)
YAT WA PAU, a/k/a James Pau;
)
JANE MIAO XHEN LIANG;
)
TINA YAO GUI LIANG;
)
BRYAN TILTON;
)
HUAN MING MA, a/k/a Ming Ma, a/k/a
)
Baak Ban;
)
HON KEUNG SO, a/k/a Hon So;
)
NORGE MASTRANGELO;
)
ALBERT NHINGSAVATH;
)
SERGE GEE;
)
XIU YING LING LIANG, a/k/a Elaine
)
Liang;
)
GARY KWONG YIU CHEN, a/k/a Gary
)
Chen, a/k/a Jimmy, a/k/a David;
)
ANTHONY JOHN LAI, a/k/a AJ;
)
TONG ZAO ZHANG;
)
ZHANGHAO WU, a/k/a Jason;
)
BARRY BLACKWELL HOUSE, a/k/a Barry )
Black;
)
WILSON SY LIM, a/k/a Dr. Lim,
)
)
Defendants
)
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page2 of 7

1
2

The Court enters the following Protective Order:

Pursuant to the defendants requests, the government will be providing, directly as well as

4 through a copy vendor, copies of documents, recordings, and other materials (the SUBJECT
5 MATERIALS), marked with identifying Bates numbers, in lieu of making them available for review as
6 follows and under the conditions of this Protective Order:
7

1.

Pursuant to its discovery obligations, the government intends to produce discovery

8 including but not limited to Rule 16 and wiretap information. All the material that the government
9 produces to the defense in the above-captioned case pursuant to its discovery obligations will be
10 designated as SUBJECT MATERIALS. Defendants are signing this Protective Order for purposes of
11 expediting discovery and are doing so with a reservation of rights to dispute the governments
12 designation of specific materials as SUBJECT MATERIALS that should be subject to the terms of this
13 Protective Order. Should any defendant disagree with the governments designation of any materials as
14 SUBJECT MATERIALS, the defendant must initially meet and confer with the government to resolve
15 the dispute if possible. If after meeting and conferring with the government the defendant disagrees
16 with the governments determination as to the characterization of the material(s), the defendants next
17 avenue for resolution is to notify the Court and seek a judicial determination of whether the specific
18 materials at issue should be designated as SUBJECT MATERIALS and continue to be subject to the
19 terms of this Protective Order.
20

2.

Except when being actively examined, transferred as permitted by this Protected Order,

21 or used for the purpose of the preparation of the defense of defendants, the SUBJECT MATERIALS
22 shall be maintained in safe and secure places in defense counsels office(s) and/or secured in a password
23 protected electronic format, which shall be accessible only to defense counsel, members and employees
24 of his or her law firm who are working with him or her to prepare defendants defense, the defendants,
25 retained investigators and experts, and others identified in Paragraphs 3. Defense counsel, members and
26 employees of his or her law firm, the defendants, and the investigator(s) shall not permit any person
27 access of any kind to the SUBJECT MATERIALS except as set forth below.
28
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page3 of 7

3.

The following individuals may obtain copies of the SUBJECT MATERIALS for the sole

2 purpose of preparing the defense of defendants in this action and for no other purpose:
3

a)

Counsel for defendants;

b)

Members and employees of defense counsels law office who are assisting with
the preparation of defendants defense;

5
6

c)

Court appointed discovery coordinator;

d)

Defendants, as follows:
i.

In the presence of defense counsel or another authorized person listed in


this paragraph;

9
ii.

10

In a room at defense counsels offices under the following conditions: the

11

SUBJECT MATERIALS will be available by paper copy or on a

12

computer or electronic media that will lack Internet access and lack the

13

ability to copy the SUBJECT MATERIALS onto a disk, a drive, or other

14

media; no telephones or cameras will be permitted in the room while the

15

defendant is reviewing the SUBJECT MATERIALS; a member of

16

defense counsels staff will supervise the review but need not be present

17

in the room during the review; and defense counsel will take reasonable

18

steps to comply with this provision.


iii.

19

For defendants represented by defense counsel appointed under the

20

Criminal Justice Act, SUBJECT MATERIALS might be provided for

21

review in space located at the federal building at 450 Golden Gate

22

Avenue in San Francisco under procedures to be determined.


iv.

23

copies thereof outside of the parameters set forth above.

24
25

Defendants may not take or maintain the SUBJECT MATERIALS or

e)

Potential witnesses, but only in the presence of defense counsel or another

26

authorized person listed in this Protective Order, (potential witnesses may not take

27

or maintain the SUBJECT MATERIALS or copies thereof);

28
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page4 of 7

f)

this matter;

2
g)

Vendors or personnel whose services are employed to copy, transcribe, use,


prepare, or translate SUBJECT MATERIALS.

4
5

Investigators, experts, paralegals and law clerks retained to assist in the defense of

4.

A copy of this Order shall be maintained by defense counsel at all times in the principal

6 place where the SUBJECT MATERIALS are maintained.


7

5.

All individuals described in Paragraph 3, other than defense counsel (and employees of

8 his/her office) and potential witnesses, who receive access to the SUBJECT MATERIALS, prior to
9 receiving access to the materials, shall sign a copy of this Order acknowledging that:
10

a)

they have reviewed the Order and are bound by its terms;

11

b)

they understand its contents;

12

c)

they agree that they will only access the SUBJECT MATERIALS and
information for the purposes of preparing a defense for defendant;

13
d)

14

they understand that failure to abide by this Order may result in sanctions by this
Court.

15
e)

16

they agree that they will not give the SUBJECT MATERIALS to any other
individuals.

17

18 Counsel for the parties shall maintain in their files signed copies of the Order to be made available upon
19 request under seal to the Court.
20

6.

Defense counsel may provide copies of SUBJECT MATERIALS to experts and/or

21 investigators working for defense counsel, but only in accordance with the procedures described below.
22 The experts and investigators who receive SUBJECT MATERIALS must maintain them in a safe and
23 secure place in their office(s), which shall be accessible only to them, and/or secured in a password
24 protected electronic format, except when the SUBJECT MATERIALS are being actively examined or
25 used for the purpose of the preparation of the defense or are being transferred as permitted by this
26 Protective Order.
27

7.

Counsel for defendants shall maintain a log of SUBJECT MATERIALS provided to any

28
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page5 of 7

1 experts and/or investigators, which log shall include the Bates numbers of documents provided and the
2 names of the person(s) receiving the materials. The logs will be maintained in a secure manner. If (1)
3 upon a showing of good cause to believe that there was a breach of this Protective Order and that a copy
4 of the log should be requested from specified defense counsel and (2) after specified defense counsel
5 receives notice of the reason(s) the log is being requested and has an opportunity to be heard by the
6 Court on the matter, the Court may order the specified defense counsel to produce the log to the Court.
7 In that event, the directed defense counsel shall submit a copy of the log to the Court ex parte and under
8 seal and waives any objection based on the work-product doctrine to producing a copy of the log to the
9 Court in this manner. Before the Court discloses the log to the government or to any third party, defense
10 counsel shall receive notice of the potential disclosure and shall have an opportunity to be heard by the
11 Court and to object to any such disclosure; in that event, defendant and defense counsel reserve all rights
12 to object to disclosure of the log to the government or to any third-party, including, without limitation,
13 objections based on the work-product doctrine.
14

8.

Counsel for the defendants, within thirty calendar days of the conclusion of the above-

15 captioned proceedings before the Court, shall retrieve all copies of the SUBJECT MATERIALS
16 provided to anyone pursuant to this Order. Counsel may then destroy copies which counsel deems
17 unnecessary to preserve, and maintain or return to the government the balance in a manner consistent
18 with this Order.
19

9.

No other person may be allowed to examine the SUBJECT MATERIALS without further

20 order of the Court. Examination of the SUBJECT MATERIALS shall be done in a secure environment
21 which will not expose the materials to other individuals not authorized to access the SUBJECT
22 MATERIALS.
23

10.

The SUBJECT MATERIALS may be duplicated to the extent necessary to prepare the

24 defense of this matter. Any duplicates will be treated as originals in accordance with this Order.
25

11.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, SUBJECT MATERIALS, including audio recordings,

26 can be reviewed by the defendants who are detained outside the presence of counsel under conditions to
27 be determined and described in an amendment to this Protective Order.
28
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page6 of 7

12.

The protocol for SUBJECT MATERIALS set forth in paragraph 11 does not bind any jail

2 in which the defendants may be housed to accepting the protocol. Rather, the protocol set forth in
3 paragraph 11 is merely an agreement between the government and the defendants only. The defendants
4 shall separately confer with the jail in which they are housed regarding whether and how the jail will
5 maintain the SUBJECT MATERIALS. Nothing in this stipulation is intended to divest jail officials of
6 their discretion and authority in operating the jail and maintaining the safety and security of the jail.
7

13.

The government shall request that the defense team return copies of the SUBJECT

8 MATERIALS to the United States thirty calendar days after any one of the following events, whichever
9 occurs latest in time: dismissal of all charges against the defendant; the defendants acquittal by court or
10 jury; or the conclusion of any direct appeal, including the time required for counsel to comply with
11 Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1(e). Defense counsel shall comply with the governments request. Defense
12 counsel, however, may retain for its records one copy of the SUBJECT MATERIALS, which shall be
13 kept in a secure location. Defense counsel need not disclose to the government any work product that
14 incorporates any SUBJECT MATERIALS.
15

14.

After the conclusion of proceedings in the district court or any direct appeal in the above-

16 captioned case, including the time required for counsel to comply with Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1(e), the
17 government will maintain a copy of the SUBJECT MATERIALS. The government will maintain the
18 SUBJECT MATERIALS until the time period for filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 has
19 expired. After the statutory time period for filing such a motion has expired, the government may
20 destroy the SUBJECT MATERIALS. In the event defendant is represented by counsel and files a
21 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, the government will provide that counsel with a copy of the
22 SUBJECT MATERIALS under the same restrictions as trial and direct appeal defense counsel.
23 Defendants attorney in any action under 28 U.S.C. 2255 shall return the same materials thirty
24 calendar days after the district courts ruling on the motion or thirty calendar days after the conclusion of
25 any direct appeal of the district courts denial of the motion, whichever is later.
26

15.

This Protective Order does not limit or modify the parties rights to use the SUBJECT

27 MATERIALS in judicial proceedings in this action, including in any trial or pretrial matters before the
28
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884
Document302 Filed08/04/15
Filed05/19/14 Page7 of 7

1 Court, using appropriate procedures to protect the safety and security of third parties when necessary.
2 Any SUBJECT MATERIALS that reveal the images or the true identities of any federal undercover
3 agents or confidential human sources shall be filed under seal.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6

Dated: May 19, 2014


HON. CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CR 14-0196 CRB

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 12

A.

B. omitted
C.

D.

E.

F.

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 12

FOOTNOTE 19
G.

H.
a)

b)

c)

I.

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 12

J.

K.
a)

b)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page4 of 12

c)

d)

e)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page5 of 12

L.

M.

N.

O.
a)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page6 of 12

b)

c)

P.

Q.
a)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page7 of 12

b)

c)

d)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page8 of 12

e)

R.
a)

b)

c)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page9 of 12

d)

e)

S.

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page10 of 12

T.
a)

b)

c)

U.

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page11 of 12

V.
a)

b)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document884-1 Filed08/04/15 Page12 of 12

c)

d)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document885 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 3

DATE; 06-03-2011
06-03-2011
DATE:
CLASSIFIED BY 651,9
CLASSIFIED
65179 DMHJRJS
DMH/MJS
REASON: 1.4 (c,
(e , d)
REASON:
d)
Ol~: 06-03-2036
06-03-2036
DECLASSIFY ON:

5-01-2100 8)
(261"
(Rev..0
05-01-2008)

FEDERAL
BUREAU OF
OF INVESTIGATION
FEDERAL BUREAU

Precedence: ROUTINE
ROUTINE
Precedence:

Date: 12/10/2008
12/10/2008
Date:

To: San
San Francisco
Fran'cisco
To:
From: San
FroM:
San Fran
Fran~'
Squad
Oakland RA
Contact: _
.
Contact:
I ..

b6
b6
b7C
b7c
b7E
b7E

.....--

Approved By:
By:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED


HEREIN IS
IS UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED EXCEPT

;>

r9

Drafted By:.
Drafted
By:

~==============~~~~~.

JTf

lJHERE
OTHER\JISE
WHERE SHOWN OTHERWISE

( 5) ...... -Case
ID#':802C';;;;SF-"'14372SD
Pending)
(S)
Pending)
Case ID
#: 802C- SF-14-37-25
b7E
h7E

Title:
N MANAGEMENT (S)Title:O:M:A:::::~
:QOOB
SMENT BEGIN: 12102008

hI
b1
b7E
b7E

(S)

SynOpais.1.7.1FOU0) To-seek-information related to th


(S) ...uSynops:Ls:.tKlIFOUO}-Toseek-informationrelated-to-th~
(S)
in the
the San Francisco
Francisco domain in
in order to facilita
facilita~t~e~--~
threat in
e
intelligence
analysis and
and planning.
planning. This
intelligence analysis
This assessment
assessment seeks
seeks to
to
ew opportunities
assess threats,
threats, vulnerabilities,
vulnerabilities, and
and~ew
for intelligence-collection-relative.
(S)
()

~::::::U;;:o:~L:::t~:s:::a:~v:qua

.. an Francisco

Details:
/FOLIO) The mission of Squa
an Francisco
Intelligence Branch,
Branch, is to develop domai
a
Intelligence
eness through a
To that
that effect,
effect, the IAs
lAs
systematic domain
domain management
management process.
process. To
iseek to
squa~seek
to proactively
proactively identify
identify threats,
threats,
assigned to Squadr--(5).
vulnerabilities,
~ntelligencegaps
vulnerabilities, and intelligence
gaps and discover new
ortunitie
717-leeded
ortuni t i e1Q
e e d e dintelligence
intelligence collection
collection related
related to
to the
the
....
.?rget.
is a
a collection priority for the San
arget- . . .
(S) ................ rancisco's
rancisco' s Counterintelligence
COtln erintelligence program as articulated in the FY
Francisco Division's
Division's Intelligence Collection Strategy
2009 San Francisco
(801C-SF-141253 Serial 7).
7).
(801C-SF-141253

b7E
b7E

hI
b1
b7E
.b7 E

(U//FOLIO)
In order
order to
to fully assess
(O//FOOO) In
aSsess the domain,
domain, the
the
following investigative
investigative techniques
techniques will be utilized:
utilized:
following
information;
Obtain publicly available information;
Access and examine FBI
FBI and other DOJ records,
records, and
personnel;
obtain information from any FBI or DOJ personnel;

551.
(S) . .-------':"""'1

sl oc6m60 stoecQ,

?,O'd If-5f~
317J ~\
1 437101
1--- 5F-N
0
ACLURM007810

b1
bl
h7E
b7E

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document885 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 3

To: San
San Francisco
Francisco From:
From: San
To:
San Francisco
Francisco
Re: ??,
??,12/10/2008
Re:
12/10/2008

records maintained by,


by, and
Access and examine records
from, other federal,
federal, state,
state,
request information from,
local, tribal,
tribal, or
or foreign
foreign governmental entities or
local,
agencies;
agencies;
resources;
Use online services and resources;
recruit human sources in conformity with
withAG
Use and recruit
AG
use of FBI
FBI Confidential
Guidelines regarding the use
Sources;
Human Sources;
request information from members of the
Interview or request
entities;
public and private entities;
Accept information voluntarily provided by
. governmental or private entities;
entities;
in observation
observation or surveillance not requiring
Engage in
order.
a court order.
(U//FOUO) Information cnllpntpd from filfr; above listed
(U//FOUO)
I Once ____~
techniques will be
be processed
processed andI
and~~~____~______~~o~n~c~e~
c0mplete, the
the Domain
Domain Intelligence
Intelligence Note
Note andI
and
complete,
will be documented in the a~~~~~~~~~~
I will be documented in the above captioned file.

ACLURM007811

b7E

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document885 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 3

ti

'1

To: San
San Francisco
Francisco From:
From: San
San Francisco
~rancisco
To:
Re:
Re : ??,
? ? I 12/10/2008
12/10/2008

LEAD(s) :
LEAD(s):
(Action)
Set Lead
Lead 1:
1: (Action)

SAN FRANCISCO
AT OAKLAND RA

Open and assign new sub-file to IA


IAI~~

~,

ACLURM007812

____________~~

b6
b6
b7C
b7C

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

07/22/2009

transcription

San Francisco Police


Approximately on 06/09/2009
Department SFPD Gang Task Force
Jameson Pon and Henry
Inspectors
Seto contacted the below listed Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI Special Agent SA regarding Raymond Kwok Cheung CHOW also
ka Ha Jal aka Shrimp Boy date of birth dob

SFPD Inspectors
Pon and Seto provided
list of names and
businesses
that SFPD questioned
regarding CHOW gaining control over
the annual Portsmouth Square Chinatown
Night Market
The City of
San Francisco has since rejected its support and removed CHOW from
After SFPD spoke to these business
managing the Night Market
owners all indicated that they were not being extorted by CHOW or
CHOWs associates
SFPD spoke to the following business owners

An Official Notice
on behalf of CHOW and the
CHEE KUNG
TONG
CKT or GHEE KUNG TONG was released approximately on
06/27/2009
to refute claims leveled
The
against CHOW and the CKT
Official Notice
defends the CKT and refutes claims made by Matier
Ross from the San Francisco Chronicle and City of San Francisco
Supervisor David Chiu

of various
Portsmouth

SFPD Inspectors
Pon and Seto provided SA Chow with copies
Chinese newspaper
articles related to CHOW and the
Square Chinatown
Night Market
SFPD

Pon and Seto also provided SA Chow with


Inspectors
documents
in English
and Chinese identifying
pages
CKT
obtained by SFPD from the CKT
leadership positions
Attached
is
also
one
page diagram of Triad hand signs and
number
identifier chart that explained
persons position and number
six

Investigation

of

06/09/2009

on

San

at

Francisco

California
Date

This
it

Chow

SA Tseng

by

and

document
its

contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

Not

dictated

thc

recommendations
distributed

dictated

nor

outside

conclusions

your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600032

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 29


FD-302a

Rev

Continuation

10-6-95

of

FD-302

of

sFpn

on

within the Triad/Tong


Triad hand signs report
summarized below
Identified
Beverly
36

ffr

Triad/Tong
Number
Number
Number

489
489
438

06/09/2009

The CKT board members identified


were both in English and Chinese

CKT

board

DONG Vice

hand

_2_

Page

and
and

the
are

members
Chai

signs and

Tr

numbers

chart

Dragonhead
General
Been jailed committed serious crimes
only by 438 members
Number 438 Colonel
Number 426 Enforcer or red stick
Number 415 Assistant or messenger
Number 432 Negotiator
or up front person
Number 49 Soldiers or lowest official member

used

The
list of names and businesses
SFPD questioned
the
Notice
from the CKT and the copies of the various Chinese
in
1A envelope
newspaper articles are all attached
The seven
the
CKT board members
and the
page document identifying
hand signs and number diagram is also attached
Tong/Triad
in
1A

Official

envelope

USA-600033

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

06/25/200

transcription

On 06/25/2009
San Francisco Police Department
SFPD
Gang Task Force
Jameson Pon contacted
Inspector
the below listed
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI Special Agent
regarding
Raymond Kwok Cheung
as
aka Ha Jai aka Shrimp

SA

SFPD Inspector
Pon provided information that CHOWs
group
threatened San Francisco City Supervisor David CHIU and
CHIUs family recently
Several months ago Supervisor CHIU was at
dinner banquet
CHOW and his associates were also at the same
dinner banquet
CHOW wanted to take
with CHIU but
photograph
CHIU declined to be in
with CHOW
photograph
Later an
unidentified
associate of CHOW approached
CHIU and purportedly
grabbed CHIU by the arm and stated something to the effect
of You
are an elected official
Raymond CHOW runs Chinatown
have

may

CHOW is scheduled to hold


around noon
press conference
06/27/2009
in the vicinity of IMPERIAL
PALACE RESTAURANT
located at 818 Washington
Street San Francisco California
The
be
in
press conference
may
response to CHOW not getting
approval
from the City of San Francisco to operate the portsmouth
Square
Chinatown
Night Market
on

Investigation

06/25/2009

on

San

at

Francisco

California
Date

SA

by

This
it

document

and

its

Chow

Tseng
contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

Not

dictated

thc

recommendations
distributed

dictated

nor

outside

conclusions
your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your agency

agency

USA-600034

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page4 of 29


FD-3

02

Rev

06-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

00

transcription

07/22/2009
two
brief summary translations from
English were received from Language
Rebekah
Specialist
Mark regarding Chinese newspaper articles from Singtao Daily and
World
Journal dated 07/14/2009
and ref
aymond Kwok CHOW
also known as Shrimp Boy date of birth
on

Chinese

to

The Singtao Daily article was


titled
Plans to lead
group to protest at City Hall
translation received is referenced below

CHEE KUNG TONG


The

summary

The planned protest


targets Supervisor David CHIU who had
made derogatory statements against
the HUNG NUN CHEE KUNG TONG
while arguing against City Halls funding for Chinatowns
Night
Market to be awarded to CHEE KUNG TONG
CHOW claims that CHEE KUNG
TONGs reputation is damaged as
result
CHOW told reporters that
about CHEE KUNG TONG are baseless and
Supervisor CHIUs accusations
CHOW plans to coordinate
irresponsible
with Chinese Community
leaders of other ethnicities
groups along with community
to protest
at City Hall date and time to be determined
at
later date
The

World

TONGs response

to

Journal
SF

City

Chinese Night Market.T


referenced below

The

article was

titled

Halls decision

HUNG NUN CHEE KUNG

to

pull funding for the


translation
received is
summary

In response to statements made by Supervisor


David CHIU
who successfully argued against
Halls
of
City
funding
$35000 to
CHEE KUNG TONG for the operation
of the
Chinatown
Night Market
the attorney representing
Joseph BREALL
CHEE KUNG TONG has issued
letter asking Supervisor CHIU to clarify his statements about
CHEE KUNG TONG and to issue an apology to avoid further
legal

action

The second
article Raymond CHOW will be joined by
to
community
groups
protest Supervisor David CHIUs public
statements against CHEE KUNG TONG
The

brief summary translations copies of


Journal Chinese newspaper articles

the
are

Daily and World


and

made part

San

at

Francisco

California

File

This
it

Date

Chow

SA Tseng

by

and

document
its

contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

dictated

Not

dictated

thc

recommendations
distributed

Singtao
attached

communication

this

07/22/2009

on

Investigation

of

other

nor

outside

conclusions

your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600035

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page5 of 29

Daily 7/14/2009
Chee
Hall

Kung

Tong

Singtao
The

Plans

reporter

to

Lead

Huang

Group

Weijiang

to

in

Protest

at

City

SF

planned

protest targets Supervisor David Chiu who had


statements against the Hung Mun Chee Kung
derogatory
Tong while arguing against City Halls funding for
Chinatowns Night Market to be awarded to Chee Kung Tong
Chow claims that Chee Kung Tongs reputation is damaged as
result Chow told reporters that Supervisor Chius

made

accusations

about

irresponsible

Chee Kung

Chow

to

Tong are baseless and


coordinate
with Chinese

plans
Community groups along with community leaders
ethnicities
to protest
at City Hall date and
determined
at
later date

of

other

time to

be

USA-600036

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page6 of 29

2OO9714

EIf1

TAO

Si

DAILY

UCSFJJ 4iL%ItI

I111L
l6j
TLFffJ

DA s-j

U1fJL4
MichaJ

AZF5 An

Conte

tE
Belinda

Sparks

Tu

Jennifer

Kimberly

Mar

John

DivisaderoSco
1J1

Tran

m.Ronthe Va1enzuela

ner

MD

3JL4l6OO
RSVP415885_3678

If%fff

li

ith

It

FJJ

4NEr

F7

iIL4coj

Fl

IAn
I.1

iii.

USA-600037

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page7 of 29

World

Journal

First

article

7/14/2009
Mun

Hung

City Halls decision


Market

to

Chee

Kung

Tongs

pull funding

for

response to
the Chinese

SF

Night

In

response to statements made by Supervisor David Chiu who


successfully argued against City Halls funding of $35000
to Chee Kung Tong for the
of the
Chinatown
operation
Night

Market Joseph Breall the attorney representing Chee Kung


letter asking Supervisor Chiu to clarify
Tong has issued
his
to

The

statements about Chee Kung


avoid further legal action
second

article
to

community
groups
statements against

Raymond
protest
Chee Gung

Tong

and

to

issue an

apology

Chow

will be joined by other


Supervisor David Chius public

Tong

USA-600038

ro

Un1flI

ri
ann

ni

9ctm

sJaAEpi

b%

nsg

MHf4OOO9

r5j

4$UJ

flO9Ik

ZIfl

Aux

rj$5j

puus

f3

rssoj

mg

t$HOIb9Lt

flLjdLfl

fl/iIfl

Aq

J9I4EAJ

Swa

fIflMdUTfl

kflOOO91li21iLW

fl1cFcs

FIII
WI4b

qdasof

-JoteYLr

ZdftiW

TIuGJE

tnn
aEnnM

iscn

Wf

M4

MtS LJj

flSWYMt

nfl
MflSUi flI
nnu TflflW Wfi
fl

SSflflt1fillW4

ztvim

$WiI

t41flAfl

1$tVFt1k

MOu

roj-fl

il

1fiflW

IZ2k

TtflflH

Yz1y

SIfli

11414E74S

1In

WflcS
ZLlj
4i
flMtC
fmi
igm

ff

Z4flZThfl flWzfti

Yn
rni

nglM

Ifl/kE2t 4t$4

YtE4

fl

444tkflfl

E4MM
cflcnd

ttU9T t64WIt

iw

fl

EEIE

lp

JYW1iiv1ii

Std

hLL

_________

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page8 of 29

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB
Document886-1
Page9 of 29
FAX NOFiled08/04/15
0947 AN

JUL02-2009

01

THU

GHP.F

RUNG TONG

CURE

LODGE

SUPREME

MMONS

FREE

OF ThE WORLD

orrIcis NOTICE
Based onunsubstantiatedrumors
Ohee Kung Tong
other option

onthe aftemoonofjunc

Supreme Lodge

than to immediately

and the Chinatown Night Market

and

who

Market

Night

be

to

bias

are

We

We

left

with no

resigned with the hope that the people

against Thee Kung Tong would

continued

World was

from the Chinatown Neighborhood

withdraw

Association
officials

llth2009thexnerIlbgrsof

Free Masons of the

Chinese

caine on board

still

allow the Chinatown

the Chinatown
Neighborhood

Associatioit

to contribute
our time and resources
to the Night Market We wanted to help
the businesses in Chinatown by reaching more visitors then the
already existing

stimulate

Chinatown The Chinatown Neighborhood

visitors in
to

associations

all

community

the

own

to

careers

the 160

During

attend

individuals

interest

Our

and

and

an open ivitation
contribute

the

to

but none had shown any


took time off from

willingly

meetings and any related

deliberations

of Ghee Kung Tong we have

commitment has always been

to

never

used the

lend

helping

baud

our community

On

10th2009

June

the

which

printed rumors

San Francisco Cbronicle under

wat

grants

tha

stated

off others interested

scare

iii

Cihee ICtmg

taking over the market

by Matier and R.osson

retracted

ludicrous minors Supervisor David Chin bad

down

the Night

shut

they also

down

the Night

any association

slated

Market without

An

Mayors

requested the

Thee

any proof that

heinous nimors

tatics to

tax payers

and completely untrue The


column However because

This eventually lead to Sn official notice

with these

that

later

of

later

these

Market

column of Matier and Ross

the

Tong was using intimidating

being misused These rumors are baseless

rumor has been

to

forward

step

Kung Thng Our members

the planning

all

bad

Association

to

few bad expressed

plus years in the history

scare tactics

accused

Market

Night

other than Thee

faith effort

good
their

to

via

and

organizalions

office

to

shut

from the Mayors

office

Kung Tongs member had

official proclaiiation

was

issue

to

Thee

Kung Tong on March 13th2009


he

is

by Supervisor David Chiu for our good work but now


IThe knew what he knows now it would not have
gone out What does

claiming that

heknownowIfhefrpewus

Why

Night Market

We

Market

thats

brought

Chis

David

Supervisor

interest

it

down

Kung Tong

district

How

is

for

is

vote for the wrong

his best

can he he against

visitors to

leader

interest Because

fill

and

immediate

and

retraction

the

Why

is

at

in

as well

Chinatown What

is

be taking away

of this decision

Ross

for the

agendas

We

Chinatown

Night Market

peopi

the people and businesses of Chinatown

Legal notice have gone out to Matier

demanding

political

Night

outraged by such irresponsible

are

has the support of the

an undeniable number of new

Where

be has other

urdess

David Chiu The people and bushiest

nine years coming

Chinatown Did we
district

atallbewouldknowthatweamallvoluersfortho
shut

the members of Thee

from Suprvisor

leadership

event

try to

it

an annual

having

consistently

he trftg
front

arc in

his

to

tell

own

does not seem like his best

want answers

the San Francisco

Chropicle

and apology

USA-600040

C74

aJ

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page10 of 29

j4

Ifl1s-j

fltflv

-fl.4
1$J MATTER

aLEaa

ROSS

fl44i4
iK4

4fQ

ive

-4$a40
ivij

1S-$j

W%41
na
c4c
.Qi

Suj44
jQcs

ROSS

44wt42
a4

44frfl4

t4j
flMATJER

___
ftlainIb3JjssaLjw

--___________

C1Z4t$44g

jq
ra

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page11 of 29

Rev

FD-302

10-6-95

FEDERAL

BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

07

transcription

surveillance was conducted


by Federal
July 24 2009
in
the
SAs
vicinity
FBI
Special
Agent.s
Investigation
California
Goodlett Place
San Francisco
of
Dr Canton
the surveillance
San Francisco City Hall
During
hereinafter
times noted
the following
observations were made at the approximate
On

Bureau

of

CA

below
Activity

Time

1030 AM

SAs

Chow

and
of

vicinity

1045 AM

initiated surveillance

VanderPorten
San Francisco

SA Chow identified Raymond CHOW


Jai aka Shrimp Boy aka Ha Gor
in front
birth dob
12/31/1959
Hall
CHOW was standing next to

shaved head with


dark red tie

in

the

City Hall

mustache

and

known as aka Ha
aka Kwok
Chow date of
Francisco
of San
City
podium CHOW had
dark suit and
wore
also

individuals
CHOW was amongst numerous other unidentified
that were gathered around the front steps of San
individuals were
These unidentified
Francisco City Hall
Hall
and Supervisor
Francisco
San
City
protesting against
individuals held signs
David CHIU
Numerous unidentified
SA Chow observed
written in both English and Chinese
Chee
the
Kung Tong
one
bahner sign containing
large
is
the
We
words
Where
justice
symbol and stating the
Chow
and
Ghee
want justice for Raymond
Kung Tong
Supervisor David Chiu did you start the rumor
Supervisor David Chiu you need to apologize

PLAYAZ

from UNITED
Chow also identified Rudy CORPUS
CORPUS was standing in the crowd near CHOW
SA

Asian males across


SA Chow observed several unidentified
unidentified
Asian
These
the
street
dressed in black
CORPUS
and CHOW while they
males appeared to be watching
each

00

07

on

Investigation

gave

File

This
it

Chow

SA Tseng

by

and

document
its

contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

recommendations
distributed

PROTECTED MATERIAL

speeches

San

at

tA
nor
outside

Date

___________________

David

conclusions
your

CA

Francisco

of

the

dictated

dictated

Not

VanderPorten
FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600042

FD302a Rev

10-6-95

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page12 of 29

1120 AM

SA

CA

Francisco

San

ContinuationofFD-302of

Chow

identified

Bing Chiu
Francisco City

1130 AM

On

Surveillance

Ping

Yin

CHIU
walking

07/24/2009

aka Benny Chiu


west
from San

Page

_2_

aka

Hall

was

terminated

the digital
SA Chow transferred
07/24/2009
labeled as
which
was
CD-R
photographs from the camera to
and
initialed
by SA
07/24/2009
original Fisur
CD
copying program
Chow
The transfer was completed by using
from the camera memory card to the CD
which burned the images
of the
backup
CD copying
Using
program SA Chow then created
07/24/2009
Copy
original CDR which was labeled as
On

of

Fisur

original notes and the CD-R containing


taken during the surveillance are
photographs
of the
in the
1A section
and
maintained
envelope
The

of
1A

the

digital copies
enclosed in

file

USA-600043

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page13 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

David
Board

transcription

07/31/2009

President

CHIU

business

Supervisors District

of

of

City Hall Room


Francisco California
address

San
Goodlett Place
FBI
was interviewed
by Federal Bureau of Investigation
Francisco
the
San
Joe
Yum
in
SA5 Tseng Chow and
Special Agents
by Jamie CANTWELL
the
FBI
CHIU was accompanied
of
office
After being advised of the
Aid to CHIU
Legislative
agents and the nature of the
identities of the interviewing
information
interview CHIU voluntarily provided the following

264

CA

Dr

Canton

the
President Board of Supervisors for the
Prior to being elected to the
in early 2009
sector and also
CHIU worked in the private
Prosecutors
the
City of San Francisco

CHIU became
San Francisco

City of
Board of Supervisors
previously worked for
CHIUs Supervisor responsibilities includes attending
Office
functions throughout the City of San Francisco
various community

CHIU had heard about Raymond CHOW also known as aka


and
Chow dob 12/31/1959
Shrimp Boy aka Ha Jai aka Kwok Cheung
CHOW
had
that
knew
CHIU
was familiar with CHOWs criminal past
various
and that CHOW attended
Chinatown
Francisco
in
San
presence
New
Chinese
the
time
of
In February 2009 around
events
Chinatown
event
dinner
Chinese family association
Year 2009 CHIU attended
this dinner
event CHIU noticed
attended
During
CHOW
also
that
CHIU did
to be in
photograph with CHIU
that CHOW was attempting
CHOW
was
persistent
photograph with CHOW but
not want to be in
CHIU and CHOW to
in
between
someone
went
as
far
as
placing
CHIU
an
Later that evening
avoid being in
photograph with CHOW
50
approximately
who appeared drunk
Asian male
unidentified
and
thin build
spoke
in height with
years old
The UAM shook
CHIU
Chinese
approached
with
accent
English
five
CHIUs hand and grabbed onto CHIUs hand for approximately
hand
from
his
and tried to remove
minutes
CHIU felt uncomfortable
CHIU
UAM
told
The
the UAMs hand but the DAM refused to let go
to CHOW and
UAM
Then
the
pointed
Chinatown
he
used
to
run
that
and CHIU also runs Chinatown
told CHIU that CHOW runs Chinatown
CHIU believed
The DAM advised that they have to figure things out
went
that after the DAN released CHIUs hand the UAM may have
CHIU was under the impression that CHOW and
towards CHOWs table

UAM

58510

the

UAN

associated

San

07/29/2009

on

Investigation

were

California

Francisco

Date

This
it

Chow

SA Tseng

by

and

document
its

contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

SA

recommendations
distributed

nor

outside

dictated

Not

YurrV

Joe

conclusions

your

dictated

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600044

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page14 of 29


FD-302a

Rev

10-6-95

Supervisor

ContinuationofFD-302of

David

Chiu

On 07/29/2009

Page

the City of San Francisco conducted


Night Market held annually at Portsmouth
an audit
The Night Market was managed by Pius LEE
Square in San Francisco
that LEE misused the
The audit report concluded
for several years
$35000 of City funds provided annually for the Night Market
via
LEE announced
press release
Shortly after this audit report
LEE also
of the
Night Market
that he was stepping down as Manager
to have
someone else become the
informed CHIU of his intentions
was made
After LEEs announcement
of the Night Market
Manager
for bidding
and several
the City officially opened the position
rumor that
CHIU later heard
community
organizations applied
aka GHEE
CHOW CHOWS associates and the CHEE KUNG TONG
of the Night Market
to take control
KUNG TONG were attempting
leaders which included Rose
CHIU was informed by several community
PAK leader of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce that CHOW and his
associates may be intimidating others to not apply to run the Night
Market
Subsequently the community organizations that originally
their bids
to
manage the Night Market withdrew
applied
Several months
Chinatown
of the

ago

CKT

Approximately May or June of 2009 the City of San


Francisco Mayors Office had
meeting where several prominent
Asian politicians including Bill LEE were present to discuss
CHIU
or group
providing the Night Market to Pius LEEs successor
CHOW
and
his
this
that
found
out
at
meeting
shocked
when
he
was
to manage the Night Market by the
group were being considered
of CHOW
that Bill LEE was supportive
CHIU
recalled
office
Mayors
CHIU argued with Bill
and CHOWs group managing the Night Market
that
LEE against CHOW controlling the Night Market and believed
Matier
and Ross
leaked
to
later
of
this
were
publicly
meeting
parts
After the article was published by
of the San Francisco Chronicle
cancelled
the Night
the San Francisco Chronicle Mayor Gavin NEWSOM
Since the article was published
with the CKT
Market contract
CHOW

has

been

condemning

CHIU

2009 his former


CHIU stated that approximately March
to
CHOW and the CKT
Proclamation
Aid
provided
City
Legislative
several
of these
to
without
his knowledge
CHIU
According
Proclamations are issued each month or week and CHIU does not
CHIU was later quoted by
directly oversee who they are issued to
office knew then what we
Matier and Ross as saying if his
CHOW has
the
made
know
would
not
have
proclamation
we
attack
CHIU
since used this quote from the press to verbally
Since
target

of

CHOWs

the Night Market


dissatisfaction

the
was terminated CHIU has been
CHIU
as reported by the media

USA-600045

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page15 of 29


FD-302a

Rev

10-6-95

Supervisor

ContinuationofFD-3020f

David

Chiu

On 07/29/2009

Page

dozen times random people in the


stated that on at least half
CHIU to be very
CHIU advising
Chinatown
community have approached
that merchants
CHIU
believed
careful and that CHIU was in danger
months
of
CHOW
Several
ago
are scared
and residents in Chinatown
received
CHIUs parents who reside in Boston Massachusetts
call
from an unidentified
person who informed CHIUs
telephone
in danger and that CHIU must be
parents that their son may be
that CHOW was
very dangerous
The caller further stated
careful
CHIUs parents became worried and informed CHIU to be

person
careful

demand letter from an


also received
legal
The
legal action
the CKT threatening
attorney representing
letter
defamation
The
letter threatened to sue CHIU for libel and
CHOW
that CHIU retract all his statements against
also requested
CHIU suspected that PIUS LEE was financially
and the CKT
for the
legal demand letter and that LEE may be
responsible
associated with CHOW

CHIUs office

concerned
for his own safety due to CHOWs
his
irrationality CHIU is worried that CHOW may recruit one of
that
San
CHIU acknowledged
harm CHIU
underlings to physically
SF20 was providing security
Francisco Police Department
during some of his public appearances
protection
CHIU

is

reformed person
CHOWs claims of being
CHIU questioned
CHOW has been
since CHOWs behavior indicated otherwise
knew
that CHOW continues
CHIU
also
CHIU
criticizing
aggressively
CHIU
criminal ties throughout the San Francisco Bay area
to have
in
are extorting merchants
heard that some of CHOWs associates

Chinatown
business

of
are supposedly in possession
enforcer
symbol and number for

CHOWs associates

cards

with

Triad

after the Night Market story was reported


Several weeks
frantic doorbell ring in
CHIUs
media
apartment received
by
CHIU initially thought that the person
the
early morning hours
and informed the
had
the
incorrect
the
doorbell
apartment
ringing
CHIU later
the
CHIU
would
contact
police
to
or
person
go away
realized that it was actually the SFPD ringing CHIUs doorbell
call received at
to an earlier telephone
SFPD was responding
caller provided CHIUs hpme
Northern Station where an anonymous
in progress
disturbance
address and advised SFPD that there was
and eventually
spoke to
The SFPD responded
to CHIUs residence
caller
The
find
disturbances
but
did
not
anonymous
CHIU
any
the
unable
to
trace
telephone
Chinese
SFPD
was
spoke Mandarin
the

USA-600046

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page16 of 29


FD-302a

Rev

10-6-95

Supervisor

ContinuationofFD-302of

call

CHIU

thought

David

Chiu

On 07/29/2009

Page

_4_

or
total coincidence
this could be
out
the
to
figure
associates calling SFPD

that

possibly one of CHOWs


SFPD response time to CHIUs

residence

that CHOW may have been involved with the


CHIU speculated
CI-IIU
knew that when LEUNG was killed none of
Allen LEUNG murder
with
the witnesses including LEUNGs wife came forward to cooperate
law enforcement

enclosed

The interview notes


the lA section of

in

taken during
the file

this interview

are

USA-600047

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page17 of 29


Rev

FD-302

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

David

of

08/14/200

transcription

birth dab
04/02/1970
President
business address City Hall Room
Dr Canton
264
Goodlett Place
San Francisco
California
number 415 5547450
telephone
was interviewed
by Federal
Bureau of Investigation
FBI Special Agents SAs Tseng Chow and
Joe Yum in the San Francisco office
of the FBI
CHIU was
accompanied
by Jamie CANTWELL
Aid to
Legislative
CHIU
After being advised of tne iclentities
of the
interviewing
agents and the nature of the interview CHIU voluntarily
provided
the following information
Board

of

CHIU

date

of

Supervisors District

CA

CHIU

was advised by various San Francisco Chinatown


meet with Raymond CHOW also known as aka
Shrimp
Boy
Jai aka Kwok Cheung Chow dab 12/31/1959
alone
Various CHIU supporters are advising
CHIU to stay away from certain
events
community
CHIU continued
to receive messages from
unidentified
persons warning CHIU to bc careful of CHOW
CHIU has
no interest in meeting with CHOW
CHIU believed that in the next
few months CHIU will likely come into contact with CHOW
at
event
community
CHOW may want to shake CHIUs hand during this
meeting and CHOW may threaten
CHIU at this event
CHIU has nothing
to say to CHOW unless CHOW stops sending letters and threats
CHIU
expects that the meeting with CHOW will be confrontational
leaders

not
aka Ha

to

CHIU received
legal letter from Breall
Breall LLP
at Law
1255
Attorneys
Post
Street Suite 800 San Francisco CA
dated July
2009 who purportedly were representing the CHEE KUNG
TONG
aka GHEE KUNG TONG
The legal letter demanded
that
CHIU make the necessary clarification
correction and apology for
CHIUs past statements so that further legal action would be
CHIU believed
unnecessary
that the CKT never authorized
this
letter and that CHOW may have been behind this
legal letter
Since
CHIUs office did not responded to the legal
letter CHOW and the
CKT held
protest at San Francisco City HalL

CKT

CHIU provided copies of the legal letter from


Breall
dated July
2009 and
letter written in Chinese
purportedly from CHOW and the CKT addressed to CHIU and his office

LLP

Breall

CHIU was shown six


from various
group photographs
events that CHOW attended
In photograph
marked

Chinatown

08/10/2009

on

Investigation

Fin

at

Francisco__California
Date

SA Tseng

by

This
it

document

and

its

contains

contents

are

Chow
neither
not

to

be

SA

recommendations
distributed

PROTECTED MATERIAL

nor

outside

Not

dictated

Yum

Joe

conclusions

your

dictated

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600048

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page18 of 29


FD-302a

Rev

Continuation

1O6-95

of

FD-302

of

Supervisor

David

Chiu

on 07/29/2009

2_

Page

CHIU was unable to identify anyone


In photograph
marked
was unable to identify anyone
In photograph
marked
identified Arnold LEE as the former leader of the CHINESE

CHIU

CHIU
SIX
COMPANIES
In photograph
marked
CHIU identified Bill WONG
Harrison LIM
In photograph
marked
CHIU was unable to
In photograph
identify anyone
marked
CHIU was unable to
identify anyone
The legal letter
Chinese letter photographs
shown
and the interview notes taken during this interview are
enclosed
in the 1A section
of the file

and

to

CHIU

USA-600049

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page19 of 29


Rev

FD-302

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

08/16/2009

of

transcription

08

17/2009

636 PM David CHIU


approximately
President Board of Supervisors
District
business address City Hall Room 264
Dr Canton
Goodlett Place San Francisco
California
number
telephone
415 5547450 was provided with
device for the
recording
purpose of conducting
cons
ally monitored recording
with
Raymond CHOW als
Jai aka
On 08/16/2009
at approximately
824
PM the recording device was recovered from CHIU
The recording
device was submitted to ELSUR on 08/17/2009
On

at

CA

CHIU

was

interviewed
subsequently
by Federal Bureau of
Investigation
FBI Special Agents SAs Tseng Chow and Joe Yum in
the
San Francisco office
of the
FBI
CHIU was also accompanied
by
San Francisco Police Department Inspector
Jameson Pan
After being
advised of the identities of the interviewing
agents and the nature
of the
interview CHIU voluntarily provided the following

information

CHIU attended the 130th anniversary


GEE
TUCK SAM TUCK
ASSOCIATION dinner banquet
on 08/16/2009
which was held at EMPRESS
OF CHINA restaurant located on 838 Grant Avenue
San Francisco
CA
CHOW was also present during this dinner
During the dinner
CHOW
approached
CHIU and shook C-IIUts
hand
Subsequently CHIU agreed
to speak to CHOW after CHIU finished
his speech
CHIU and CHOW
to walk toward the rear of the restaurant
proceeded
to talk
CHIU wanted to know why CHOW was threatening
CHIU with
letters and statements
CHIU confronted
CHOW about
letter that
was written in Chinese and purportedly from the
CHEE KUNG TONG
CKT or CHOW himself The letter stated that CHIU was
corpse
eating
dinner
vegetarian
CHIU told CHOW that he felt threatened
by such statements
CHOW denied knowing anything about
threat
towards CHIU and denied writing
letters
any threatening
CHIU also
confronted CHOW about
legal letter addressed to CHIU demanding
that CHIU retract all negative statements made
against the CKT and
CHOW
CHIU reported that CHOW was trying to keep
his anger in
check
CHIU stated that CHOW wanted to go downstairs to talk
privately but CHIU refused

08

on

Investigation

/16/2

009

San

at

Francisco

California
Date

_______________
SA

by

This
it

document

and

its

Chow

Tsenq
contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

SA

recommendations
distributed

PROTECTED MATERIAL

nor

outside

Joe

conclusions

your

Not

dictated

dictated

Yur
of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600050

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page20 of 29


FD-302a

Rev

10-6-95

Supervisor

ContjnuationofFD-302of

David

Chiu

On 08/16/2009

Page

_2_

CHOW wanted to know how they both could make


things
CHIU wanted CHOW to retract the negative statements
that
directed towards CHIU
CHOW responded
where would it leave
with his CKT members if CHOW retracted his statements about
CHOW will discuss the situation with some of his members
and
will contact someone at CHIUs office to discuss further

better
were
CHOW

CHIU
CHOW

copy of the recordings


are enclosed
are maintained in the lA section
of this
file
The interview
enclosed in Form FD-340
this file

notes taken during


and are maintained

in

Form

FD340

and

this interview
are
in the
1A section
of

USA-600051

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page21 of 29


Rev

FD-302

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

10

transcription

at approximately
09/09/2009
430 PM Federal Bureau
Human Source
Confidential
Investigation
contacted
RJ\YMOND
telephonically
CHOW also known as aka Ha Jai
number
telephone
415 2868388
in the presence of FBI SAs Tseng
Chow and Joe Yum
This
conversation
was on speaker so that SAs
Chow and Yum could hear both parties in the
telephone
conversation
SAs Chow and Yum recognized
the voice of the individual whom the
Cl-IS
was speaking
with as CHOW
This
call was not
telephone
consensually recorded
on

of

During

this

at

Hyde

CHOW mentioned that he was


Street house located in San Francisco
California
CHS
informed CHOW that they should plan on
having
dinner together
The restaurant name was not mentioned
soon
during
the
conversation
The CHS advised
that TONY MEl and AH YUENG
phonetic will also be present during this dinner
currently

his
The

conversation

The CHS will be bringing


red envelope containing
approximately
$200-$300
for CHOW
The CHS advised
that
CHOW stated
that this money was going to be used to
victims
of the
the
support
recent Taiwan typhoon

CHOW

Investigation

The entire telephone


conversation
between the CHS
the Cantonese
dialect of the Chinese language

in

was

09/10/2flflci

on

an

Francisco

California
Date

SA Tseng
chow
SA Joe Yum/

by

This
it

document

and

its

contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

thcf

recommendations
distributed

nor

outside

dictated

Not

dictated

____________________________________

conclusions

your

and

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

oaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600052

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page22 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

14

transcription

On 09/11/2009
at approximately
633 PM Federal Bureau
Confidential
Human Source
Investigation
was
device for the purposes of conducting
provided with
recording
consensually monitored recordings with Raymond CHOW also known as
aka Shrimp Boy aka Ha Jai date of birth dob
Tony
Ah Yueng phonetic
MEl
and others
yet unknown

CHS

of

device

was

On 09/11/2009
at approximately
recovered
from CHS
The consensually
monitored
to ELSUR on 09/14/2009

submitted

and

envelope

copy of the
maintained

924

PM

recording

the

recording

described

recording will be placed in


in the
substantive
file

herein

was

1A/FD-340

copy of the recording was also submitted to the Foreign


Language
Program San Francisco Division for translation and will
be serialized upon completion of translation

J9/11/2009

on

Investigation

Daly

at

City California
Date

SA
SA

by

This
it

document

and

its

H.9CrOw

Tseng
Joe

Not

dictated

thc

Yum/

contains

contents

dictated

are

neither
not

to

be

recommendations
distributed

nor

outside

conclusions

your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600053

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page23 of 29


Rev

FD-302

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

David
Board

of

of

transcription

CHIU

President

Supervisors District

business

address

City Hall Room


Dr Canton
264
Goodlett Place
San Francisco
California
number 415
telephone
5547450
was interviewed
by Federal
Bureau of Investigation
FBI Special Agents SAs Tseng Chow and
Joe Yum in the San Francisco office of the
FBI
After being
advised of the identities of the interviewing
agents and the nature
of the
interview CHIU voluntarily provided the following

CA

information
CHIU reported that there were
few unidentified
individuals who were interested in revitalizing
the GREAT STAR
THEATER
to be utilized as
center
CHIU found out that
community
known associate of Raymond CHOW was
Beverly DONG
consultant
to the unidentified
individuals for the GREAT STAR THEATER
project
rave party at the GREAT STAR THEATER
During
people were selling
CHOW is seeking
ecstasy
zoning center changes for the GREAT STAR
THEATER
The GREAT STAR
THEATER
is looking
to become an
entertainment
establishment
Julie LEE was the former owner of the
GREAT STAR THEATER
LEE was found guilty of funneling money to
Kevin SHELLEY
The interview notes
the 1A section of

enclosed

in

taken

during

Date

SA

This
it

and

document
its

contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

recommendations
distributed

outside

dictated

Not

dictated

7/

Chow thc

Tseng

are

California

Francisco

by

this interview

file

the

SA Joe

nor

conclusions

your

YumJ/
of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600054

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page24 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL

BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

transcription

September 16 2009 summary translations from the


dialect of Chinese to English were received regarding
consensually monitored recordings
between FBI Confidential
Human
HS
and Raymond Kwok CHOW date of birth
Tony MEl and others unknown
On

Cantonese

The

recordings

were

dated

The summary translations


this communication

09 /16/2

on

Investigation

00

were attached

Date

SA

by

This
it

and

document
its

chow

Tseng
contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

made part

of

dictated

Not

dictated

thci

recommendations
distributed

and

California

Francisco

at

2009

11

September

outside

nor

conclusions

your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600055

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page25 of 29

Joe

Mei

Yum with SA Tseng Chow 9/11/2009


approx 629
consensual
with
attempt
recording
Raymond Chow Tony
Ah Yeung
and others yet unknown

CHS

to

SA
CHS

UN

havent

they

seen each
other for over 10 years
complained about not able to become
citizens
because
all
have
criminal
records
One
UN
they
had been
convicted
of using
firearm during the commission of
crime UMs philosophy is that the key to avoid detection
is to remain
low key
Brief chat about
houses in
UMs

the

Sunset

has

to

pay

District

CHS

attorney

troubles
installments

of

complains

fees

in monthly

Raymond Chow arrives RC says Immigration


tight leash on him
RC
On Tuesday
go to City Hall and give them
UM1 Give them hell

RC
UM1

And so they maybe


Soda pop

RC

Fine fine

UM1

think

RC

its because

of

So maybe its because


shouldnt be

it

he

money

this

of

has

hell

issue..

this issue

so..

of
sudden they cancelled me again Because
planning to go to LA next week So here
two
Not specified submitted
already have
And
in the account
already have $50000
and starting
the
transfer
of
Monday
money into the account
can
begin And
planned to fly to LA on the
And the
They...all

was

2S

producer

writers...several

So

get

once

estimates

RC

$50000
page
offer
$3

that

writers

are

waiting

he

find

can

writer

to

write

And

following
that editing is about
talks abut his movie and book deal

RC
to

sign
million RC

for

me

there..

contract

doesnt

to
sign

buy the
because

rights to
he

wants

for

him

for

$450$l00 per
He has an
his story
control

for

on

production
leaders from Sacramento
says that community
came down to
RC to give lectures on the evils for alcohol and
drugs
Such
lectures paid $200 per talk

RC

ask

Moon
Noon
each

is

Festival
needs
of his followers
RC

many moon

RC

Festival

Our

cakes

for

the

brothers are

on
to

RC

10/3
give

says

CHS

out
he has

comments that for the


box of moon cake to
no money to buy so

brothers

many

USA-600056

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page26 of 29

UN1

How

RC

That

UM2

It

UM3

many
is

say there

to

whistle

and

Well

didnt just arbitrarily blows

had

he

been

before

CHS

Perhaps

RC

Now

CHS

When

for

several

some

his

tens

whistle
of

he

nights

had

pay money too right


truthfully speaking
now on these now..
other people protest money has to be paid

such

he

got..

right
signs those
On

it

blowing

he

am

CHS

are many brothers outside


something else he arbitrarily blows the
hundred
some people
at City Hall
gathered

is

really

It

to

is

for those

necessary

who

hold

$40

the

in Downtown

things

thats why

say

that

is

to

say

brothers are truly.. That


is to say
regardless
their ages and various other aspects

the

of

realistically

UM1
RC

out

come

they

taking money out


okay Everyone of them was able
of the cops
You. that is you..
How many do you have

Realistically

out

fire

the

corner

of

staking

thats really easy


the place However

to

their own pockets


stand up in front

ask

the brothers to come


staking you out around
to give you
you out
beating
That
type of brothers is all over
if you can..
that is to say this

you...you...you

couple

of

group of brothers
you
they are able to face
sake of Ah Gungs

shots

can

see

their devotion
that
That is for the

organization

reputations

they

Uh motherfucker when its in the right we will


it So thats
big fucking
difference That is to

can..

do

know

say

you

its

just

even if that is to say as you


like how we were in the past..
This is

can

see

your

glass
UM2

Yes

RC

That

tJM2

Whether
they are young kids or adults just watching
them come
out holding
signs Its not like asking the
brothers to do murder and mayhem its really..
Its fish sauce

is

to

say

matter that is unfair for example


some brothers falls down
there are other brothers who
would come
out
and lend
hand Its tangible
helping
can
there
see it
is
you
sense there
Everyone
joins in for
toast
RC No that sense is quite
good feeling Its true

turned

PROTECTED MATERIAL

to

food

USA-600057

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page27 of 29

Hong Kong then


lesson on the

to

various

other groups
RC gives
member
of
being
the Hung Nun
organization Everything one does one does it for the good
of Ah Gung
Actions are not limited to
organization
fighting only for example Just like this time when you
at City Hall you
guys helped to hold up signs
are

doing

it

in

to

set

of

Ah Gung

for

Gungs honor
wanting

moves on
conducts

RC
up

You are fighting


for Ah
mentioned to RC about
says Sam
branch organization
Gung Tong

Oakland

CHS

feeling well and he went to the bathroom


returned and asked who paid the bill he
Ah Yong
Ah Yeung
CHS
thanks UM and says
each since around

is

2028
told
know

not

CHS

96 97

Discussion on RCs movie


the movie
deal insisting

will

be

that

RC

claims

hes holding

his

book has
script has to

to

be

up

first

that the movie


be based
on his
writer work on his book RC
currently having
meeting with three writers
director
producer

published
book
RC

and

deal

was

theyve

is

and
very large production
company RC claims that
have already come up from LA to meet with him
producers
once
before and they asked what RC has been doing RC told
them that he has been doing voluntary work helping to raise

for China and Taiwan RC plans to go


the
coming Monday and present donations to
will also present to them
container
full
funds

medical

RC wants
supplies/equipments
the
container
to
China
transport

free

to
the
of

the

consulate

consul
medicine

shipping

RC

and

to

USA-600058

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page28 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

10/15/2009

transcription

On 10/13/2009
at approximately
239 PM Federal Bureau
Confidential
Investigation
Human Source
was
provided with
device for the purposes of conducting
recording
consensually monitored recordings
with Raymond CH
nown as
aka Shrimp Boy aka Ha Jai date of birth dob
and
others yet unknown

CHS

of

device

was

On 10/13/2009
at approximately
recovered
from CHS
The

submitted

to

consensually
ELStJR

copy
maintained

in

the

on

monitored

428

recording

PM

the

recording

described

herein

10/13/2009

of

the
recording will
substantive
file

be

in

placed

1A/FD340

was

and

copy of the recording


was also submitted to the Foreign
Language
Program San Francisco Division for translation and will
be serialized upon completion
of translation

Investigation

10/13/2009

on

CA

San_Francisco

at

Date

SA

by

This
It

and

document
its

Chowt

Tseng
contains

contents

are

neither
not

to

be

recommendations
distributed

dictated

N/A

vp JJ7
nor

outside

conclusions
your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600059

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-1 Filed08/04/15 Page29 of 29


FD-302

Rev

10-6-95

FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION

Date

of

J0/23/2009

transcription

October 21 2009 summary translations from the


dialect of Chinese to English were received regarding
between FBI Confidential
consensually monitored recordings
Human
S
and Raymond Kwok CHOW
date of birth
Tony MEl and others unknown
On

Cantonese

this

Investigation

The

recordings

The

summary translations

were

dated

October
were

attached

10/13/2009

on

SA

This
it

and

document
its

and

made

San

at

Francisco

contains
are

part

of

California
Not

dictated

dictated

Chow

Tseng

contents

2009

communication

Date

by

13

neither
not

to

be

recommendations
distributed

nor

outside

conclusions

your

of

the

FBI

It

is

the

property

of

the

FBI

and

is

loaned

to

your

agency

agency

USA-600060

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-2 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 2

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-2 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 2

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-3 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 6

C!ongrcss of tbc

nfteb

a~bin gton ,

205 l0

~tates

February 27, 2013


Ms. Melinda Haag
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
U.S. Courthouse
4 50 Golden Gate Avenue, nth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Ms. Haag:
We read your comments published in the Washington Times regarding the
enclosed letters sent by Chairman Smith and Chairman Wolf to the Justice
Department Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Director earlier this month. This longstanding case reportedly involved years of
FBI, Department of Homeland Security and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Inspector General resources. Yet, the government has, so
far, failed to charge anyone for transferring sensitive national security technology
to foreign nationals. It is our understanding that a witness was scheduled to
appear before a grand jury in this case in February of 2011, but this witness's
appearance was cancelled abruptly and not rescheduled. The reason is unclear.
We have received allegations from whistleblowers that the decision not to
prosecute was influenced by political considerations rather than strictly by the
merits of the case.
According to the article, you stated, '"I am aware of allegations our office
sought authority from [the Justice Department] in Washington, D.C., to bring
charges in a particular matter and that our request was denied,' Ms. Haag said.
'Those allegations are untrue. No such request was made, and no such denial was
received. "'1
Your statement conflicts factually with information we received from
federal law enforcement. Therefore, to evaluate the allegations that politics
played a role in the prosecutorial decisions made in this case, we need additional
information about your office's decisions and communications with the Justice
Department, White House, NASA and other outside entities.
1.

It is our understanding that Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA)

Gary Fry was initially assigned to this case, but was replaced by AUSA
Elise Becker. Is this correct? If so, please explain why AUSA Fry was
removed and replaced by AUSA Becker.

1
Rowan Scarborough, NASA accused of technology transfers, THEWASHINGTON TIMES, Feb. 12,
2013. Available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/12/nasa-accused-oftechnology-transfers/

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-3 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 6


2.

Did you or any member of your staff have any communications related
to this case with any current or former official at Justice Department
headquarters? If so, who did you or your staff speak to at Main Justice
and please describe the communication?

3. Did you or any member of your staff have any communications related
to this case with any current or former White House and/ or Executive
Office of the President official? If so, who did you or your staff speak to
and please describe the communication?
4. Did you or any member of your staff have any communications related
to this case with any current or former NASA official? If so, who did
you or your staff speak to and please describe the communication?
5. Did you or any member of your staff have any communications related
to this case with any employee, representative, attorney, or lobbyist of
an organization or firm that has a contract or Space Act Agreement
with NASA headquarters or any NASA center? If so, who did you or
your staff speak to and please describe the communication?
Additionally, please provide copies of all documents related to any
communications described above.
We understand that prosecutorial decision-making is a topic on which the
Justice Department often resists outside inquiry. However, oversight is
sometimes necessary to ensure that the integrity of those decisions has not been
undermined by improper influence. We hope that some additional transparency
in this instance will enhance confidence in the integrity of the Department's
decision. We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate

Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies
U.S. House of Representatives
Attachments

Chairman
Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-3 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 6

<!rnngress nf tI,e llnifeit fates


llllla.sfJingtnn, ilC!J: 20515
February 8, 2013
Mr. Michael Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Horowitz:
We have been informed of an investigation that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), the NASA Office of the Inspector General and other law enforcement agencies have been
working on since 2009 relating to the alleged illegal transfer ofITAR-controlled technology by
individuals at the NASA Ames Research Center. It is our understanding that this illegal
technology transfer may have involved classified Defense Department weapons system
technology to foreign countries, including China, potentially with the tacit or direct approval of
the center's leadership.
We were also concerned to learn that large numbers of foreign nationals were invited to
work at NASA Ames over the last six years and that federal information and physical security
safeguards may not have been used or may have explicitly been ignored on multiple
occasions. Additionally, we have been informed that Ames officials may have traveled to
foreign conferences and disseminated information about ITAR-controlled technologies in public
forums, with Chinese and other foreign officials present.
We have been told by sources close to this investigation that the FBI' s case is
substantially complete and was referred to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
California for prosecution, but it has been stalled for more than a year and that an assistant U.S.
attorney was reassigned from the case. It is our understanding that the charges in this case are
rapidly running up against the statute of limitations, and that the first charge expired on
December 15, 2012.
We were very concerned to learn earlier this week that despite the U.S. Attorney's
request for permission from the Justice Department to proceed with indictments, this request was
recently denied without explanation, despite the backing of both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
office. We are deeply concerned that political pressure may be a factor and are formally
requesting an investigation into the circumstances of the Justice Department's actions with
regard to this case.
Specifically, we request that you review the period oftime since the U.S. Attorney's
office received the case from the FBI and review the series of questionable delays and
reassignment of the assistant U.S. attorneys managing this case. It is our understanding that after
the reassigmnent, certain defendants and certain charges were dropped from the case without
explanation.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-3 Filed08/04/15 Page4 of 6

In addition to the Justice Department's decision, we have also been informed by sources
familiar with the case that key evidence from the hard drive of one suspect's computer was
corrupted, as were all the back-up copies in the government's possession. We ask that you
review the management ofthis evidence and whether multiple electronic copies were
simultaneously damaged.
We believe all of these allegations merit a thorough review by your office. Thank you
for your attention to this serious matter. It is imperative that the Justice Department fully enforce
U.S. export control laws protecting critical and sensitive U.S. technologies and any federal
officials responsible for the transfer of such technology be investigated and prosecuted.
Sincerely,

Lamar Smith

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-3 Filed08/04/15 Page5 of 6

C!rnngr.ess nf tq.e l'tnit.eil ~tat.es


llfasffington, il<!t 20515
February 8, 2013
The Honorable Robert S. Mueller
Director
Federal Bureau oflnvestigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20535
Dear Director Mueller:
We have been informed of an investigation that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), the NASA Office of the Inspector General and other law enforcement agencies have been
working on since 2009 relating to the alleged illegal transfer of ITAR-controlled technology by
individuals at the NASA Ames Research Center. It is our understanding that this illegal
technology transfer may have involved classified Defense Department weapons system
technology to foreign cow1tries, including China, potentially with the tacit or direct approval of
the center's leadership.
We were also concerned to learn that large nwnbers of foreign nationals were invited to
work at NASA Ames over the last six years and that federal information and physical security
safeguards may not have been used or may have explicitly been ignored on multiple
occasions. Additionally, we have been informed that Ames officials may have traveled to
foreign conferences and disseminated information about ITAR-controlled technologies in public
forums, with Chinese and other foreign officials present.
We have been told by sources close to this investigation that the FBI' s case is
substantially complete and was referred to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
California for prosecution, but it has been stalled for more than a year and that an assistant U.S.
attorney was reassigned from the case. It is our understanding that the charges in this case are
rapidly running up against the statute of limitations, and that the first charge expired on
December 15, 2012.
We were very concerned to learn earlier this week that despite the U.S. Attorney's
request for permission from the Justice Department to proceed with indictments, this request was
recently denied without explanation, despite the backing of both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
office. We are deeply concerned that political pressure may be a factor and are formally
requesting an investigation into the circwnstances of the Justice Department's actions with
regard to this case.
We wanted to make you aware that we have asked the Justice Department's Inspector
General to review the period of time since the U.S. Attorney's office received the case from the
FBI and review the series of questionable delays and reassignment of the assistant U.S. attorneys
managing this case. It is our understanding fuat after the reassignment, certain defendants and
certain charges were dropped from the case without explanation.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-3 Filed08/04/15 Page6 of 6

In addition to the Justice Department's decision, we have also been informed by sources
familiar with the case that key evidence from the.hard drive of one suspect's computer was
corrupted, as were all the back-up copies in the government's possession. We ask that you
review the management of this evidence and whether multiple electronic copies were
simultaneously damaged.
We appreciate that your staff quickly responded in December when Rep. Wolf first
contacted the bureau about this matter and it is our understanding that appropriate offices within
the bureau have subsequently reviewed this case. However, we also wanted to make you aware
that the allegations raised in this case remain very troubling and hope the FBI will continue to
investigate any new information pertaining to illegal technology transfers or inappropriate
foreign activity at Ames.
Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. It is imperative that the Justice
Department fully enforce U.S. export control laws protecting critical and sensitive U.S.
technologies and any federal officials responsible for the transfer of such technology be
investigated and prosecuted.
Sincerely,

~~(,J~
Frank R. Wolf

d.-~
Lamar Smith

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-4 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 3

March 27, 2014


The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
After receiving information from law enforcement whistleblowers, I, along with
Chairmen Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf, wrote to Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of California about alleged International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) violations
at the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). Our letter conveyed the concerns which had been
raised by whistleblowers, that the decision not to prosecute the ITAR violations may have
been made for reasons other than the merits of the case and that the decision whether to
prosecute was made by Main Justice. The questions posed and documents requested in our
letter attempted to bring facts of the case to light and transparency to the U.S. Attorneys
decision.
U.S. Attorney Haag did not respond to this letter and in fact, it appears that she routed
the letter through Main Justice for a response. This raised concerns regarding U.S. Attorney
independence and underscored the concerns made by whistleblowers. Over four and a half
months after the letter was sent, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded by not
answering the questions presented, claiming deliberative and law enforcement privilege, and
denying that any decisions were made improperly.
On February 12, 2014, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of
Inspector General (IG) issued an investigative report on ITAR violations and foreign national
access issues at ARC. The report, which is attached, was provided to NASA management but
was not issued publically. It raises numerous questions about the unprecedented level of
access enjoyed by foreign nationals, other activities at the ARC facility, and the DOJ
investigation.
The NASA IG review specifically concluded that several security rules were not
followed by ARC leadership and that a foreign national personally recruited by ARC
leadership appears to have violated security protocols with little or no repercussions.
According to the report, this foreign national, at the request of ARC leadership, was
selected to be a visiting scholar and then a contractor at the ARC. ARC leadership initially
informed ARC employees that this foreign national was to be given exceptional care and
unescorted access 24/7 despite the fact that the foreign national had not passed basic
security background checks.
Enclosures (2)

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-4 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 3

NASA policies state that no foreign national is permitted unescorted access to the ARC
or NASA IT system until completion of a National Agency Check (NAC), preparation of a
Security Control Plan, and assignment of a government employee to act as his or her sponsor.
However, these procedures were not followed for this foreign national. According to the IG
report, one ARC International Visitors Office (IVO) employee is quoted as saying, the IVO
was under tremendous pressure from [redacted] office to make it happen in terms of
granting [the foreign national] unescorted access to Ames.
Within three days of arriving at the ARC, this foreign national received a pass giving
him unescorted access. The NAC would not be complete for another two and a half months.
Surprisingly, in a later interview, the IG report says that the ARC leadership official behind
this pressure and the request that the foreign national be given unescorted access 24/7 said,
[We] have been very careful in answering his questions. He hascontacts around the world
including China. While I do not believe hes a direct agent of [any country] I do not trust
him with any information of a sensitive nature.
Despite these concerns, the foreign national worked on projects which the State
Department declared were ITAR related without an ITAR license for the next two years. The
project to which he was assigned was verified to be ITAR sensitive by the ARC Export
Administrator, the NASA Headquarters Export Control Office officials, and the NASA HQ
Export Control Administrator.
In the course of this and related work, this foreign national also appears to have made
a habit of recording most, if not all of his conversations with co-workers at the ARC. ARC
leadership was aware of these recordings and was aware that they likely violated California
state law but allowed them to continue. When later asked about this practice, ARC leadership
said that they considered it to be a goofy quirk. The foreign national did however capture
many conversations, some of which were detailed like these in the IGs report:
A conversation in which (ARC employees) discussed how certain high level
managers at Ames stole funds from a $20 million contract
A conversation primarily between the ARC official and [redacted] in which
[redacted] is discussing difficulties with a contractor and states I just
dont appreciate it when he starts acting out on me. I gave him a
[expletive deleted] gifta classified contract, no competition, nobody even
got to know about it1
Finally, the foreign national traveled out of the country on personal travel with a
NASA-issued laptop that contained ITAR-restricted information to a United Nations
conference in Austria. Upon his arrival back to the United States, due to an ongoing criminal
investigation, the foreign national was sent to secondary screening where he appears to have
made false statements to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials. First, he told
DHS officials that the NASA laptop was personal equipment with both work and personal
information. When officials pointed out that, according to the IG report, a NASA label was
affixed to the machines underside, the IG report says that the foreign national renounced
1

NASA Inspector General Report at page 27.

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-4 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 3


the previous statement. Then, the foreign national claimed that there was no sensitive or
classified data on the laptop. After additional questioning, the foreign national admitted that
some of the files contained ITAR-controlled documents. The laptop was examined and
found to contain three files with ITAR sensitive material and was seized. The contents of the
laptop were later reviewed by the State Department and found to be ITAR-sensitive. This
laptop also contained the audio recordings of NASA employees referenced above.
After spending a little over four months on paid administrative leave, the foreign
national was allowed to return to the ARC and continued to enjoy access to NASA technology.
The NASA IGs report raises strong concerns around the ITAR controls and potentially
compromised technology. The concerns regarding this investigation and the answers to the
serious questions raised by these circumstances are more important than ever. While the
decision to decline prosecution after a four-year investigation may rest with the U.S. Attorney
in California, the public is entitled a better explanation than that, in light of the information
presented in this IG report. Attached is my initial letter to U.S. Attorney Haag on February
27, 2013. In addition to those questions, please provide answers to the following:
1. Was DOJ provided with this OIG report?
2. Does DOJ plan to take any further action as a result of the OIGs findings?
3. The OIG reported that it obtained over 100 hours of recordings from a foreign national
who wore a recording device while working at the ARC. Has DOJ reviewed these
recordings and was this information provided to the U.S. Attorneys office?
4. Given the facts presented in which NASA ARC officials describe awarding a classified
contract without competition, what steps does the DOJ plan to take to inquire into the
circumstances related to the award of that contract? If none, please explain why not.
5. The foreign national who, when questioned by DHS agents, falsely claimed not to have
transported a NASA laptop with ITAR sensitive material outside of the United States
was granted Lawful Permanent Resident status in July 2013. Did any DOJ component
communicate any concerns regarding his application to any component of the
Department of Homeland Security?
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please provide a written reply with
answers numbered in accordance with my questions no later than April 10, 2014. Should you
have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Lucas of my
Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.
Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-5 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 5

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-5 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 5

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-5 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 5

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-5 Filed08/04/15 Page4 of 5

Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document886-5 Filed08/04/15 Page5 of 5

8/4/2015

MelindaHaag,topfederalprosecutorinS.F.,issteppingdownSFGate
Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB
Document886-6 Filed08/04/15 Page1 of 3

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/MelindaHaagtopfederalprosecutorinSFis6413365.php

MelindaHaag,topfederalprosecutorin
S.F.,issteppingdown
ByBobEgelko Updated8:31pm,Wednesday,July29,2015

U.S.AttorneyMelindaHaagcoveredthecoast.

U.S.AttorneyMelindaHaag,whohandledcriminalcasesagainststateSen.LelandYee
andbaseballstarBarryBondsduringfiveyearsasthechieffederalprosecutorforcoastal
NorthernCalifornia,announcedherresignationWednesday.
Haag,53,toldstaffersatamorningmeetinginSanFranciscothatshewillstepdownSept.1and
spendsometimewithherfamily,saidAbrahamSimmons,aspokesmanfortheoffice.Hesaid
shehasnotspecifiedareasonforleavingandhasnotyetlinedupanotherjob.
Haag,aUCBerkeleyLawSchoolgraduate,spent14yearsinprivatelawpracticeandnineyears
asafederalprosecutorinLosAngelesandSanFranciscobeforePresidentObamaappointedher
inAugust2010toleadtheofficewhereshehadformerlyheadedthewhitecollarcrimedivision.
Theofficehas130lawyersandhandlesfederalcasesinanareathatstretchesfromMonterey
CountytotheOregonborder.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/MelindaHaagtopfederalprosecutorinSFis6413365.php

1/3

8/4/2015

MelindaHaag,topfederalprosecutorinS.F.,issteppingdownSFGate
Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB
Document886-6 Filed08/04/15 Page2 of 3

SimmonssaidnodecisionhasbeenmadeonwhowillruntheofficewhenHaagleaves.
OneofHaagshighestprofilecaseswastheundercoverinvestigationthatsnaredYee,thena
DemocraticstatesenatorfromSanFrancisco,andanumberofassociatestryingtopayoff
federalagentsposingaspoliticalcontributors.Yeeandfourcodefendantspleadedguiltyto
racketeeringchargesJuly1.Chargesarependingagainsttwodozendefendants,includinga
formergangleaderinSanFranciscosChinatown.

ADVERTISEMENT

Haagsofficewasunsuccessful,however,inthecriminalcaseagainstBonds,theformerGiants
outfielderandbaseballsalltimehomerunleader,whowaschargedwithlyingtoafederalgrand
jurywhenhedeniedeverknowinglytakingsteroidsorotherperformanceenhancingdrugs.
TheperjurycasewashamperedbytherefusalofBondsformertrainer,GregAnderson,totestify
againsthim,andbyprosecutorsfailuretoprovidejurorswiththetranscriptofarecordingof
Andersondiscussingdruginjections.
Jurorsdeadlockedonthreeperjurycharges,whichHaagdecidednottoretry,andinstead
convictedBondsofobstructingjusticebygivingaramblinganswertoaquestionaboutwhether
Andersonhadevergivenhimdrugshecouldinjectbyhimself.

ADVERTISEMENT

Afederalappealscourtthrewoutthatconviction,andthecaseendedlastweekwhentheJustice
Departmentdecidedagainstafurtherappeal.
Anotherdisputedissueinvolvedfederalactionsagainstmedicalmarijuanasuppliers.Despitethe
Obamaadministrationsstatedpolicyofdeferringtostatemedicalmarijuanalaws,Haagand
Californiasthreeothertopfederalprosecutorsannouncedacrackdownonpotdispensariesin
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/MelindaHaagtopfederalprosecutorinSFis6413365.php

2/3

8/4/2015

MelindaHaag,topfederalprosecutorinS.F.,issteppingdownSFGate
Case3:14-cr-00196-CRB
Document886-6 Filed08/04/15 Page3 of 3

2011,sayingtheywouldthreatenlandlordswithprosecutionunlesstheyevictedtenantswho
weresupplyingcannabisinviolationoffederallaw.
Hundredsofdispensarieswereforcedtoshutdown.Haagsofficeisseekingtoclosetwoofthe
BayAreaslargestoperations,theHarborsideHealthCenterinOaklandandtheBerkeley
PatientsGroup,bothlocallylicensed.
MirandaKane,whoheadedthecriminaldivisioninHaagsofficefrom2010to2013,saidthe
hallmarkofHaagstenurewastoimprovethequalityofthecasesthattheofficewasbringing
andtotakeondifficultcasesandchallengingcases.KanesaidHaaghadimprovedtheoffices
overallreputationanditsrelationswithlawenforcementanddefenselawyers.
BobEgelkoisaSanFranciscoChroniclestaffwriter.Email:begelko@sfchronicle.com
Twitter:@egelko
2015HearstCommunications,Inc.

ReturntoTop

About

| OurCompany Careers Advertising AdChoices

Terms&Conditions PrivacyPolicy

YourCaliforniaPrivacyRights

Contact

| CustomerService NewsroomContacts

Connect

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google

Instagram

Copyright2015HearstCommunications,Inc.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/MelindaHaagtopfederalprosecutorinSFis6413365.php

3/3