Sterling Norris, Esq.
California Bar No. 40993
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, CA 91108
(626) 287-4540 (tel)
(626) 287-2003 (fax)
Attorneys for Intervenor
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal Action No. 01-00026
)
) SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST BY
v. ) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. IN THE
) PUBLIC INTEREST, TO SET ASIDE
) PROPOSED PLEA
AGREEMENT AND
JAMES TJAHAJA RIADY, et al., ) REQUEST TO ORALLY ADDRESS
) THE COURT ON
MARCH 19, 2001
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
Judicial
Watch, Inc. (“Judicial Watch”), by counsel and pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, respectfully supplements its original request that the
Court, in the interests of justice, not accept the plea agreement proposed by
Defendants James T. Riady, et al. and the United States in the above
captioned case. Judicial Watch also
respectfully requests leave to appear before and orally address the Court about
these matters on March 19, 2001, the date of the presently scheduled sentencing
hearing.
SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Introduction.
Judicial
Watch is a non-profit, public interest government ethics and watchdog group
whose public interest litigation uncovered not only John Huang, but also
uncovered compelling evidence of illegal campaign fundraising within the
Clinton Administration and, in particular, at the U.S. Department of
Commerce. See Judicial Watch, Inc.
v. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Civil Action No. 95-0133 (RCL)
(D. District of Columbia).
Judicial
Watch respectfully submits this supplement for consideration by the Court in
considering the the plea agreement
proposed by Defendants and the United States.
This supplement will focus on the well-founded allegations of illegal
campaign fundraising and other wrongdoing, including, bribery and
espionage. We will also demonstrate how
the rushed, politically-motivated, proposed plea agreement punishment does not
fit the severity of the crimes committed by the Defendants. Judicial Watch incorporates by reference its
earlier Memorandum of Law to the Court with this supplement, which is intended
to augment and amplify our request to set aside the proposed plea agreement.
II. Background
and Context
A. Inconsequential Punishment & Failure to
Pursue Criminal Leads
Defendant
James T. Riady has reportedly pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy charges
related to illegal campaign contributions in the 1996 Democratic fundraising
scandal and for other illegal contributions during the past eight year
period. Co-Defendant LippoBank
California has plead guilty to 86 relatively minor misdemeanor charges
concerning illegal contributions and will pay nearly all of a U.S.$8.6 million
fine from the combined multi-billion dollar financial holdings of the international
conglomerate known as Lippo Group. The
reported terms of the agreement call for Mr. Riady to be sentenced to two (2)
years probation, during which time he will not be allowed to enter the United
States except at the invitation of U.S. government agencies. Mr. Riady also will be required to perform
400 hours of community service. This
inconsequential punishment simply does not meet the severity and gravity of the
deeply corrosive, cynical and manipulative criminal campaign Defendants waged
against the American people and the United States Constitution.
In its
original Memorandum of Law, requesting the Court to set aside the proposed plea
agreement, Judicial Watch predicted that the Clinton-Gore Justice Department’s
rushed processing of this plea agreement was an effort to foreclose any
credible investigation into possible criminal conspiracy of an as of yet
unknown scope centering on John Huang and other witting and unwitting agents of
the intelligence services of the Communist government of the People’s Republic
of China (“PRC”). Unfortunately,
Judicial Watch’s prediction was entirely accurate. The Associated Press
reported on March 13,
2001:
“Indonesian billionaire
James Riady’s cooperation has improved investigators’
understanding of campaign
finance violations, but probably won’t lead to more
convictions, prosecutors
said in sentencing recommendations released Monday.”[1]
* * *
“The cooperation of Mr.
Riady, a key figure in the Democratic campaign finance
scandal, ‘has been
helpful to the government in obtaining a complete understanding
of the scope and
significance of the illegal conduct. . .”
It appears
that Justice Department officials have abrogated their responsibility to follow
important criminal leads generated by Mr. Riady’s “cooperation.” While the Assistant U. S. Attorney Dan
O’Brien now claims to have a “complete understanding” of the violations of law
Mr. Riady and his agents have committed against the American people and the
Constitution, he is unwilling or unable to pursue justice. It is wrong for the U.S. Attorney’s Office
to simultaneously claim complete knowledge of a criminal conspiracy and fail to
act in pursuing the criminals involved in the conspiracy. This conspiracy involved a scheme to alter
and subvert U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of a foreign corporation, as
well as a concerted campaign to purchase and peddle influence and classified
information at the highest levels of the federal government. The U.S. Attorney may have a “complete
understanding” of Mr. Riady’s crimes, but the American people do not.
There is
no “factual basis” upon which the Court may accept the inconsequential plea
agreement originally proposed by Defendants and the Clinton
Administration. The obvious reason for
the U.S. Attorney’s failure to pursue clear criminal violations of law is that
as an appointee of the Clinton Administration, he refuses to pursue criminal
leads that point to the officials that appointed him to office. Under these circumstances, the requirements
of Rule 11(f) do not permit the Court to accept the proposed plea agreement, at
least not without a full evidentiary hearing and other satisfactory inquiries
into the true and complete facts of this case, including the timing and real
purpose behind the Clinton-Gore Justice Department’s offering of this plea
agreement.
B. The Riady Criminal Ring
Judicial
Watch has documented Mr. Riady’s and Lippo Group’s substantial interests in
China, including real estate, banking, electronics, currency exchange, retail,
electricity and tourism. Mr. Riady’s
investments, contacts, influence and political savvy made him a valuable
resource to Chinese intelligence. His independent
wealth and corporate apparatus provided him sufficient infrastructure to
establish his own network of corporate operatives in the United States. Riady’s Lippo interests as well as his
business ties to the PRC provide both the motive and the opportunity to
capitalize on developing a scheme to purchase and peddle influence and
classified information, targeting the highest levels of the U.S.
government. Mr. Riady’s “business
associates,” dealings and contacts reveal a veritable “who’s who” of highly
suspect Communist Chinese agents and provide the framework or outline for the
entire “Chinagate” scandal documented by the 1997 Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee Special Investigation Report, hereinafter “Thompson Report.”
We wish to
remind the Court of Mr. Riady’s more notable associates. These are people with whom Mr. Riady has maintained close and
continuous contact over a period of several years, and with whom he has
extensive business dealings and deep financial ties. Mr. Riady’s main business partner in China, is Shen Jueren. Shen Jueren is the head of China Resources
Holding Company, an espionage front operation for the PRC government’s Ministry
of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Shen has stated on different occasion that “China Resources is a state-owned
company and all senior staff are government officials.” [2] Shen has been a member of the Chinese
Communist Party since 1955, and an officer of the Chinese Office of Foreign
Trade since 1953.[3] Since Mr. Jueren has been a member of the
Chinese Communist Party since 1955, the Court can conclude that his loyalty
remains high to the national interests of the PRC. Shen Jueren met with former Vice-President Gore at a Santa
Monica, California fund-raiser on September 27, 1994. This is a further example of the insidious method in which Mr.
Riady facilitated and ensured that Shen, his business partner and a Communist
Chinese intelligence operative, had access to the former Vice President and
close advisors.
Another
business partner of Mr. Riady is Li Ka-Shing, the majority owner of Hutchison Wampoa Co., Ltd. – and
partner with the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), the merchant
marine arm of the People’s Liberation Army. Mr. Li Ka-Shing is a major shareholder and investor in the China
International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC). CITIC is run by General Wang Jun, of the
People’s Liberation Army – the PRC’s main arms dealer to Communist regimes,
terrorists, and rogue states.[4] CITIC is the parent company of China’s
Polytechnologies, an agency that oversees China’s acquisition and sales of
weapons, and that it operates operates as a component of the general staff
of the People’s Liberation Army.
General Wang Jun was implicated in the illicit shipment in 1996 of
2,000 AK-47 assault rifles to gang members in California.[5] Judicial Watch respectfully reminds the
Court that these are Mr. Riady’s business associates and contacts, and that
under the terms of the proposed plea agreement and the U.S. Attorney’s press
release of March 13, 2001, the American public is likely to never find out the
details surrounding what the U.S. Attorney claims is a “complete understanding”
of Defendant Riady’s criminal conduct.
Mr.
Riady’s influence peddling and political favor bartering paid-off when
Grand-Escalante National Monument was created in 1996 by former President Clinton. Former President Clinton designated 1.7
million acres of southern Utah as a National Monument. Mr. Riady benefits enormously by the
creation of Grand-Escalante National Monument.
The Clean-Air Act eliminates the use of many types of coal by US power
companies with the exception of hyper-low sulfur coal. This valuable, specialized type of coal is
known to exist in only three locations: 1. an extremely remote and financially
impractical area of Columbia; 2. Kalimantan Island in Indonesia, and; 3.
Grand-Escalante National Monument. The
Clinton Administration’s creation of Grand-Escalante National monument gave the
coal deposits on the Kalimantan Island – that are controlled by the Riady
family and the Indonesian government – a near monopoly on the sale of the
sought-after coal. Former President Clinton explained that the creation of the
Grand-Escalante National Monument was done out of environmental concern, and to
protect the land from development.
However, the Court, respectfully, must conclude that there was no such
environmental concern regarding Grand-Escalante National Monument, since the
Clinton-Gore Administration subsequently awarded Conoco Oil Corporation an oil
drilling contract for the Grand-Escalante National Monument in 1997.[6] Mr. Riady appears to have successfully
cashed-in a political favor with the Clinton Administration in order to gain a
coal monopoly. The U.S. Attorney may
claim to have a “complete understanding” of Mr. Riady’s crimes, but the American people do not.
Convicted
felon John Huang’s ties to the James Riady, Indonesia’s Lippo Group, and the
Chinese government run deep. Huang and
his family are from the Chinese coastal province of Fuijan, which is the Riady
family’s home province. In the early
1980's Huang joined Union Planters Bank of Memphis. Union Planters sent Huang to Hong Kong in 1983 to open a branch
office for the bank. Due to a lack of
business in the agricultural trade, Union Planters closed it’s Hong Kong branch
office.[7] Huang was than hired by the Riady’s and held
several positions within Lippo’s banking operations for the next few
years. In 1986, the Riady’s transferred
Huang to the Lippo banking operations in California.[8] John Huang became Mr. Riady’s “man in
America.”[9] In 1988, Huang, Riady, and convicted felon
Maria Hsia created the Pacific Leadership Council as Democratic fund-raising
operation and an instrument to attract more Asian-Americans to vote for
Democratic Party candidates. Huang, in
conjunction with the Pacific Leadership Council organized and sponsored a 1988
Democratic fund-raiser at James Riady’s Brentwood home in Los Angeles. At this event Mr. Riady raised $110,000 for
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The Washington Times reported on May 12, 1997, that four
days after this event Mr. Riady wrote a highly detailed memo to Ms. Hsia
instructing her to “follow up and let me know of progress” in pursuing the
numerous quid pro quos that Mr. Riady had stated in a document named
“DSCC Issues and Agenda.”[10] Huang sponsored and organized with Hsia the
now-infamous April 29, 1996 fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Temple, where former
Vice President Gore illegally engaged in campaign fund-raising.[11] The U.S. Attorney may have a “complete
understanding” of Mr. Riady’s crimes, but the American people do not.
At the
direction of Defendant Riady, Huang was one of the tour guides for a 1989 trip
to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Indonesia by former Senator Al Gore and California
Lieutenant Governor Leo McCarthy.
Foreign travel, business forums and “community outreach” events were
expertly arranged and exploited by Riady and his agents, to include felons
Huang and Hsia, to cultivate relationships and contacts, as well as serving as
a means to personally ingratiate themselves with politicians and their fundraising
staffs.
On August
12, 1992, at the direction of Defendant Riady, Huang issued a $50,000 check
from Hip Hing Holdings be sent to the Democratic National Committee Victory
Fund. Hip Hing was a Riady-owned shell
company under Huang’s control.[12] The U.S. Attorney may have a “complete
understanding” of Mr. Riady’s crimes, but the American people do not.
John Huang
remained the faithful subordinate of James Riady. At Riady’s direction, Huang was maneuvered to a position at the
Department of Commerce. Huang was given
a security clearance in January of 1994 in anticipation of his imminent
assignment to the Commerce Department.
Huang did not actually report to work at the Commerce Department until
July 18, 1994, giving him
five-and-a-half months of unlawful access to highly classified material.[13]
Huang’s
position at the Commerce Department was in the International Trade
Administration Division. Huang was assigned as the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary to the Assistant Secretary in Charge of International Economic Policy
Bureau, Charles Meissner. Incredibly,
while in this sensitive position, Huang continued to report to Riady,
communicating by phone multiple times per business day[14].
Huang had access to classified material due to his security clearance and was
provided with regular briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency. Huang received at least 37 intelligence
briefings, including sensitive “raw intelligence” from representatives of the
Central Intelligence Agency[15] Huang would frequently use office space,
phones, facilities and equipment in the Washington, DC office of Stephens,
Inc., of Little Rock, Arkansas – located across the street from the Commerce
Department – after receiving classified briefings. On June 5, 1995 as Huang’s CIA briefer came out of Huang’s
office, the briefer noticed that Huang’s next appointment was with Minister
Wang from the Chinese Embassy.[16] On October 11, 1995 Huang took a cab from
the Commerce Department to an evening event at the Embassy of Indonesia. The next morning he took a cab back to the
Commerce Department from the official residence of the Chinese Ambassador.[17] Such “placement,” “access,” motive,
opportunity, and history of contacts suggests that Huang was engaged in
espionage. Clearly Huang’s controller
or agent handler was Defendant Riady.
The U.S. Attorney may have a “complete understanding” of Mr. Riady’s
crimes, but the American people do not.
The Court
should consider the following “unusual” chronology of events in considering the
scope and depth of Mr. Riady’s crimes.
Former Solicitor General Webb Hubbell, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Rose Law
Firm partner, met with Mrs. Clinton on Monday June 20, 1994. On Thursday, June 23, 1994, Mr. Riady met
Mr. Hubbell for an unusual back-to-back breakfast and lunch set of meetings. Mr. Riady returned to the White House for a
third time that same day (Thursday, June 23, 1994), while John Huang made two
visits to the White House that day as well.
On Monday 27, 1994, the Lippo-Controlled Hong Kong Chinese Bank paid
Webb Hubbell $100,000 from a Riady company account, Hong Kong China, Ltd. Mr. Hubbell has refused to disclose to
federal investigators the reasons he was given $100,000 by Mr. Riady.[18] The U.S. Attorney may have a “complete
understanding” of Mr. Riady’s crimes, but the American people do not.
On October
12, 2000 the Far Eastern Economic Review reported that Defendant Riady
had invited former President Bill Clinton to join the board of Lippo Group as
soon as the President left office in 2001.
Mr. Riady’s admitted inducement of bribery is a crime unto itself. Mr. Riady’s shameless, continued influence
peddling and political favor trading is outrageous, given that he was
supposedly “cooperating” with investigators at the very same time he admitted
soliciting the president. The U.S.
Attorney may have a “complete understanding” of Mr. Riady’s crimes, but the
American people do not.
Of course,
Defendant Riady is very familiar with former President Clinton. On September 13, 1995, Defendant Riady
brokered Huang’s job assignment from the Oval Office, with the personal
participation and assent of the President of the United States.[19] Mr. Clinton’s memory however, is apparently
not as keen. President Clinton, who
told Justice Department campaign finance task force members that he had “no
specific recollection” of conversations he had with Mr. Riady during an August
1992 limousine ride during which Mr. Riady, a foreign national, promised to
funnel U.S.$ 1 million into his presidential campaign. Indeed, President Clinton claims to recall
only that “sometime in ‘92 after I became the nominee” Mr. Riady had promised
to help his campaign.[20]
C. Mr. Riady’s Successful Attainment of His Criminal
Objectives Demands Justice
The Associated
Press has reported that:
“Government documents
said that the Lippo Group hoped to influence
American foreign policy
for its own advantage. Among its goals
was to
gain most favored nation
trade status for China; normalization of U.S.
relations with Vietnam;
open trade policies with Indonesia and certain
U.S. legal changes that
would benefit the bank’s business opportunities.”[21]
Mr. Riady achieved all of
his Lippo Group objectives. The old
adage, “Crime does not pay” must be upheld by this Court. Mr. Riady’s plea agreement does not effect
any meaningful punishment on him personally or his multi-billion dollar
empire. The U.S. Attorney’s proposed
punishment for the Defendants amounts to a “nuisance.” Riady, Lippo Group and their agents “bought”
changes in U.S. government policy through bribery. Somehow the Justice Department has successfully “talked away” Mr.
Riady’s crimes to the point where they are administrative filing errors. The Court must not let this blatant
violation of law be minimized to the point where the integrity of the U.S.
Courts is called into question for refusing to demand accountability from
prosecutors who shy away from tackling politically difficult or embarrassing
cases.
D. The Public Interest
Requires that the Proposed Plea Agreement Be Rejected.
In order
to try to sweep these obviously important issues under the rug, the proposed
plea addresses only misdemeanor violations of routine administrative reporting
requirements of the Federal Elections Commission. The proposed punishment does not “fit the crime” and prevents
future investigation by prosecutors untainted by obvious conflicts of
interest. The Court must,
respectfully, view this plea agreement as insultingly simplistic, deliberately
misleading, and factually untrue.
The Court must, respectfully, reject the proposed plea agreement in
total.
In
addition to rejecting the proposed plea agreement because the proposed
punishment does not “fit the crime” and is not supported by the facts, as
required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court also must reject
the proposed plea agreement because it is contrary to the public interest.
Accepting
the proposed plea agreement will further undermine the public’s already damaged
sense of trust and confidence in our system of justice, because the Justice
Department appears to have no plans prosecute President Clinton or Vice
President Gore, who courted Mr. Riady during White House visits, did Mr.
Riady’s bidding, and benefitted substantially from Mr. Riady’s illegal campaign
contributions.
Accepting
the proposed plea agreement, with its recommendation of punishments that upon
examination and consideration, amount to nothing more than a minor nuisance to
multi-billion dollar Defendants, flies in the face of facts which suggest that
far more serious offenses were committed by Mr. Riady and agents within his
Lippo Group empire.
The Court
will recall that another figure in the campaign finance scandal, Mr. Johnny
Chung – who did not engage in
espionage and did not flee the United States, but instead cooperated fully with
all U.S. government agencies and the U.S. Congress – received 3000 hours
of community service from U.S. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real as part of
his sentence. The Democratic National
Committee (DNC) even recommended that the Court “throw the book” at Mr. Chung
since they were “victims” of his campaign donations. Judicial Watch is puzzled by the silence of the DNC in the
instant matter before the Court.
Mr. Chung
is unique in this on-going scandal; the cooperation and excellent memory he
demonstrated before congressional committees, Justice Department investigators
and in deposition taken by this public interest law firm, is notable and
praiseworthy.
By
contrast, Mr. Riady, who fled to Indonesia and “stonewalled” investigators for
years, reportedly will be required to perform only 400 hours of community
service -- either in Jakarta, Indonesia
or in the United States -- should he ever choose to return to this
country. It is even questionable
whether this “punishment” will ever be enforced. The gross disparity between the punishment’s received by Mr.
Chung and Mr. Riady, and the obvious, preferential treatment being given to Mr.
Riady, will undermine the public faith in the impartiality of the justice
system.
Judicial
Watch also respectfully maintains that accepting the plea agreement proposed by
Defendants and the United States will, in practice and consistent with the U.S.
Attorney’s own press releases, forever foreclose further inquiry into serious violations of the following
statutes, among others:
2 U.S.C. § 441e (Contributions by foreign nationals)
2 U.S.C. § 441f (Contributions in name of another prohibited)
18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of public officials and witnesses)
18 U.S.C. § 219 (Officers and employees acting as agents of foreign
principals)
18 U.S.C. § 600 (Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity)
18 U.S.C. § 601 (Deprivation of employment or other benefit for
political contribution)
18 U.S.C. § 607 (Place of solicitation)
18 U.S.C. § 798 (Disclosure of classified information)
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Statements or entries generally)
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (Obstruction of criminal investigations)
18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Laundering of monetary instruments)
Surely, the public interest demands that a
full and complete investigation of all wrongoing, and all violations of the
above-referenced statutes, be undertaken before any plea agreement can be
accepted by this Court.
In some instances, major figures in this scandal have chosen to simply
flout the law with frivolous, excessive and improper invocation of
constitutional claims as well as sudden, profound loss of memory. In five (5) continuing depositions taken of
him by Judicial Watch thus far in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Civil Action No. 95-0133 (RCL) (D. District of Columbia), John
Huang invoked the Fifth Amendment nearly 2,500 times.
On 140 occasions in these depositions, U.S. Magistrate Judge John M.
Facciola, a Clinton appointee who has shown a regard for the law, without
regard for politics, has recommended that Huang be held in contempt for failing
to answer questions properly put to him by Judicial Watch.
Acceptance of the Defendants’ plea agreement, which provides no
guarantees that Mr. Riady will cooperate, and, indeed, may not even be
enforceable if Mr. Riady returns to Indonesia, will no doubt lead the American
public’s interest in justice down the same, familiar, dead-end street of
denials, dissembling and amnesia.
III. Conclusion.
This Court is now one of the few sources of hope for the American
people that its expectation of honest and open government will be
repaired. As respected columnist
William Safire recently noted in The New York Times:
Staring us in the face is
this stunning assertion now harder than ever to controvert: An American
president’s foreign policy decisions were substantially influenced by unlawful
campaign contributions at crucial times from a foreign source. In my view, that inescapable judgment will
be more damning in history’s eyes than Whitewater cover-ups or any abuses for
which Clinton was impeached.
* *
*
But the
election law was broken and the reluctant Justice Department had to be hounded
by a vigilant press and frustrated Congress into doing even part of its
duty. Riady’s much-needed money passed
and Clinton’s favors were done and America’s Asian policies were changed. No nostalgic spinning or pleas to move on
will ameliorate that betrayal of trust.[22]
This
Court has an opportunity to correctively seal the breach in our national
security and hold accountable those who would contribute to the destruction our
way of life. This Court, by rejecting
the proposed plea agreement between the Defendants and the Clinton Administration,
will protect and preserve the faith of the nation in its system of justice.
Respectfully
submitted,
JUDICIAL
WATCH, INC.
_____________________________
Sterling
Norris, Esq.
California
Bar No. 40993
2540
Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San
Marino, CA 91108
(626)
287-4540
Attorneys
for Intervenor
Of Counsel:
Larry
Klayman, Esq.
(Not
a Member of the Calif. Bar)
Chairman
and General Counsel
JUDICIAL
WATCH, INC.
501
School Street, S.W., Suite 725
Washington,
DC 20024
(202)
646-5172 (tel)
(202)
646-5199 (fax)
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify that on March 15, 2001 a true and correct copy of the foregoing
SUPPLEMENT TO REQUEST BY JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TO SET
ASIDE PROPOSED PLEA AGREEMENT AND REQUEST TO ORALLY ADDRESS THE COURT ON MARCH
19, 2001, was served, by Federal Express and First Class Mail, postage prepaid,
on the following:
Alejandro
N. Mayorkas
United
States Attorney for the
Central
District of California
312
North Spring Street
Los
Angeles, CA 90012
Abbe
David Lowell, Esq.
Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Suite
700
1501
M Street, N.W.
Washington,
DC 20005-1702
_____________________________
Jason
Aldrich, Esq.
[1]Associated Press, “Riady’s Help Probably Won’t Lead to More
Prosecutions. Feds Say,” March 13, 2001, See attached as Exhibit 1.
[2]
Cheung Lai-Kuen, China Resources Reshuffle, South China Morning
Post, April 3, 1996, at Pg.3, attached as Exhibit 2
[3]
Cheung Lai-Kuen, Shen Jueren looks to retirement after his star roles
in a command economy and free market; A master player in the trade arena,
South China Morning Post, May 9, 1996, at p. 10, attached as Exhibit 3.
[4]
Federal News Service, “Prepared Testimony of Admiral Thomas Moorer
USN (RET.), December 8, 1999, attached as Exhibit 4.
[5]
James D. Harder, Canada Targeted by China Agents, Insight on the
News, December 18, 2000, at pg. 20, attached as Exhibit 5.
[6] Jeff
Nesbit, Something stinks in Clinton handling of low-sulfur coal, The
Washington Times, April 18, 1997, at B7; The Tennessean, September 10,
1997, at 12A, attached as Exhibit 6.
[7]
Victor Miller, A Volunteer State Banker, Chattanooga Free Press,
July 21, 1997, A2, see attached as Exhibit 7.
[8]
Federal News Service, Afternoon Session of Deposition of John Huang,
October 29, 1996 see attached as Exhibit 8.
[9]
Excerpt from Thompson Report, “John Huang’s Years at Lippo,” attached as Exhibit 9.
[10] The
Washington Times, What Mr. Riady wants, May 12, 1997, at A16 see
attached as Exhibit 10.
[11]
Jeffrey Toobin, Adventures in Buddhism, The New Yorker,
September 18, 2000, at. pg.76, see attached as Exhibit 11.
[12]
Chris Mondics, Democrats kept $603,500 in campaign contributions,
Knight Ridder, September 22, 2000, see attached as Exhibit 12.
[13] 58A-HQ-1193317,
FD 302s of John Huang, House Committee on Government Reform & Oversight,
see attached as Exhibit 13.
[14]
See 58A-HQ-1193317, Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302s of John
Huang, on 1/19-2/10/1999, at p.4 and Excerpt from Thompson Report, “John Huang
at Commerce,” at p.73-76, attached as Exhibit 13 & 9.
[15]
Excerpt from Thompson Report, “John Huang at Commerce,” at p.43 see
attached as Exhibit 13.
[16] Year
of the Rat, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II, pg. 59, see attached
as Exhibit 15
[17]
Taxicab claims found, in the Thompson Report at 1417, attached as
Exhibit 14.
[18] Year
of the Rat, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplet II, pgs. 30, 36-37 see
attached as Exhibit 15.
[19] Excerpt
from Thompson Report “Summary of Findings,” at p. 6, attached as Exhibit 16.
[20] Andrew
Cain, “Clinton Not Concerned With Riady Deal,” Washington Times,
January 13, 2001, attached as Exhibit 17, at p. A1.
[21]Associated Press, “Riady’s Help Probably Won’t Lead to More
Prosecutions Feds Say,” March 13, 2001, see attached as Exhibit 1.
[22] William
Safire, “Riady Cops a Plea,” New York Times, January 15, 2001, attached
as Exhibit 18, found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/opinion/15SAFI.html.