USA v. Raymond Chow: Motion To Dismiss For Selective Prosecution

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
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
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
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

5 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW
6
7
9
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Plaintiff,
11
12
CR 14-196 CRB
v.
PROPOSED ORDER
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
4
5
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
6
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A.
B. omitted
C.
D.
E.
F.
FOOTNOTE 19
G.
H.
a)
b)
c)
I.
J.
K.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
L.
M.
N.
O.
a)
b)
c)
P.
Q.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
R.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
S.
T.
a)
b)
c)
U.
V.
a)
b)
c)
d)
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
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
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

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

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

FD-302a
Rev
10-6-95
Supervisor
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

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

FD-302a
Rev
10-6-95
Supervisor
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

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
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

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

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
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

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

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

FD-302
Rev
10-6-95
FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION
Date
of
14
transcription
On 09/11/2009
at approximately
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

Rev
FD-302
10-6-95
FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION
Date
David
Board
of
of
transcription
CHIU
President
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
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

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
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
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
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

FD-302
Rev
10-6-95
FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION
Date
of
10/15/2009
transcription
On 10/13/2009
at approximately
Confidential
Investigation
Human Source
was
provided with
device for the purposes of conducting
recording
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

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
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
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/

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?
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?
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
<!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
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
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
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
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)
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.

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
8/4/2015
MelindaHaag,topfederalprosecutorinS.F.,issteppingdownSFGate
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.
1/3
8/4/2015
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
2/3
8/4/2015
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.
3/3

USA v. Raymond Chow: Motion To Dismiss For Selective Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA v. Raymond Chow: Motion To Dismiss For Selective Prosecution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA v. Raymond Chow: Motion To Dismiss For Selective Prosecution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main argument being made in the motion?

What is the main argument being made in the motion?

What cases are cited to support the argument of selective prosecution?

What cases are cited to support the argument of selective prosecution?

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, aka

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND

J. TONY SERRA #32639

Attorneys for Defendant

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

4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

THE PRESENT INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE

Chows Life Story Was Worth Millions: Discriminatory Intent Is

Success As Ghee Kung Tong Dragonhead Provoked the

MR. CHOW IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO INVESTIGATE HIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Codes and Statutes

23 United States Constitution

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

1 J. TONY SERRA #32639

CURTIS L. BRIGGS #284190

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, aka

Date: August 21, 2015

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

ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:

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

Dated: August 3, 2015

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

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Federal authorities descended on Chinatown with massive highly funded federal

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

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

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

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

See Exhibit3: Section A.

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

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

See Document 855 on this docket.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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