噩耗 - 兔军飞碟Juan TANG疑似要被放生 检方已撤告
葱油还记得去年那个从兔国旧金山领事馆被逼出来的解放军军官 UC davis访问学者 - 唐娟吗？
联邦检察官已经正式去文给联邦地区法院法官 dismiss the case
(personal) 有不好的预感 但是办案瑕疵就是瑕疵
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article251976218.html
Did the FBI go too far questioning Chinese researchers without reading them their rights?
https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article252968268.html
US seeks to drop Chinese researcher’s visa fraud case
摘录几段重要报道
The motion filed in federal court in Sacramento asks U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez to dismiss the remaining count against Dr. Juan Tang, a prominent cancer researcher who came to the United States in December 2019 to conduct research at UC Davis.
Her trial was set to begin Monday on a charge of lying on her visa application about whether she had been a member of the Chinese military. Mendez previously had dismissed a separate count charging her with lying to the FBI because agents violate her Miranda rights by not advising her that she did not have to answer their questions.
The motion by Assistant U.S. Attorney Heiko Coppola gave no reason for seeking the dismissal, and acting U.S. Attorney Phillip Talbert declined to comment.
Tang’s lawyers have argued that photos of her wearing a military-style uniform that investigators found on the internet did not indicate she was actually a member of the Chinese military.
And, they noted, the charge of lying on her visa application likely would have resulted in a six-month sentence at most, less than the 10 months she spent in the jail and at the Bay Area home under house arrest.
---下面有一个葱油的回复解答比较详细 作为参考---
pin @woshi114514
联邦检察官已经正式去文给联邦地区法院法官 dismiss the case
(personal) 有不好的预感 但是办案瑕疵就是瑕疵
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article251976218.html
Did the FBI go too far questioning Chinese researchers without reading them their rights?
https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article252968268.html
US seeks to drop Chinese researcher’s visa fraud case
摘录几段重要报道
The motion filed in federal court in Sacramento asks U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez to dismiss the remaining count against Dr. Juan Tang, a prominent cancer researcher who came to the United States in December 2019 to conduct research at UC Davis.
Her trial was set to begin Monday on a charge of lying on her visa application about whether she had been a member of the Chinese military. Mendez previously had dismissed a separate count charging her with lying to the FBI because agents violate her Miranda rights by not advising her that she did not have to answer their questions.
The motion by Assistant U.S. Attorney Heiko Coppola gave no reason for seeking the dismissal, and acting U.S. Attorney Phillip Talbert declined to comment.
Tang’s lawyers have argued that photos of her wearing a military-style uniform that investigators found on the internet did not indicate she was actually a member of the Chinese military.
And, they noted, the charge of lying on her visa application likely would have resulted in a six-month sentence at most, less than the 10 months she spent in the jail and at the Bay Area home under house arrest.
---下面有一个葱油的回复解答比较详细 作为参考---
pin @woshi114514
25 个评论
谢尔曼去勾兑，总要给点好处不是？
面上空谈嘴炮,行动上暗中勾兑,徐徐图之
等着看是哪张牌或者大棋
>> 等着看是哪张牌或者大棋
又看到更大一条 所有去年被指控的PLA关联人士 全被检方撤告
JUST IN - U.S. Justice Department dropped cases against five visiting researchers accused of hiding their affiliations with China’s military "as some FBI analysts casting doubt on the value of the cases" (WSJ)
品蔥左人：做得好！
白左太可怕了，
你贴这种新闻是什么意思，这不是给反对民主党中央的极右势力递刀子么？建议眼睛雪亮的群众不要看这条新闻，迅速把这条新闻转到其他冷门版面避免扩散，避免造成群众与民主党中央的不信任，破坏大好局面。
打官司在美國坐牢要花納稅人的錢，對中國卻沒什麼損失。殺雞儆猴的作用已經起到要其他訪問學者千人計劃收斂一點消息已經深入人心 防了也是可以理解的策略
但凡这帮记者有一点时间去翻下卷宗，都不会搞出这么草的报道。撤诉是完全有迹可循的，合理的行为，主要是考虑到这个案子继续往下推不可能向着检方希望的方向发展。我们不妨看一下这个案子的关键点：
这个要Dismissal的Assistant U.S. Attorney Heiko Coppola是谁？如果翻了trial brief，你就能在 TRIAL BRIEF by USA as to Tang Juan. (Coppola, Heiko) (Entered: 07/19/2021) 的文件底部找到他的签名。
那这份文件又说了什么呢？USA一侧的trial brief主要重申了一遍证据。有意思的是，在part IV. I. Exclusion of Certain Testimony中，他希望exclude一份FBI报告（https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.377002/gov.uscourts.caed.377002.195.1.pdf），这份报告对USA一方来说是极大的不利证据。 引用Juan Tang方的court brief，它的核心是：
同时，这份文件还把最大的，可以当作量刑标准的技术窃取问题否定了。
这份FBI文件确实是个大问题，它直接把visa fraud中谎报military affiliate的指控推到了DS-160表格的陈述问题上面，同时否认了检方提供的军服照作为证据。如果USA方不能exclude这个证据，很难说这个案子会被判有罪，而且因为报告强调了政府过失和证据的不充分，同时否定了技术窃取动机和可能，就算判了有罪也不可能重判，这就是最后一段认为刑期最多只有六个月的说法的由来。
那为什么在这个案子之外，同时要drop五个案子呢？
因为这份FBI文件同时提了这五个案子！在TANG_00002995到TANG_00002997，这份文件详细的阐述了Wang Xin案，一个未指名的BU访问学者案，Juan Tang案，一个未指名的Indiana University of Bloomington访问学者案，一个未指名的Stanford访问学者案，和一个未指名的UCLA访问学者案。这份文件是FBI对这六起案件的集中调查。这份文件不仅能在Juan Tang案上对付检方的指控，也可以用在另外5个案子上。这下检方在每一个案子上都非常被动了。
卷宗记录： https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17422518/united-states-v-juan/
重点在底部7月19号的两份Trial brief和补充的FBI文件证据。
什么叫司法独立啊，这就是司法独立。
这个要Dismissal的Assistant U.S. Attorney Heiko Coppola是谁？如果翻了trial brief，你就能在 TRIAL BRIEF by USA as to Tang Juan. (Coppola, Heiko) (Entered: 07/19/2021) 的文件底部找到他的签名。
那这份文件又说了什么呢？USA一侧的trial brief主要重申了一遍证据。有意思的是，在part IV. I. Exclusion of Certain Testimony中，他希望exclude一份FBI报告（https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.377002/gov.uscourts.caed.377002.195.1.pdf），这份报告对USA一方来说是极大的不利证据。 引用Juan Tang方的court brief，它的核心是：
“individuals as well as PLA experts interviewed in the cases cited above
suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it
comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation. China's PLA is not a direct
analog to how the US military services are set up, especially regarding the PLA's
Civilian Cadre....Among the Civilian Cadre are a significant number of doctors
and nurses and other professionals that at times are required to wear a military
type uniform, but who would not necessarily consider themselves soldiers despite
being considered as active duty.” Exh. A at 2997. (Emphasis added.)
同时，这份文件还把最大的，可以当作量刑标准的技术窃取问题否定了。
3. █ what are 1-2 key takeaways from this place for FBI field offices?
██ Individuals from the PRC seeking visas may obfuscate institutional relationships that could slow their application or cause it to be rejected; however, available reporting does not support the assumption that this is an indicator of planned tecnology transfer. As researchers seeking visas adjust to the law enforcement activities and policy changes of the past year, including these arrests and interviews as well as the PRC student visa proclamation of May 2020, field offices should be alert for any change in reporting that would suggest researchers targeting critical technology are using obfuscation to obtain visas in spite of their affiliation with a prohibited institution.
这份FBI文件确实是个大问题，它直接把visa fraud中谎报military affiliate的指控推到了DS-160表格的陈述问题上面，同时否认了检方提供的军服照作为证据。如果USA方不能exclude这个证据，很难说这个案子会被判有罪，而且因为报告强调了政府过失和证据的不充分，同时否定了技术窃取动机和可能，就算判了有罪也不可能重判，这就是最后一段认为刑期最多只有六个月的说法的由来。
那为什么在这个案子之外，同时要drop五个案子呢？
因为这份FBI文件同时提了这五个案子！在TANG_00002995到TANG_00002997，这份文件详细的阐述了Wang Xin案，一个未指名的BU访问学者案，Juan Tang案，一个未指名的Indiana University of Bloomington访问学者案，一个未指名的Stanford访问学者案，和一个未指名的UCLA访问学者案。这份文件是FBI对这六起案件的集中调查。这份文件不仅能在Juan Tang案上对付检方的指控，也可以用在另外5个案子上。这下检方在每一个案子上都非常被动了。
卷宗记录： https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17422518/united-states-v-juan/
重点在底部7月19号的两份Trial brief和补充的FBI文件证据。
什么叫司法独立啊，这就是司法独立。
>> 但凡这帮记者有一点时间去翻下卷宗，都不会搞出这么草的报道。撤诉是完全有迹可循的，合理的行为，主...
China's PLA is not a direct analog to how the US military services are set up, especially regarding the PLA's Civilian Cadre这种睁眼说瞎话都能混过去，FBI的律师真是水。我要是检方律师，交叉盘问能把辩方证人和被告的裤子都扒下来。FBI真是无人，活该被中共打脸。
>> China's PLA is not a direct analog to how the U...
问题在于检方没能力对FBI动手——FBI本来就是站在USA一方的立场找起诉证据——除非USA一方能重新找到推翻这份FBI报告的证据。难度很大，因为证人不好找（能找到的提供的大多是不利证据）。而且己方排除己方证据本来就是个大问题。
>> 是的呢，检方听民主党指挥，fbi somehow是独立王国，党指挥不动呢。好小清新哦
建议您快进到美国党指挥法院，党指挥警察，党指挥一切呢。
检方是DoJ的人，FBI是DoJ的下属。理解不了什么叫独立性，于是找个党指挥一切的理由解释实在是乐不可支。您以为是支国政治犯从上至下流水线制造证据审判定罪吗？
>> 建议您快进到美国党指挥法院，党指挥警察，党指挥一切呢。检方是DoJ的人，FBI是DoJ的下属。...
没理了开始转进到“指挥法院”了？美国现在联邦政府行政部门是哪个党执政？FBI属不属于行政部门？独立于谁？拜登政府管不了FBI？FBI公然给解放军洗地是谁的锅？这点事有什么可洗的。
>> 没理了开始转进到“指挥法院”了？美国现在联邦政府行政部门是哪个党执政？FBI属不属于行政部门？...
是是是，原来整个executive branch都是民主党，都听民主党的话，都干民主党想干的事。
如果您愿意承认的话，那请解释：为什么Merrick Garland，拜登指派的Attorny General，会：尝试上诉以继续保密William Barr保密的DoJ不根据性侵指控起诉川普的调查报告；以及维持收紧的移民法，甚至继续雇佣川普指派的移民法官呢？我看反而是左派媒体对他意见很大。您只要能解释拜登亲自指派的Attorny General，会以这种方式听民主党的话，会以这种行为执行民主党的政策就成。
连拜登亲自指派的，现任的Attorney General都能独走，帮助执行川普的政策给拜登出难题，民主党怎么可能有能力控制DoJ呢？您以为难不成FBI是什么听命于拜登的，专业编造起诉证据的部门不成？
>> 是是是，原来整个executive branch都是民主党，都听民主党的话，都干民主党想干的事...
从FBI给解放军洗地已经转进到起诉trump了？你自己好好理一理你的思绪吧，仔细想想，你真的有理会往其他话题转进么？谁在任期间手下为中共洗地，谁就挨骂，这事真的有什么好洗的么？
>> 从FBI给解放军洗地已经转进到起诉trump了？你自己好好理一理你的思绪吧，仔细想想，你真的有...
您认为这是在洗就是吧，爱信这事是拜登微操就信吧，爱骂就骂吧，懒得争了。只不过认为政府和人一样，有统一的思想行为是毫无意义的。看到一个证据不利于自己就大叫“这是洗地”，无助于解决这背后的法律难题。
>> 您认为这是在洗就是吧，爱信这事是拜登微操就信吧，爱骂就骂吧，懒得争了。只不过认为政府和人一样，...
又开始转进biden微操和法律问题了？你看看这楼里有人是骂biden微操或者是骂检方法律程序问题么？还“证据不利于自己”，呵呵，大家骂的是美国政府机构公然作证给解放军洗地，骂得就是提供证据的美国政府机构。自己树靶子自己打有意思么？
作为民选的政府首脑，任期内出现在行政机构公然给敌国军队洗地的腌臜勾当，当然是要挨骂的。把这事推到证据不力和法律程序问题，那这首脑也太好当了。
>> 又开始转进biden微操和法律问题了？你看看这楼里有人是骂biden微操或者是骂检方法律程序问...
微操不是您提出来的吗？“美国现在联邦政府行政部门是哪个党执政？FBI属不属于行政部门？独立于谁？拜登政府管不了FBI？”；这句是谁先提出的？“检方听民主党指挥，fbi somehow是独立王国，党指挥不动呢。”这个观点是谁提出的呢？
抛开这些不谈。您似乎是认为，只要是美国的政府机构一部分，只要碰到您说的，“给敌国军队洗地的腌臜勾当”，就能无视证词，无视证据，假造调查报告了？您倒是给个意见，在文明国家，这事该怎么办？难不成您以为只要是美国的政府机构，提供的证据就一定是有利于美国一方的？
>> 微操不是您提出来的吗？“美国现在联邦政府行政部门是哪个党执政？FBI属不属于行政部门？独立于谁...
这个观点等于微操？总统能管理下级机构，所以该为手下错误负责，这叫微操？你愿意觉得这算，那随意。
“就能无视证词，无视证据”，问题是这证词就是FBI提供的，又不是第三方，你要说有个civilian出来作证证明抓错了，OK，那联邦政府不用负责。但你所谓的给共产党洗涤的“证词证据”都是联邦政府官员的opinion，所以我们骂提供这些opinion的联邦官员的在职领导，这个有什么可洗的呢
>> 这个观点等于微操？总统能管理下级机构，所以该为手下错误负责，这叫微操？你愿意觉得这算，那随意。...
我引用下Tang方的trial brief原文。
“Recent Brady disclosures
demanded by the defense and resisted by the government, just days before trial,
reveal that the government has deliberately withheld for months reports and
documents which show that the FBI was aware that at least one independent and
well-respected expert when consulted could not offer an opinion because he found the question on the visa application to be unclear in light of the civilian
status of the scientist under review. ” ...... “When the defense demanded production of the names,
backgrounds, and opinions of the individuals on whom the FBI analysts relied on
in the report, the government suddenly began producing records, including just
days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr.
Tang’s Motion to Dismiss.”
第二段文字提到的"redacted report"，就是上文提到的FBI报告。在这段文字之前，Tang方指控政府给的FBI观点unclear，要政府提供FBI分析观点依靠的专家的名字，背景和观点。然后政府方丢出了这份报告。它的作者是FBI里专注中国技术转移的分析单位，但是，最重要的一段——第5段——的证据部分由几个长quote构成，这一段的开头注明：
“...... according to interviews conducted with ⬛⬛ individuals who listed 4MMU affiliation on their Visa documentation......”
结尾又注明：
"...... The individuals identified by FBI LA ranged in fields from neuroscience and genetics to dentistry and ophthalmology and ranged in connection to 4MMU from currect employee to former bachelor's degree students from decades before. Heavy focus was placed on students and scholars pursuing STEM degrees, but more broadly than just graduate and post-graduate."
这一段则引用这些interview讲述了支持FBI调查报告结论，认为“不报Military affiliate和技术转移无关”的证据。
很显然这一段的意思是明确的，做出这些结论的证据，是对FBI LA筛选出来的多名和第四军医大学有关联的人员的采访，包括雇员到前学生。FBI引述了这些采访材料。
这一情况恰恰是你所说的，找了一堆civillian出来作证，结果civillian的证词不利。
>> 我引用下Tang方的trial brief原文。“Recent Brady disclosur...
civilian作证啥了？证明这人不是军人了？当初起诉不是她申请签证隐瞒入伍经历，跟技术转移有什么关系？military是不是技术转移civilian说了算？哎，算了不说了，你中文这么流利就别装外宾了，这人是不是军人你心里清楚就好了。这civilian你自己都说了是FBI筛选的，又不是对方提出来的证人，撤诉责任在于FBI，这要是不承认就没啥意思了。
算了不再继续了，真想不到FBI把案子办成这样也能找到各种姿势来洗，呵呵。抖音微信小米，反正都是程序正义。你高兴就好。