Subject: CSS Today, #95015, May 27, 1995

From: [email-masked] (Yuan Wei)
Date: Sun, 28 May 95 00:18:48 PDT

############################################################\\   \\#########
   T h e   E l e c t r o n i c    N e w s l e t t e r    o f \\   \\C S S
%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=\\ N \\=%=%=%=
          ____________       ____________       _____________  \\   \\
        /   _____     ))   /    _________))   /    __________)) \\ E \\
       /   //    )____))  {    ((________    {    ((_________    \\   \\
      {   ||     _____     \_________    ))   \__________    ))   \\ W \\
       \   \\____)    ))   __________)   ))   ___________)   ))    \\   \\
        \____________//   (_____________//   (______________//      \\   \\
                                                                     \\   \\
         ]]]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]]   ]]]]]]]  ]]]   ]]]            \\   \
            ]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]]  ]]   ]]              \\
            ]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]] ]]]]]]]]]   ]] ]]    ==========
            ]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]] ]]]   ]]]    ]]]     No.  95015
            ]]]     ]]]]]]]  ]]]]]]]]  ]]]   ]]]    ]]]    _1995.04.26_

%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=
CSS Today Editorial Board                             <[email-masked]>
%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=%=

                     I N    T H I S   I S S U E                 No. of Lines
============================================================================
CSS Today Editorial     
    o  IFCSS Is the Only Real Loser ..................................... 15

IFCSS Watch: Special Court Case --------------------------------------------
    o  Mr. John Mitchell Reports to IFCSS Acting President ............. 100 
    o  Transcript of the Second IFCSS Case Court Hearing ............... 831 

=======================<<<< CSS Today Editorial >>>>========================
IFCSS Is the Only Real Loser ............................................ 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSS Today                                                         CSST 95015

Finally, IFCSS' months' long crisis seemed to come to an end with a sharp
ruling from the circuit court judge, partly resulted from the effect of yet
a third lawer, Mr. John Mitchell of Aren Fox. 
 
While the circuit court judge's rule does bear the authority of the law,
the CSS public would have to be the judge that rules on the fate of IFCSS.

LUO Ning lost the case, that does not mean all he did was bad, just like a
victory in court would not indicate he had been always right.

That is also true for the Council. Not losing the case in the court does not
warrant the validity and rightfulness of what this term of the Council has
done.

There is no winner in this case. And the only real loser is IFCSS. 

===========================<<<< IFCSS Watch >>>>============================
Mr. John Mitchell's Report to IFCSS Acting President ................... 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFCSS                                                             CSST 95015

John Mitchell (attorney at law)
Arent Fox
Via Facsimile

May 22, 1995

Chengyan Liu
Acting President, IFCSS

CC: Jinghong Li
    Lishi Luo
    Burton V. Wides

Dear Chengyan:

Although I believe you have all been advised by telephone of the results
of the hearing last Friday, I wanted to take a moment to formally report.

Having received no response from Ning Luo as to settlement, I was
instructed to take the necessary steps to represent IFCSS's interests.
Rather than intervene directly in the case, I worked with Roger
St. Vincent on the strategy of drafting a motion from the Council to
dismiss the complaint for (a) failing to join the IFCSS (or the
Supervisory Board) as a party, and (b) failing to state claim upon
which relief could be granted.  Time did not permit me to circulate this
prior to the hearing, so I have attached a copy of what we filed for your
review.  (I apologize that this copy has not been signed by Mr. St. Vincent,
but he did sign an identical copy which was filed.)

The hearing on Friday was delayed.  We took the opportunity to give Mr.
Luo's attorney a copy of the motion and to attempt a resolution of at least
some of the issues.  We were unable to reach agreement.

In attendance and speaking at the hearing were Ning Luo and his attorney,
Robert C. Eustice (in Fred Goldberg's absence), Shawn Liu, on behalf of the
Council, with Roger St. Vincent representing the Council and I.  Bob
Eustice, Roger St. Vincent and I met briefly with Judge McKenna in chambers.

After hearing from us, he decided to try to resolve the matter and
adjourned us to open court.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge McKenna denied all of the claims
for relief raised in the amended complaint filed by Ning Luo and the
other plaintiffs.  In essence, he determined that because the IFCSS has
its own procedures for resolving disputes concerning the bylaws, and
that no one had challenged the good faith of the Supervisory Board's
handling of the dispute, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to
interfere with the internal business judgement of the IFCSS.  This means
that there is a final ruling on his case, Judge McKenna preferred not to
rule on the allegation that Mr. Luo signed a check for $3,000 for his
attorney fees in violation of a court order, preferring that the matter
be referred to the judge who issued that order, to consider whether Mr.
Luo was in contempt of court. That preceding would have no bearing on this
final order.

What this means now is that, since there has been a final order the
plaintiffs will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.  In my judgment,
it would not be advisable for the plaintiffs to appeal, as I believe their
case is very weak.  Their argument before the court (essentially that the
Supervisory Board is not legally valid under Maryland law) was completely
rejected by Judge McKenna and did not have any foundation in the statute
or case law.  Moreover, Mr. Luo testified that he had served on the
Supervisory Board for one term, thereby further undermining his challenge
to its authority. Nevertheless, I cannot guarantee that there will not be
an appeal.

As a practical matter, Friday's ruling means that the impeachment of Mr.
Luo on March 25, 1995 stands.  As of that date, Mr. Luo was no longer
President of IFCSS.  Any check-signing or other authority which may been
given Mr. Luo during the settlement negotiations must be rescinded at once.

Hopefully, all of this will put an end to any confusion concerning IFCSS
accounts.  If you need my assistance in clearing any of this up with the
banks, please let me know.

I trust that the result of this hearing is welcome, primarily because it
puts an end to the matter.  It is regrettable that an out of court
settlement could not be reached, but the Council's efforts to do so were
commendable, as was the Supervisory Board's support of a negotiated
settlement and/or arbitration.   Such good faith and cooperation was
rewarded with the good fortune of obtaining prompt disposition of the
entire case without further litigation costs.  It has been a pleasure to
work with you, the Council and the Supervisory Board on this difficult
matter.  The mature way in which this matter was handled leaves me with
no doubt that you will all be able to recover quickly from the delays
caused by the lawsuit as you prepare for the next convention.  Good luck!

With warm regards,

John T. Mitchell (signed)

CC: Jinghong Li
    Lishi Luo
    Burton V. Wides

(note, the files are too long to be included in this forwarding. they
       should be available when the court hearing documents are released)

===========================<<<< IFCSS Watch >>>>============================
Transcript of the Second IFCSS Case Court Hearing ...................... 831 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFCSS                                                             CSST 95015

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
                                         :
NING LUO, et al.,                        :
 Plaintiffs,                             :
    v.                                   :  Civil No. 133928 
COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF     :
CHINESE STUDENTS, et al.,                :
                                         :
 Defendants.                             :
                                         :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Rockville, Maryland

May 19, 1995  

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled matter commenced 
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE J. JAMES McKENNA, Judge
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ROBERT EUSTICE, Esq.
1511 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.   20005
     
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

ROGER ST. VINCENT, Esq.
1212 Grant Street
Annapolis, Maryland   21403

I N D E X

Robert Eustice 26
    Attorney for the Plaintiff

Roger St. Vincent 44
    Attorney for the Defendant

Ruling    45

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT:  You may have a seat, gentlemen.  Okay, now let's call the case.
THE CLERK:  Civil 133928, Ning Luo, et al. versus the Council of
 international Federation of Chinese Students, et al.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  Now will counsel please identify themselves.
MR. EUSTICE:  Certainly, Your Honor.  Bob Eustice from Spirer & Goldberg on
 behalf of the president and plaintiffs in this matter.
THE COURT:  Mr. Luo?
MR. EUSTICE:  Mr. Luo, yes.  
THE COURT:  Yes, okay.
MR. ST. VINCENT:  Your Honor, Roger St. Vincent representing the Board of
 Directors; that is the Council of the Independent Federation of Chinese
 Students and Scholars. 
THE COURT:  Okay.
MR. LUO:  My name is Cheng Liu.  I am the board council member, and council
 gave me authority to represent council on this case.
THE COURT:  Thank you, sir, and your name again is -- you are John Mitchell. 
 You are here -- let the record reflect that you introduced yourself to me,
 Mr. Mitchell, in chambers.  You are a lawyer, a member of the District of
 Columbia Bar at least and maybe some others.
MR. MITCHELL:  Kentucky also.
THE COURT:  Kentucky, but not a member of the Maryland Bar, but that you
 have indicated that you are here today as a representative of the -- I am 
 getting lost in the various terms.  There is a council.  There is a board.
 I am not really sure, and that is why I was just sort of looking over here
 because it seems to me that -- well, go ahead; let's finish up with you 
 first.
MR. MITCHELL:  I am essentially here as a fact witness resource on behalf of the actual federation.
THE COURT:  Okay.
MR. MITCHELL:  In light of the dispute, I actually, day-to-day, after this
 dispute had gotten my direction from the supervisory board of the
 federation, which is the oversight board.
THE COURT:  Okay.  Now what I would like, and perhaps, Mr. Eustice, you can
 do this:  I would like to have one of you lawyers draw a schema for me and
 just simply indicating -- I know that this is an organization that had its
 genesis as a result, as I recollect, directly of the Tiananmen Square issues.
MR. ST. VINCENT:  That is correct, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  I mean, before that, none of this group, regardless of whether it
 was a federation or council or whatever, existed, but because of that, it
 came into being, and it came into being here in the United States, and it
 came into being with at least one of its motivations a greater
 understanding, I believe, if I am not incorrect on this, but at least it
 makes sense, of American/Chinese relations. 
 Am I right?  Am I on the right track?
MR. EUSTICE:  That is right, Your Honor. Correct.  Okay.  Now could one of 
 you sort of -- what I want is a schema that everybody agrees on.  I mean,
 there are some certain facts that you all have to agree on because they are
 historically immutable.  
 I mean, they just are facts.  Now could you possibly come over here and
 tell me how -- just sort of draw the group, whomever it was and put a box,
 I guess, at the top and put a label on that box who were they, who were the
 group of people who originally got together and had an idea.
 Can you do that?  And then maybe work your way down from there because I
 think that would be very helpful to me and to this record.  Mr. St. Vincent?
MR. EUSTICE:  I think perhaps Mr. Mitchell would be the one who has been 
 involved with this organization the longest that would know the genesis in
 terms of laying out how it was set up since they did it.
THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, I know Mr. Eustice has indicated that he is
 objecting on behalf of the plaintiffs to Mr. Mitchell in his capacity, I
 think, as a lawyer and an advocate on behalf of a group that is not yet in
 the litigation.  
 I think that is so.  Am I right on that?
MR. EUSTICE:  That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  But certainly you cannot, because I won't let you, object to him
 being here present in this courtroom because this is an open courtroom and
 this is, after all, the United States of America, and we do have open
 courtrooms, number one.
 Number two:  If Mr. Mitchell, by acclamation, is acknowledged to be as
 good as anybody else or maybe the best at kind of putting this thing
 together, then I think that I want to use him.
 He used the phrase -- it was a nice turn of phrase -- "fact resource," and
 I would like to use him as a fact resource.  
MR. LIU:  Your Honor, can I provide some important information?
THE COURT:  I am sorry?
MR. LIU:  Can I provide some important information?
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. LIU:  Arant Fox, which Mr. Mitchell serves that law firm, was initially
 involved in organization.  They draft our charter and registry in Maryland,
 and the organization is clearly defined here in our charter.
THE COURT:  I understand that.
MR. LIU:  Yes.  So I think that they are --
THE COURT:  They are lawyers.  They are a law firm whom you as a group
 hired, said, look, we want to hire you, Arant Fox, to get us up on our
 feet, and that is what they did.
MR. LIU:  Yes, and they have been certainly providing general legal counsel
 ever since we founded.
THE COURT:  Well, I understand that.
MR. LIU:  Yes.
THE COURT:  And --
MR. LIU:  And they dropped out of structure, so I think that maybe Mr.
 Mitchell can --
THE COURT:  I am not sure that Mr. Eustice disagrees with that.
MR. LIU:  Okay.
THE COURT:  Mr. Eustice, I want to give you an opportunity to put on the
 record if you are objecting to him.  I am inclined to use Mr. Mitchell as
 my fact resource just to get me going here.
MR. MITCHELL:  All right, thank you.
THE COURT:  And why should I not do that, Mr. Eustice?
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, you can do that, Your Honor, I think, if you would like
 to do it.  My problem is this, and I explained this earlier when we were
 outside meeting with
Mr. Mitchell, is that today the Council filed a motion to dismiss, and one
 of the bases for that motion was that the IFCSS itself, the overall body
 and the supervisory board, have not been made party to this suit, no
 indispensable parties.  
 Mr. Mitchell has taken the position that he is representing them, and
 presumably if they either get added, we amend the complaint or they
 intervene, then they would be party to this action.
 I don't know that he is -- if he is going to be a fact witness today and
 can turn around next week, whenever it would be, and represent the parties
 in that capacity as well.
THE COURT:  I didn't say --
MR. EUSTICE:  -- and maybe that is a problem for him later on.  
THE COURT:  I purposefully did not use the word "witness."  I used -- I
 think it originally came out of Mr. Mitchell's mouth, and I liked that turn
 of phrase, a "fact source."
 That is in contradistinction to a witness.  I am not going to put him on the
 stand.  I am not going to swear him in; I just want to use him just as if
 he was my chalk to write on this tabula rasa, and so that is it.
 I would like him to be nothing more than a thinking sense, a piece of chalk
 to write on the blackboard and give me some idea of precisely who struck
 John; I mean, what is involved here, who are the parties here and that sort
 of thing, and I think it will go a long way.
 We can even -- if you all agree on it, we could put that in as a court
 exhibit, if necessary, and I just need to -- I mean, I will put it another
 way, MR. Eustice:  Here you have a group of people all of whom are, I
 think, at least presumptively, intelligent, well-motivated, because
 everyone tells me that nobody has any greed, motive, and we discussed all
 of this in chambers.
 I mean, they are a bunch of people who had gotten together with the highest
 of intentions, and they can't agree, and they can't agree on a whole lot of
 things, and yet you want to take all of that big package, all this
 disagreement and all that and thrust it into the lap of moi, a Circuit
 Court judge here, and I can tell you that I intend, now that you are
 pushing me to the wall on this, to dig in and find out, insofar as I can,
 precisely what is going on, and the best way I can think of to start is to
 figure out how it got started, how everybody relates to everybody else, and
 I need that, and so now we have spent, as is typical of lawyers, I think
 about 10 minutes discussing something that really should have been a no
 brainer, and I am going to stop and, Mr. Mitchell, I am going to appoint
 you, for the moment at least, as a adjunct of the Court to just draw me a
 map here, give me some idea of where this thing started and how everybody
 relates to everybody else and! so forth. I think you can do that.
MR. EUSTICE:  Your Honor, can I make just an objection for the record,
 seeing that you are going to do that?
THE COURT:  You can.  I mean, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
MR. EUSTICE:  Okay.
THE COURT:  And you have made it, and it is now done, and I am going to
 overrule it.  Now, all right, if you will, give him a -- does that thing work?
MR. MITCHELL:  There is a marker.  I notice there was no testimony on my
 artistic ability, but --
THE COURT:  No, just draw boxes and traditional things.  How did it all get
 started?  It was about -- when was Tiananmen Square?  Four or five years ago?
MR. MITCHELL:  1989, I believe.
THE COURT:  All right.
MR. MITCHELL:  If my memory serves me right.
THE COURT:  Six years ago.  '89.
MR. MITCHELL:  There was a basic structure out there in terms of groups of
 Chinese students and scholars at various -- primarily universities, a lot
 of them with --
THE COURT:  Here or in China?
MR. MITCHELL:  In the United States --
THE COURT:  All right. 
MR. MITCHELL:  -- scattered throughout the entire country, and many of these
 students were here actually having completed degrees in China, had come
 here for post-doctoral work. 
 Some of them had completed those studies and were now in essentially a period
 in which they can stay here and work for a couple of years, and essentially,
 according to their visas, after they had spent the maximum of completing
 Their school proGRAm and spending two years here, they had to go back to
 China under the standards of their visa in which they had come.
 During that period, many of them had been advocating for democracy in China
 But before the Tiananmen.  As a result of that, they had actually been
 PHotographed, they had been identified essentially by the authorities in
 China as being people who are out demonstrating in front of the embassy and
 things of that nature.  After the Tiananmen Square massacre --
THE COURT:  The embassy here?
MR. MITCHELL:  The Chinese embassy here.
THE COURT:  All right.
MR. MITCHELL:  So after the massacre there was a real concern because now 
 these people had been essentially branded as criminals who could actually
 be given the penalty of capital punishment for what they have done here as
 guests in our country, and Congress became concerned that we have now got
 to offer some protection.
 We offered them our freedom of speech, our freedom of organizing, and our
 support for democracy, and now they are in real trouble.
 So Congress came up with a lot of visions of what they would like to do,
 and they essentially decided it was time to organize a little bit and at
 least reach agreement on what was best for all of them, and as a result of
 that, a whole more complete organization came about, not just to deal with
 the issue of the immediate problem of visas running out that had to be
 returned --
THE COURT:  Came out spontaneously or came about because of the Congress
 suggesting that it happen?
MR. MITCHELL:  No, that came up essentially from the students because just
 as they were feeling the concerns of what happens as we go back, they also
 had their communications with their colleagues and family back home, and
 the Tiananmen Square massacre essentially set back the movement toward
 democracy there.
 So it became very much a joint effort where they did try to support the
 democracy activity in China.
THE COURT:  Okay.  So that was -- the original purpose was to form this
 group that would try from the United States to foster democracy in China.
MR. MITCHELL:  That is correct.
THE COURT:  All right.       
MR. MITCHELL:  Now since they were scattered all over the country, they
 needed some way of communicating, some way of organizing, and essentially
 from the members they have created a structure in which, from this
 membership body out here, they have a convention.
 They have organized eight regions that all of these groups belong to. So
 it is fairly geographically based, but the members of the -- 
THE COURT:  And those eight regions are throughout the United States?
MR. MITCHELL:  Throughout the United States.  The students at the various
 universities are all now grouped into eight different regious.
 They have a convention at which the entire group --
THE COURT:  Did you mean to say they "had"?  This is in the past tense?
MR. MITCHELL:  They have.  They have an annual convention.
THE COURT:  Oh, they have and they had.  I don't mean to be pedantic with
 you, but when you say they "had" -- somewhere in 1989 or 1990 or somewhere
 in there they "had" a convention -- is that right?
MR. MITCHELL:  That is correct.  Now perhaps I skipped the most exciting
 part from my standpoint.  They were milling the halls of Congress because
 there was a dialogue with Congress as to what to do, and students were
 coming in from all over. They were speaking to their Congressional
 representatives even though they weren't allowed to vote, but there was a
 tremendous interest.
 They learned more than most U. S. citizens know about our own system of government.  It was awe-inspiring, but they latched onto how bills are made into law, how the President works with Congress.
 At that point, we had a Congress of one party, President of the other, sort of like we do now, I guess, but the reverse, and learning essentially how that whole process worked and whatever came out of Congress,
 how it would be interpreted through the Executive Branch and the courts.
 So they learned this whole structure, and as they tried to organize the federation itself -- and the word "federation" essentially they were not intending to take away any of the autonomy of the individual groups that are organized on campus,
 but rather organize into a federation that could have a unified voice, that could respond to new Congressional proposals, could respond quickly to issues in China, could respond more quickly essentially in order to get the job done, 
and so the initial organization was at a regional level, but once every year the entire congress elects a president, and the president and vice president are elected on a ticket just as in the U. S. Government:
 the president and vice-president run on one ticket.
 They have a -- I am not sure why the words SPB or SPC are sometimes used, but a supervisory board, which is essentially -- the president -- 
THE COURT:  That all came about at what: the first convention?
MR. MITCHELL:  That is correct.
THE COURT:  So they had in the past a convention where they all said, well, how are we going to organize this thing, and what they decided to do was to put together this group that you are now 
-- with a president elected each year, annually --
MR. MITCHELL:  Right.
THE COURT:  -- and a vice-president elected.
MR. MITCHELL:  Now the president and the supervisory board are elected from the membership.  There is a 16-member council, and that council is sort of like our legislature, but there is only one chamber,
 and that is elected from the regions.
 Each region has two representatives on the council.  So they have essentially created what they have understood to be a sort of balance of power with the entire convention electing the president and vice-president,
 the entire convention electing a supervisory board which is charged with overseeing the president and the council and resolving any disputes as to the bylaws and some procedures attached to it,
 and then each region then elects two council members who serve on the council, which is the legislative branch of the organization.
THE COURT:  Okay.  
MR. MITCHELL:  And essentially that is where we are on a day-to-day basis.  The president runs an --
THE COURT:  You said that you represent a federation.  Where does that come in?  You mean that is everybody all put into one?
MR. MITCHELL:  In terms of my obligations, I see the obligation going to the entire organization.
THE COURT:  Where does the word "federation" come from?
MR. MITCHELL:  The Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars.
THE COURT:  So that comes from the name itself?
MR. MITCHELL:  That comes from the name itself.  They have federated all of their campus organizations, which each have their own structure, their own budget.
 The Maryland campus can have a group.  Some are stronger, some are weaker, but each --
THE COURT:  But there must be some unifying body to that that decided that they wanted Arnold & Porter to represent them.
MR. MITCHELL:  At the beginning, perhaps it was synergistic. We had a Chinese student working at our law firm who had gotten her legal degree and was working for two years.
 She was getting calls from people throughout the country saying: Chen Yung, you are at Arant Fox; what can we do; we are hearing all these Congressional proposals; we don't know what to do,
 and we essentially had about a 24-hour session in which the firm said something has got to be done here, somebody has got to guide these students through this morass in Congress,
 and essentially we began the representation through the legislative efforts in dealing with the immediate crisis --
THE COURT:  Well, you didn't work for free.
MR. MITCHELL:  Well, during that entire period we did.
THE COURT:  You did.  All right.
MR. MITCHELL:  It was more than we bargained for.
THE COURT:  But you don't now?  You don't now or do you?  I am not being facetious when I say that; I mean, I am trying to figure out who writes the check.
 I mean, when Arant Fox gets paid on a monthly basis or how ever it is done, where does the billing go?
MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  At this point, Arant Fox has represented on a pro bono basis.  It represented the federation for incorporation purposes,
 for the entire immigration legislation and to consult on special issues that have --
THE COURT:  Pro bono.
MR. MITCHELL:  All pro bono.
THE COURT:  Okay.  
MR. MITCHELL:  Recently, before this issue took place, I had been approached by Mr. Nangula about expanding this because of some insurance and tax issues, and at that point we were then discussing Arant Fox
adding on a segment for these additional matters that were not quite in the nature of pro bono work.
 So now we have a dual representation: part pro bono and immigration legislation, and we have been retained --
THE COURT:  Okay
MR. MITCHELL:  -- for a fee for additional matters.
THE COURT:  But by whom?  Who is going to pay that fee?
MR. MITCHELL:  The current retainer letter has been signed by the acting vice-president, Mr. Cheng Liu, and he has an approval problem, both the council and the supervisory board, to retain us.  
THE COURT:  Okay.
MR. MITCHELL:  He could not retain us without getting the approval of the council and the supervisory 
board --
THE COURT:  Okay.  Now where -- and certainly I am going to give each of you equal time on this.  Mr. Eustice, you will have your opportunity.
 Now let me stop right here.  Mr. Eustice, do you on behalf of the proponent agree that what has been said thus far is accurate?
 Is there any contention about any of this?
MR. EUSTICE:  The only thing we would like to contend with that, Your Honor -- as far as the general structure, we would agree with what Mr. Mitchell has said, but that it is our contention that the
 supervisory board is no higher authority than the council or the president, but that they are all --
THE COURT:  That is what he said.  He said it is a sort of a tri-cameral, if you will, organization.  I mean, you have got the council and the president and vice president and the supervisory board all with equal --
 I think he just said that, all with equal powers or pretty much equal.
MR. MITCHELL:  There is, in article 33 of their bylaws, a section that does indicate that the supervisory board interprets the bylaws, arbitrates disputes involving the SESS charter and examines the work of the president and the council.
THE COURT:  Which would -- I mean, at least at first blush -- I am reading -- we will get to 33, but at first blush would seem to indicate that there is where this dispute ought to be handled and not here.
MR. MITCHELL:  That is the way --
THE COURT:  I mean, at least an argument can be made, you know, that the supervisory board ought to be doing it and not the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.  
 All right.  I mean, that is an argument.  I am not saying that that is necessarily the correct argument, but that is at least an argument. 
 Now but you agree with this, don't you, this setup?  MR. EUSTICE:  Yes, I agree with the setup.
THE COURT:  All right.  Well, now that we have -- and I am taking it for granted, Mr. St. Vincent, that since you haven't jumped up yet that you as well agree with this?
MR. ST. VINCENT:  Yes, I do.
THE COURT:  All right.  Now -- 
MR. MITCHELL:  I am relieved.
THE COURT:  Well, you are relieved, but you are not relieved of duty yet, though.
MR. MITCHELL:  Okay.
THE COURT:  Now where -- from your perception, where is the plaintiff, this plaintiff in this case in this structure?  And, Mr Eustice, I will give you an opportunity to respond.
 I mean, I just need to find out who is doing what here.
MR. MITCHELL:  With all candor, my view is that the plaintiff basically has moved from here to former president.
THE COURT:  When did that happen?  At the annual convention?
MR. MITCHELL:  No.  He was elected at the last annual convention.
THE COURT:  Which was held?
MR. MITCHELL:  In July of last year, and essentially every July -- the date varies, but in July of each year is normally when the convention is held.
THE COURT:  Okay.  But then something happened?  
MR. MITCHELL:  Correct. There were certain allegations that were brought to the supervisory board to review, and under the bylaws there are various impeachment procedures for council members.
 I should say there are also committee members that the council has some oversight over.  I think the president does do it.
 Some allegations of misuse of funds and various issues of not following council resolutions -- 
THE COURT:  By the supervisory board?
MR. MITCHELL:  They were brought to the supervisory board, which investigated those and issued essentially, if I recall, a notice of impeachment giving the president an opportunity to respond.
 During the time period, the president did not respond, and by unanimous vote the supervisory board recommended impeachment to the council.
 In order for the impeachment to be effective, the council has to approve it by a two-thirds vote.  They held a meeting and voted by the two-thirds margin to impeach the president, at which time the
 impeachment would be effective, and as far as the organization structure, then he would no longer be president.
 The dispute essentially here was the council meeting at which the impeachment action took place.  There had been an effort to organize some of these regions to recall their council members, at least three or four of them, prior to the meeting.
 So the dispute was were the 16 council members present and voting at that meeting the correct ones or should these new council members that come in to take place --
THE COURT:  Within the structure, who is charged with the responsibility of making that determination?
MR. MITCHELL:  Again the supervisory board.  Actually, the supervisory board has two functions.
THE COURT:  How many people are on that supervisory board?
MR. MITCHELL:  There are five people on the supervisory board.
THE COURT:  How do they get there?  They are just elected from the body in general?
MR. MITCHELL:  At the convention, right.
THE COURT:  All right.
MR. MITCHELL:  And according to the bylaws, the supervisory board is actually supposed to initiate any recall of the council members.  
 So that had not really taken place.  These were apparently just phone calls, and so two people asked the supervisory board to review that, and on April 25th the supervisory board actually didn't release
 its report because of the litigation going on here, but I didn't receive it until May 17th.
 The supervisory board issued its report that it reviewed the complaint concerning the recall issue and found that it was meritless.
THE COURT:  Meritless?
MR. MITCHELL:  Meritless.
THE COURT:  And so at least insofar as you can tell from the way that this has been set up, the actions of the 16 members of the council were given the approbation of the supervisory board?
MR. MITCHELL:  That is correct.  I had not independently looked through all the papers and allegations because there was a potential arbitration process on that issue that never materialized,
 but in terms of the actual review by the supervisory board, that was their conclusion.
 I have taken a second-guess at it, but essentially they reviewed that and issued a three-page report of --
THE COURT:  Then to close the loop, I guess, after all this happened -- or not after, actually, but somewhere in the middle of all this the plaintiff here, Mr. Liu, sought recourse here in the Circuit Court.
MR. MITCHELL:  That is correct.
THE COURT:  And sued the --
MR. MITCHELL:  Sued the council.
THE COURT:  -- council.  
MR. MITCHELL:  And also four of the council members were also named as defendants.
THE COURT:  And that is what brings us here.
MR. MITCHELL:  Correct.
THE COURT:  Okay.  I think that that pretty much -- I think that brings me up-to-date.  Thank you very much,
Mr. Mitchell.  I am very appreciative of that because that is a big help to me.
 Now, Mr. Eustice --
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  -- you are the moving party.  Well, you are the original moving
 party.  Now I am sort of getting lost here.  Yes, you are the original
 moving party altogether on the -- insofar as the injunction is concerned.
 You were moving to have me, this Court, enjoin any further activity of the
 council and/or the supervisory board vis-a-vis your client; is that right?
 Have I got it structurally correct?
MR. EUSTICE:  More or less, Your Honor.  We were asking that the decisions
 of the council basically be put back to February 25th meeting, which is
 where we believe that they began to take actions that were improper and not
 according to the bylaws and the code of Maryland at that point.
THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Eustice, tell me why this is not a classic kind of a
 situation involving -- assuming that there is potentially recourse to the
 courts -- involving the notion of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
 I mean, a lot of time and effort apparently has gone into putting all this
 together, putting rules and regulations together, as to how the various
 parties are going to act, and why is this not -- can you speak to the
 issue of whether or not within the framework of all of this your client
 has exhausted all of the remedies that he had.
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes, Your Honor.  I think he has.  Again, there was -- and I
 will have to go back through the facts with you a little bit as to how this
 all came about. There was a meeting scheduled, actually the third quarterly
 meeting of the council for this year scheduled on February 25, 1995.
 Pursuant to the bylaws, all issues that are going to be before the council
 at their quarterly meetings are to be posted on the Internet and E-Mail one
 week beforehand, and some issues were posted.
 However, the supervisory board posted a draft of a report it had given
 regarding some of the reimbursement of some of the participants of the
 last convention when Mr. Liu was elected and the other parties involved
 were elected, and what happens is, my understanding is the parties, various
 representatives from various membership organizations come to the
 convention, they vote, and their expenses to get there and back are
 reimbursed by the convention, and there was some dispute amongst the
 council members and the president as to the proper -- how much money should
 have been reimbursed to each party, and that was what the supervisory board
 had issued a report about.
 At that meeting on the 25th, the head of the council issued some what they
 call emergency proceedings, which had not been posted for a week, and
 adopted a resolution of non-competence of Mr. Liu, demanded that he resign
 by March 1, 1995, or face impeachment.
 Mr. Liu then sent an appeal to the supervisory board regarding that
 violation of the bylaws because they hadn't posted this information a week
 beforehand, and in the interim, as this information got out, what the
 council had done at the February 25th meeting, there became an effort by
 some of the members of the various regions to remove some of the council
 members from those regions, and it is our contention --
THE COURT:  That ultimately failed?
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, it depends on how you -- it is our contention, Your
 Honor, that four of the members were removed before the next council
 meeting of March 25 --
THE COURT:  On what do you base that?
MR. EUSTICE:  That the majority of the members of the region, in order to
 remove those certain individuals, had replaced them with new individuals.
 Now I don't have --
THE COURT:  But Mr. Mitchell, as I understand what he said, says that in the
 event of any of the regions making some actions that the body that is
 charged with the responsibility of looking into their actions is the
 supervisory board, and I believe he said that the supervisory board looked
 into it and ruled that they had -- that it was -- I don't know what word
 you used, but I will put in there "specious," that there was no basis upon
 which to remove any of the members of the council.
 First of all, isn't that he just said or something --
MR. EUSTICE:  Something to that effect, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- pretty much to that effect.
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes.
THE COURT:  And is that wrong?  
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes.
THE COURT:  Is that fact historially not right?
MR. EUSTICE:  No, I think what is wrong with that, Your Honor, is I don't
 think that the supervisory board -- as Mr. Mitchell pointed out, the
 entity, the IFCSS has been set up basically to mock or replicate our system
 of government, and I don't think that under the Maryland Corporation and
 Associations Code that there is such a place for entities such as the
 supervisory board that has judicial functions within a corporation, that
 basically --
THE COURT:  So you are saying that the supervisory board is in existence
 contrary to Maryland law?
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes, Your Honor, that is correct, that under --
THE COURT:  In what way?  
MR. EUSTICE:  And under section 2-110 of the Corporations and Associations --
THE COURT:  Well, you better get that for me, the Cororations and
 Associations Article.
MR. EUSTICE:  Would you like me to wait or shall I give it to Your Honor now?
THE COURT:  Go ahead.  I will get it.
MR. EUSTICE:  It is section 2-110 and provision A, and it just says in
 general the bylaws may contain any provisions not inconsistent with law
 or the charter of the corporation for the regulation and management of the
 affairs of the corporation, the point being that there is nowhere within
 the code of Maryland that allows for a basically inter-corporate judicial
 body to decide disputes between basically a board of directors and a
 president of a corporation.
THE COURT:  Well, is there anything that says that they can't?
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, I think that they set forth the type of entities within
 a corporation that are allowed, Your Honor, in the code, and it is hard
 to prove --
THE COURT:  What was that section again?
MR. EUSTICE:  2 section 110.  I mean, it is hard to prove a negative, Your
 Honor.  
THE COURT:  It may be in this case impossible because it very well be
 because there was never any intention to have that negative.
 Now let's see.  You have got 2-110, right?
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes.
THE COURT:  Now where are you referring me to?
MR. EUSTICE:  Subpart A.
THE COURT:  Okay.
MR. EUSTICE:  It just says -- 
THE COURT:  All right, "The bylaws may" -- so that gives them an
 opportunity -- it doesn't say "must"; it says "may" --
MR. EUSTICE:  Right.
THE COURT:  -- "contain any provisions not inconsistent with law or" -- in
 the disjunctive -- "the charter of the corporation," and we know it is not
 inconsistent with the charter of the corporation because the charter
 provides for it in this instance --
MR. EUSTICE:  That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  -- of this corporation "for the regulations and management of
 the affairs of the corporation."  So you haven't anything after the
 disjunctive.  You have no solace there because you can't do anything about
 it.
MR. EUSTICE:  That is correct.
THE COURT:  So you have to rely on "not inconsistent with law."
MR. EUSTICE:  Right, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Now you have to tell me where is the inconsistency with law.
MR. EUSTICE:  I don't have the code in front of me, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Well, I do.  Do you want to take a look at it?
MR. EUSTICE:  Sure.
THE COURT:  All right.  
MR. EUSTICE:  Thank you.
 (Pause.)
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, I will just generally cite you to subtitle of, again,
 title 2 of the Corporations and Associations.
THE COURT:  What does it say?
MR. EUSTICE:  It says -- well, they generally allow for directors and
 officers, Your Honor, and also stockholders, but there is no provision in
 the code for basically a judicial body to legislate or make decisions
 regarding when the board of directors has an argument with the officers.
THE COURT:  The only way I could think that you could be making an argument
 against this would be to convince me that this is something that would be
 unconstitutional either under the constitution of the United States or
 under the constitution of the state of Maryland or both.
 Now why would it be unconstitutional?
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, I am not saying that it necessarily is unconstitutional,
 Your Honor, but if you will look at -- and I may need to give this back to
 you, but I will read it anyway.
 You have functions of directors, which is section 2-401:  "The business and
 affairs of a corporation shall be managed under the direction of a board of
 directors, and the power of the board is all powers of the corporation may
 be exercised by or under authority of the board of directors except as
 conferred on or reserved to the stockholders by law or by charter or by
 bylaws to the corporation."
 And again I would suggest that it doesn't leave any room for a body such as
 a supervisory board, which has been described by Mr. Mitchell as sort of a
 quasi-judicial body within the entity to decide disputes between the
 president, the officers duly elected and the board of directors, and --
THE COURT:  Well, let me say -- I mean, isn't it sort of typical for -- a
 typical country club to have, you know, within its charter those folks who
 take care of miscreants or alleged miscreants and they kick people out or
 not kick people out or allow people in or don't allow people in as the case
 may be, and they have been -- I mean, aren't I right on that?
MR. EUSTICE:  I am not a member of a country club, Your Honor, but I would
 assume that that is probably --
THE COURT:  Well, it is my understanding that that is how it works.
MR. EUSTICE:  But yes, but I don't think that they have necessarily a third
 body.  It usually would be considered the board of directors or the
 officers have that authority.
THE COURT:  To do what?  See, the only way insofar as I am aware -- let's
 just stay with the country club analogy -- the only way that the courts
 could step in, insofar as I am aware, would be if these bodies did
 something that would be considered to be unconstitutional or, for
 instance, we all know the traditional one: keeping -- take Burning Tree.  
 It is as good an example as I can think of right now: an all male bastion
 right over off the beltway, and they had a case that came into this court:
 Thou shalt allow women to come in.
 They said no.  Went up all the way to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and
 the Court of Appeals effectively said basically, Burning Tree, you have got
 two choices: you either allow women in or we are going to take away your
 tax privileged status, meaning you are going to have to pay top dollar for
 all of that land out there, and they, in their inestimable wisdom --
 whether they were right or not, who knows, but said, "We'll pay the tax,"
 and the courts can't fuss with them any more.
 There is no way that the court can now force them to take a woman.  The
 courts have taken their best shot and Burning Tree has either won or lost,
 depending on how you look at it, and the way that the courts looked at it
 was that they were enjoying this status, they were doing something that the
 courts felt to be inimicable to the best interests of the public at large,
 and they took their only recourse at them by changing their tax status.
 Well, why should this Court get involved in the inner workings of that
 organization unless you can point to some form, for instance, of
 discrimination, that the reason why they are doing this to your client is
 based on religious grounds or racial grounds?
 You would be hard-pressed to make that argument, you know --
MR. EUSTICE:  We are not making that argument.
THE COURT:  -- but I have having difficulty now that I see the structure
 all laid out understanding, coming to grips with why it is that we, this
 Court, have any right, any jurisdiction to even get involved in what they
 do.
MR. EUSTICE:  Your Honor, I think the courts do have jurisdiction over
 Maryland corporations and --
THE COURT:  Yes.  In what regard?  I mean, insofar as the Maryland -- the
 courts don't go in and tell the organizations how they should run their
 organization.
 They will tell the organizations -- I mean, they will have jurisdiction
 over them if, for instance, they put out a product that is in the products
 liability field and they can get sued and be sued and they can sue.  Sure
 there is jurisdiction, but can you name me an instance where -- and do you
 have any cases with you where the courts have stepped in and told the
 corporation how to run their corporation?  
MR. EUSTICE:  I can't cite any cases off the top of my head, Your Honor. 
 I do think the corporations --
THE COURT:  Well, I think there is a reason why,
Mr. Eustice, because I don't believe that the courts would do that.
MR. EUSTICE:  Your Honor, I think that courts do get involved in the past,
 and I can't speak to this Court, as to actions taken either alleged to be
 improper by the board of directors or by officers who have done things
 improperly.
 I mean, you have breach of fiduciary duty suits all the time that come in
 front of the courts, Your Honor, brought even by shareholders --
THE COURT:  But it isn't a shareholder situation.  Insofar as I can tell,
 they are not -- they don't have shares, do they?
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, they have their individual members, Your Honor, that
 elect -- it is a very representative organization, and the members --
THE COURT:  Sure.  I understand, but there is no public at large, no public
 interest that has to be protected such to bring the courts into it.
 I am just having great difficulty with this now that I have finally had the
 time to be able to really zero in on it.  Let me hear what your opponent
 has to say, and I think your chief opponent is Mr. St. Vincent.
MR. EUSTICE:  I think his arguments have been pretty much made for him by
 Mr. Mitchell in this situation.
THE COURT:  I purposefully avoided having Mr. Mitchell make arguments. 
 You agreed pretty much with the structure.
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, I did, Your Honor, but then, as you will note on the
 board right there, Mr. Mitchell ends up giving his --
THE COURT:  He says "former president."  He gave that opinion, so I will
 give you that.  He said "former president," okay, and so he sort of lapsed
 into a little bit of lawyer-like activity on that.  
 So I will give you that, and so he was adversarial to that extent, but
 aside from that, historically is there one single thing that you can point
 to that is incorrect about this chart?
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, I think my client would like to point some things out.
 He is a little bit more in tune, if you don't mind.
THE COURT:  Okay.  Yes, sir.  I will give you an opportunity.  I know this
 is of some moment to you, and I certainly will give you that opportunity, sir.
MR. EUSTICE:  I don't know whether you would like to hear him from the
 witness stand or just to sit here and just speak to you as we --
THE COURT:  No, we don't have to -- at this juncture, I don't even feel the
 necessity to put you under oath.
MR. EUSTICE:  Okay.
THE COURT:  I will if I need to, but right now,
Mr. Liu, I want you to tell me -- start, if you will, first, Is there
 anything wrong with that chart and, if so, what is it; I mean, aside from
 the former president business?
 Let's pretend that isn't there.
MR. LIU:  Sure.  The chart is basically correct except that the
 interpretation on the function of the entire -- purpose of the entire
 organization and the function of the supervisory board because I am
 involved in the student activity in the years before 1989, and we tried to
 have a self-governing association because before '89 there were -- from the
 Chinese consulate, you know, and also the students in Beijing started on
 that because they want to form their own self-governing body not even
 mention to anti-, you know, government or something, but that was not
 allowed.
 That is the beginning of the --
THE COURT:  You mean in Beijing?
MR. LIU:  In Beijing.  Also in the U. S. we tried to -- yes.  So I look
 more from the local point of view that the grass roots is the foundation
 of our organization.
THE COURT:  Precisely.  
MR. LIU:  Yes.  So the only way to hold the council member accountable by
 our bylaw is the removal by the local delegate or local member --
THE COURT:  Well, let me ask you this:  Do you agree -- let's pretend you
 were never president, but do you agree that the bylaws of the organization
 provide for something known as the impeachment of the president?
MR. LIU:  Yes.
THE COURT:  You agree with that?
MR. LIU:  Right.
THE COURT:   And do you agree that there is methodology prescribed in the
 bylaws for going about doing that?
MR. LIU:  Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Okay.
MR. LIU:  Yes.
THE COURT:  So -- 
 MR. LIU:  I want to go to the second part of the supervisory board because
 myself served on the second term 1990 of the supervisory board.  We changed
 the function very much during that term because in the first term
 supervisory board is more like, you know, both prosecutor, police and the
 judge.
THE COURT:  Well, you were on that board?
MR. LIU:  No, that's first year.  I was on the second year, and I --
THE COURT:  Excuse me.  Excuse me.
MR. LIU:  Right.
THE COURT:  Is it not a fact that at some point in the last five or six
 years you served --
MR. LIU:  On the supervisory board.
THE COURT:  -- on the supervisory board?
MR. LIU:  Right.  Correct.  
THE COURT:  And did you at any time during that time attack the bona fides
 -- do you understand that phrase?
MR. LIU:  Yes.
THE COURT:  I am not being patronizing; just sometimes we use -- I am not
 -- you speak excellent English, and I don't mean to be insulting to you,
 but did you at any time attack the bona fides of the supervisory board?  
 Did you ever say, hey, look, guys, I think we are wrong; we shouldn't even
 be here, there shouldn't be a supervisory board?
MR. LIU:  No, Your Honor, but I did make several -- drafted several
 resolution which was adopted and, you know, incorporated into the bylaw
 -- the bylaw of the supervisory board in the regulations -- for the
 supervisory board operation that we shouldn't -- we have no authority and
 expertise to act just like judge.
 If somebody ask us to arbitrate and both sides agree, then we can do that.
 Otherwise, we don't have the apparatus.  
 For example, we don't have the legal expertise.  We cannot act both as
 judge and the prosecutor, and at that time I think everybody agreed.  So
 from the second term on --
THE COURT:  Well, then they must have changed their mind.  I mean, I say
 they must have changed their mind because they certainly have of recent
 date acted as -- in that capacity.
MR. LIU:  That is what I object to because I don't think that that is, you
 know, consistent with the spirit of our bylaw because if that is the case,
 they have that power, then there is no way to hold them accountable because
 during my term there is a question -- there was a question raised that, you
 know, president could be removed, a council member could be removed.
THE COURT:  Well, when did the council members -- is there a provision for
 removal of members of the supervisory board?
MR. LIU:  No.
THE COURT:  Okay.  How long do they serve?  How long did you serve?
MR. LIU:  I served one year, but --
THE COURT:  Is that what the norm is: you are on for a year?  
MR. LIU:  Mostly, yes, but there is a member who is the coordinator of the
 supervisory board who has served since my term, so five terms now.
THE COURT:  Okay.  And does he get elected every year?
MR. LIU:  Yes.  
THE COURT:  Can we attribute that to his popularity or can we attribute it
 to chicanery on his part?  I mean, is he pulling some trick to --
MR. LIU:  No, no, no.  I mean, votes are votes.
THE COURT:  Votes are votes, so they like him.
MR. LIU:  But that doesn't mean -- on this term people can change their
 mind, but there is no --
THE COURT:  But there is a fundamental -- that is one of the things --
 there is a big argument going on right now in the United States Congress
 as to term limits, and you are kind of touching on it.
 I mean, in this group, the argument of the people who have been there a
 while is well, we don't want term limits because the people have the right
 to kick us out.  If they don't want us, let them kick us out, and why not
 -- you know -- okay.  Well --
MR. LIU:  But, Your Honor, I am not touching on the -- 
THE COURT:  I know you are -- well, you are indirectly is all I am saying.
 I mean, I got the inference from the way you first started to say it that
 there is something inherently wrong about the way that the supervisory
 board is set up, and now I find out that the guys are elected every year,
 and if they don't get elected, they are out.  
MR. EUSTICE:  Can I interrupt for a second, Your Honor, if I might?
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. EUSTICE:  I don't -- and he will correct me if I am wrong -- I have not
 been contending that the individuals who have been elected to the
 supervisory board have been elected improperly or are there improperly.
THE COURT:  Well, maybe I was reading too much into it.
MR. EUSTICE:  Okay.
THE COURT:  But, you see --
MR. EUSTICE:  The argument we were making was some of the members of the
 council --
THE COURT:  Well, the argument that you are making, that he, your client,
 just made was that the supervisory board has too much power, and I think
 that is what he just said.
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, what I was trying to argue earlier was just that as a
 structural matter, not as any individuals in the board itself --
THE COURT:  Okay, I got you.  All right, now I --
MR. EUSTICE:  That is not a proper entity to be allowed in a Maryland
 corporation such as this.
THE COURT:  Let's put this -- I probably practiced too much criminal law
 over the course of the years, and maybe I am a cynic, and so when I heard
 this, I kind of got the notion that perhaps you were suggesting that there
 was something fundamentally -- some real chicanery going on in the way that
 this supervisory board comes about every year, but I am finding out now
 that you are not saying that.
 What you are saying is that how ever they come to be, they could be five
 bona fide angels --
MR. EUSTICE:  That is right.
THE COURT:  -- but those angels have too much power.
MR. EUSTICE:  Well, in this case, that might -- the argument is those
 angels, if you want to put it that way, I don't believe under Maryland
 corporate law are entitled to be in a body called the supervisory board
 that sort of has judicial authority to decide disputes between the
 president and the executive council.
THE COURT:  Well, I think I have let you fellows have plenty to say. I want
 to let Mr. St. Vincent say what he has to say.  Mr. St. Vincent.
MR. ST. VINCENT:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Counsel would agree that the
 internal mechanisms of the organization have not been respected and should
 be and that they should be allowed to go forward and that the supervisory
 board is elected, duly elected as much as they are -- in fact, even more
 so we could say, I guess, because the whole group votes on them, and they
 are deeply concerned that these processes be able to go on in the future
 and, therefore, that as such this body should be allowed to reach its
 conclusions and that only after this body has reached its conclusions and
 somebody thinks that they have behaved outside of the law in some fashion
 or at least their actions have been challenged, which to date has not
 happened here, that their decisions should be how this thing is decided,
 how these kinds of disputes are decided and the integrity of all the bodies
 maintained in that fashion and these events are then kept inside of the
 internal mechanisms that they ! strove so hard to set up and resp
THE COURT:  Okay, thank you.  I am ready to rule.  Has the original
 complaint which was filed on March 23 been amended?  You can short-cut this
 for me.  I don't think it has.
MR. EUSTICE:  Yes, it has, Your Honor.  
THE COURT:  Well, where is the --
MR. EUSTICE:  It was filed on April 14, 1995.  I have it here somewhere,
 Your Honor.  
THE COURT:  Well, I will find it in the --
MR. EUSTICE:  I have a copy, if you would like to --
THE COURT:  No, I will find it.  
THE CLERK:  Your Honor, it is at tab 13.
THE COURT:  Tab 13.  Okay.  I want to address myself precisely to what the
 complaint is.  All right, first in the amended complaint which was filed
 on April 14 and is the current complaint thus before this Court, the
 plaintiffs seek the following:
 First they pray that the Court restrain and enjoin the defendant council
 from giving effect to any action taken at the defendant council's purported
 meeting of March 25, '95, which given that this was filed on April --
MR. EUSTICE:  14th, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  I didn't take any action, I guess.  All right.  Well, in any
 event, that simply is denied because there is no -- it appears to me that
 this Court simply does not have the right to interfere with the internal
 workings of this organization and that it was indeed, it would appear to
 me, to have been properly convened and conducted.
 It says, "Further" -- B -- "that the individual defendants be found to have
 been removed from their offices as members of the defendant council of the
 federation and be barred from taking any further actions in such
 capacities." I specifically reject that notion.  This entire structure has
 been set up in such a fashion I think it is admirable that their overall
 reason for existence is a superb one, and they have gone about it in a most
 admirable way.
 They have, as was mentioned by Mr. Mitchell, they probably -- well, I can
 say this -- I don't know that the word "probably" is there; they
 undoubtedly know more, at least the original people who went up to Capitol
 Hill and followed what was going on and actually saw how a bill goes
 through and what goes on undoubtedly know a great deal more than the
 overwhelming number of individuals in the United States.  
 "C, that the individuals chosen to replace the individual defendants be
 found to be members of the defendant council of the federation effective
 as of the date of their selection and be awarded all powers and privileges
 incidental thereto."
 I am not even quite sure what that means, but I am going to reject that
 notion, and so I deny this injunctive relief on that basis, and I don't
 see any damages -- "This Court award the plaintiffs said damages they have
 incurred because of the defendants' wrongful actions."  I deny that, and
 then, E, that plaintiffs be allowed the cost and expense of this action,
 including reasonable attorneys' fees.  I reject that.  And then it says,
 "For such other further relief."
 I mean, that takes care of it.  Gentlemen, this is a matter, as I had
 indicated, I was hoping that there would be something that could have been
 done in the interim by you -- let the light of day come into all this, but
 apparently that wasn't to happen, it wasn't to be, but I reject this
 injunction.
 So all of the injunctive relief is denied.  Thank you.  
A VOICE:  Your Honor, I do have one more question to raise. This gentleman
 use our organization money to pay his lawyer, and Judge Mason issue an
 injunction to freeze all accounts and take the money, and he wire this
 other and he sign the check and pay his lawyer, use a certified check,
 $3,000.00.
THE COURT:  Well, what you should do on that is -- I am not prepared to
 address myself to that today.
A VOICE:  Okay.
THE COURT:  I would be happy to address it at a later date.
A VOICE:  Sure.
THE COURT:  You probably ought to take it back in front of Judge Mason --
A VOICE:  Sure.
THE COURT:  -- because he will look into the question of contempt, which
 is really what you are suggesting, I think. 
A VOICE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Your Honor.
A VOICE:  Your Honor, that check was issued before the --
THE COURT:  I wouldn't say anything right now because I would save whatever
 you have to say for Judge Mason.  I am not taking any position on it; okay?
MR. EUSTICE:  Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ST. VINCENT:  Thank you.
THE COURT:  All right, have a good day.
 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.)  

C E R T I F I C A T E
Montgomery Transcribers hereby certifies that the attached pages represent
an accurate transcript of the duplicated electronic sound recording of the
proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:
Civil No. 133928
NING LUO, et al.   
   v. 
COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF CHINESE  STUDENTS, et al.

By:
______________________
Mary Lou Leidig    
Transcriber

MONTGOMERY TRANSCRIBERS
301-258-0049

############################################################################
| Editor of This Issue: WANG Ji            Deputy Coordinator: DING Yungui |
|                   Technical Editor: LIANG Yan, SAN Zi                    |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
| CSS Today is a publication of  the CSS Today Editorial Board devoted to  |
| the CSS community for your right to know.   What CSS Today carries does  |
| not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors.                      |
| ________________________________________________________________________ |
|                                                                          |
|  For back issues of CSS Today, please use one of following:              |
|  (1) ftp to <cnd.org>  and search in folder:  /pub/e-pubs/CSS-Today      |
|  (2) gopher to <cnd.org>:                                                |
|             English-Menu -> Other Electronic Publications  -> CSS-TODAY  |
|     (For WWW:  gopher://cnd.cnd.org:70/11/English-Menu/e-pubs/CSS-TODAY) |
|  (3) ftp to <ftp.ifcss.org>  and search in folder: /pub/org/csst/        |
|     (For www tools, use  ftp://ftp.ifcss.org/pub/org/csst/ )             |
|  (4) http://www.ifcss.org:8001/www/ep.html                               |
|                                                                          |
|  CSS Today welcomes contributions, comments, questions, criticisms and   |
|  anything concerning a healthy establishment of the CSS community. For   |
|  question, please inquire to:                                            |
|                                                                          |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
|                         <[email-masked]>                           |
############################################################################