Under the statute, an agent of a foreign government operates under foreign direction and control in something more than a one-sided agreement, but one that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of control suggested by employment.
The exclusion of foreign legal transactions from the statute's reach is an affirmative defense, not an element. Affirmative defenses are not necessarily smaller in scope, and can be used to define the statute's scope.
Circumstantial evidence and rational inference may be used to establish that a person was acting as an agent of a foreign government.
Court erred in granting acquittal, since a rational juror might have determined that the organizational structure and contacts sufficiently established the possibility of foreign direction and control.
Court erred in granting acquittal on Conspiracy, given the agreements, intent to fly below the radar, and decision not to file a notification with the AG.
One-sentence explanation for the granting of a new trial due to the weight of the evidence was categorically insufficient.
Court abused its discretion in holding that the jurors would not honor the limiting instruction on hearsay materials, given the volume of the materials; the ability of the jury to respect their instructions is an almost invariable assumption of the law.
Restricting the reasons for granting a new trial to the ones recited in the motion, including noting the cumulative error, is a jurisdictional limit.