Plaintiffs have brought an action against J.F. Nijboer, a Dutch financier, alleging that he defrauded them in his sale of an interest in Rijstaffel Indonesian Restaurants to them.

They offer to show that they complained to Nijboer two months after they purchased the interest. The meeting was the first time they had ever communicated face-to-face with Nijboer.

At the beginning of the meeting, Nijboer entered with a woman, who identified herself as Claire Williams. She told them that she was Nijboer's interpreter. She said she would translate anything that they said into Dutch for Nijboer, and anything Nijboer said into English for them.

Plaintiffs will testify that, although they understand very little Dutch, Williams seemed to translate everything they said into Dutch, which she relayed to Nijboer. Further, Nijboer seemed to be speaking Dutch, which she seemed to be translating into English for them.

They would testify, if permitted, that she said, at one point, "Dr. Nijboer says that the deal does not seem to be precisely as initially represented. He says, however, that he doesn't see that you have suffered any damage as a result." They wish to introduce the first statement against Nijboer.

Nijboer's counsel has made it clear that she will object to the testimony as hearsay. Do you think the following are good responses?

Multiple hearsay: Williams' statement is within 803(1) and Nijboer's within 801(d)(2)(A)