{"id":"court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_38","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 25-2726_dkt_38","summary_zh":"动议及请愿——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,第二巡回上诉法院 25-2726 号,ECF #38(公开涂改版2026年3月16日归档,原件3月9日提交)。CVRA 犯罪被害人 Ryan Bai(即 Ranyue Bai)以 pro se 身份提交'撤回调卷令并以修改案名重新申请 mandamus 及涂改个人信息'的动议,并附带其重新提起的《申请令状》及证据A-F,要求撤销2026年1月21日发出的调卷令、准许重新提起 mandamus、指令上传涂改版卷宗、以'In re: Ryan Bai'重新命名案名以保护隐私。Bai 主张地区法院曾将其未涂改的原始 mandamus 请愿以 Dkt. 765 公开归档,泄露其姓名、住址、邮箱及电话,且四个多月未受理其 CVRA 相关提交。","summary_en":"Motion & Petition — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), 2d Cir. No. 25-2726, ECF/DktEntry #38 (public redacted version docketed March 16, 2026; originally submitted March 9, 2026). Pro se CVRA crime-victim petitioner Ryan Bai (a.k.a. Ranyue Bai) filed a motion to recall this Court's January 21, 2026 mandate and renew his petition for a writ of mandamus under an amended caption ('In re: Ryan Bai') with personal information redacted, attaching a renewed Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Exhibits A-F. Bai alleges the district court publicly docketed his unredacted original mandamus filing (Dkt. 765), exposing his name, address, email and phone number, and that it has failed for over four months to docket his CVRA-related submissions.","body_en":"Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 1 of 54\ni\nPublic Redacted Documents for\nDocketing\n1;\n;°»~.8\n•\nii .\n;;1~;l\ng\ni\n...,..»1\nC5\"`»\ns\n- ' , '\n( . u\n\" , : I\n.'..4'.:\nI . \"in\n2\n- a l\nW I N  P\nl \" . l ; \\ ;\n:1\"\n(_./7\n`\\I\n843\n. .\n3\ni n\nv\"\n8\nRa\"\n~~\"\"x\n3 .. .\n.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 2 of 54\nCertificate of Service\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nIn re:l\nCase No: 25-2728\nSDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI, Ryan Bail\n, hereby certify as follows:\nOn March 09, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following\ndocuments:\n1: Motion to Recall the Mandate and Renew Petition for Mandamus with an\nAmended Caption, and to Redact Personal information\n2: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n3: Exhibit A-F\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\nExecuted on March 09, 2026.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRyan Bai\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 3 of 54\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND\nCIRCUIT\nIn re:\n, Petitioner\nSDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nSecond Circuit No. 25-2726\nMotion to Reeall the Mandate and Renew Petition for\nMandamus with an Amended Caption, and to Redact\nPersonal Information\nI, Ryan Bai, appearing pro se, pursuant to this Court's Order dated November 26,\n2025 (Exhibit C), which stated that the petition for mandamus was denied without\nprejudice to renewal if the district court failed to docket Petitioner's submissions\nwithin a reasonable time, respectfully move this Honorable Court to:\n1. Recall the Mandate issued on January 21, 2026.\n2. Permit renewal of the petition for a writ of mandamus.\n3. Direct that public or redacted versions of Petitioner's filings be\nuploaded to the public docket, including the redacted petition for writ of\nmandamus, the redacted version of this motion, and all accompanying\nexhibits.\n4. Redact personal identifying information, including any real names,\naddress, email address, or phone number appearing on the envelope,\n1080 form, or payment check.\n5. Seal the document under sealed envelopes.\n6. Amend the case caption to reflect In re: Ryan Bai, while maintaining\nthe same case number, in order to better protect my privacy.\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 and the Court's\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 4 of 54\ninherent authority to protect privacy and safety, redaction of such sensitive\ninformation and changing the caption is both necessary and appropriate.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRyan Bai I\nMarch 09, 2026\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 5 of 54\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\nIn re:\n,\nVictim in United States M Kwok, et al. ,\nSDNY No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nSecond Circuit Case No. 25-2726\nPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\nI. Introduction\nI, Ryan Bai, a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims' Rights Act\n(\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. §3771, respectfully submit this Renewed Petition for Writ of\nMandamus in Case No. 25-2726.\nMy initial Mandamus was docketed by this Court on October 28, 2025 which\nsought for relief to order the District Court to docket my suppressed motions\n(Exhibits A, B) and to direct the District Court to adjudicate the rule60(d) motion,\nwhich i filed in SDNY Dkt. 733.\n.\nThis renewal is filed pursuant to this Court's Order dated November 26, 2025\n(Exhibit C), which denied the prior petition without prejudice to renewal if the\ndistrict court fails to docket my submissions within a reasonable time, also denied\nwithout prejudice to renew the rule60(d) after sentencing. The present petition is\nlimited solely to the district court's continued failure to docket CVRA and related\nsubmissions. This petition does not seek renewal of any relief concerning\nRule 60(d)(3) and does not challenge any substantive ruling in the\nunderlying criminal case.\nII. Background and New Developments\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 6 of 54\n.\nDisclosure of My PII by the District Court and Failed to\nCorreet:\nIn proceedings before the district court, I have consistently redacted my\npersonally identifiable information (PII) in light of the heightened public\nattention surrounding this case and the likelihood of media review. Given\nthe extensive public commentary and third-party coverage associated with\nthe underlying criminal matter, l took precautionary measures to protect my\nprivacy in all district court filings.\nWhen i first filed pro se in the Second Circuit, I was unfamiliar with the\nCircuit's specific formatting and redaction practices. Accordingly, my initial\nappellate submission was not formatted with the same level of redaction as\nmy district court filings. This was not intentional noncompliance, but rather\na result of inexperience with appellate procedures.\nAfter the Southern District of New York docketed the unredacted version of\nmy mandamus petition as Dkt. 765, thereby publicly disclosing my name,\naddress, email, and telephone number, I promptly sought corrective relief. I\nsubmitted an emergency (Exhibit E) request to the SDNY Pro Se Intake\nseeking removal or sealing of the unredacted filing and replacing it with a\nredacted version on the same day I discovered the disclosure. I also tiled\nan emergency motion in this Court requesting that my mandamus petition\nbe sealed and replaced with a redacted version (25-2726 Dkt. 11). The\nClerk's Office of this Court promptly assisted me, and the motion was\ngranted on November 18, 2025. I am grateful for this Court's timely action\nto protect privacy interests.\nAfter this Court granted my motion to seal my original mandamus petition,\nthe District Court nevertheless docketed Dkt. 766, which was a redacted\nversion of my petition. Although the district court was aware that this Court\nhad sealed the original appellate filing, and although it was in possession\nof my properly redacted version, the district court has failed to remove or\nfurther redact the previously filed unredacted version (Dkt. 765).\nIn contrast, despite having been notified more than four months ago,\nthe district court has taken no action to remove or seal and properly\nredact Dkt. 765, leaving my personally identifiable information\npublicly accessible.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 7 of 54\n• Ongoing Secondary Victimization:\nIn recent weeks, there has been a coordinated online campaign targeting\npro se participants in this matter. My name and professional affiliation have\nbeen publicly referenced in connection with those attacks, creating a risk of\nintimidation and chilling effect on my continued exercise of statutory rights.\nI have documented these events in detail in Second Circuit Docket No.\n25-2726, Dkt. 35.\nThe failure to remedy the public disclosure of my unredacted\ninformation implicates my statutory right to dignity and privacy under\n18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(8) and has caused ongoing secondary\nvictimization through subsequent misuse of the disclosed\ninformation.\n.\nExpanded Mandamus Filing:\nBased on the above facts, E filed Exhibit D seeking expanded mandamus\nrelief in the month of November, 2025. However, due to the unique\nprocedural complexities of pro se appellate filings, that submission\ncontained procedural defects. The Court's original order regarding my\ninitial mandamus petition predated the docketing of the expanded filing. in\nan effort to comply with the applicable procedural requirements and to cure\nthe identified deficiencies, l submitted a Motion for Leave to Cure the\nExpanded Mandamus Petition on December 22, 2025 (Dkt. 26, 27),\nseeking permission to correct the defects and properly present the\nrequested relief. On January 15, 2026, this Court denied the Motion for\nLeave.\nIII. Concerns of CVRA and Record Integrity\n.\nNo CVRA Motion was Docketed Since this Court's Order:\nIt has been more than four months since this Court issued its order\non November 26, 2025 in Case No. 25-2726. During that period, the\ndistrict court has not docketed a single motion filed under the Crime\nVictims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"). Furthermore, during the district court's status\nconference held on January 20, 2026 (Exhibit F), the court made no\nreference to the CVRA or to any pending CVRA-related submissions. The\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 8 of 54\nonly statement remotely touching upon such filings was a passing\nreference to certain \"complaints\" that had been received. The\ncharacterization of filings asserting statutory CVRA rights as mere\n\"complaints\" raises concerns that the victim submissions have not\nbeen recognized or processed as motions invoking federally\nprotected rights.\nIn contrast, following the district court's status conference on January 20,\n2026, at least three additional related Mandamus petitions were docketed\nin this Court, including Case Nos. 26-361, 26-364, and 26-441 .\nThe fact that additional petitions from third parties continue to be\nfiled in this Court further demonstrates that the underlying\nissue--namely, the district court's failure to docket or process victim\nsubmissions-remains ongoing. Therefore, despite this Court's\nNovember 26, 2025 order, there has been no meaningful improvement in\nthe district court's handling of such filings.\nConcerns of Record Integrity :\n1: Inconsistent Treatment of Address Disclosure Raises Concerns\nRegarding Record Integrity:\nAs described in Exhibit D (the expanded mandamus submission), the\ndistrict court has previously recognized that the public disclosure of private\nhome addresses of individuals involved in this matter may pose risks to the\njudicial process. in SDNY Dkt. 7, the prosecution alleged that supporters of\nthe defendant had posted the private addresses of the Chapter 11 Trustee\nand related individuals online and encouraged protests at those locations.\nin SDNY Dkt. 51 , the district court referenced those allegations in\ndiscussing concerns regarding potential intimidation and obstruction. in\ncontrast, the district court subsequently docketed my unredacted\nmandamus petition as Dkt. 765, which contained my home address and\nother personally identifiable information. After discovering the disclosure, I\npromptly submitted an emergency request seeking redaction or sealing.\nDespite that request, the unredacted filing has remained publicly\naccessible for an extended period. This sequence of events appears\ndifficult to reconcile with the privacy concerns previously recognized\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 9 of 54\nin the case and raises concerns regarding the consistent application\nof privacy protections within the court record.\n2: Inconsist Docketing of Mandamus Filings Raises Procedural\nConcerns:\nAlthough I do not dispute that the District Court possesses discretion\nregarding docketing procedures, its prior practice reflects a consistent\napproach in treating certain Second Circuit mandamus submissions as\npart of the district court record. Specifically, several related mandamus\nmatters - including Nos. 25-2726, 25-3064, and 26-0077 - were\ndocketed on the SDNY docket. By contrast, recent filings, including Nos.\n26-0361, 26-0364, and 26-0441, have not been docketed to date. Where\nthe District Court has established a practice of docketing\nmandamus-related submissions, consistent application of that practice is\nnecessary to ensure procedural fairness and avoid arbitrary or inconsistent\ntreatment. Docketing decisions should follow neutral administrative criteria\nand not depend on the substantive content of a filing. Accordingly, the\nsame principle of consistent treatment should apply both to Exhibit D\n(Expanded Mandamus) and to the present Renewed Petition for Writ\nof Mandamus. As filings arising from the same appellate matter, they\nshould be processed in a manner consistent with the Court's prior\ntreatment of similar submissions in order to preserve record integrity and\nprocedural uniformity.\nIV. Cheney and 18 U.S.C. §3771(d)(3)\n.\nNo Other Adequate Means to Obtain Relief:\nin the October 28, 2025 Order in Case No. 25-2726, this Court denied the\npetition \"without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the\nsubmissions within a reasonable time.\" More than four months have\nelapsed since that order, my previously filed motions (Exhibits A and B)\nwere not docketed until recently.\nDespite the passage of time, the district court's January 20, 2026 status\nconference did not reference the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The only\nrelated statement characterized certain submissions as \"complaints,\"\nwithout addressing their statutory basis under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (Exhibit F).\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 10 of 54\nThe classification of CVRA submissions as \"complaints\" prevents\nthe creation of an appellate order and effectively forecloses ordinary\nappellate review.\nNotably, in connection with my initial mandamus petition, I contacted the\ndistrict court clerk's office and was informed that certain third-party\nsubmissions would not be uploaded to the public docket in order to \"protect\nprivacy.\" while privacy protection is a legitimate administrative objective,\nthe subsequent public docketing of my unredacted mandamus petition in\nDkt. 765-disclosing my PII-and the failure to timely correct or seal and\nredact that filing appear inconsistent with the stated privacy rationale.\nBecause the court has not implemented the prior directive permitting\nrenewal if docketing does not occur within a reasonable time, no adequate\nalternative remedy exists. Renewal of mandamus relief is therefore\nnecessary to preserve the statutory scheme and to give effect to this\nCourt's prior order.\n• A Clear and Indisputable Right to Relief\nThis Court's prior order on October 28, 2025 expressly contemplated\nrenewal of the mandamus petition if the district court failed to docket my\nsubmissions within a reasonable time.\nMore than four months have now elapsed, and the relevant submissions\nhave still not been docketed.\nAccordingly, the condition identified by this Court for renewal of the petition\nhas been satisfied .\n.\nMandamus is Appropriate Under the Circumstances\nFirst, more than four months have now elapsed since this Court's\nNovember 26, 2025 order permitting renewal if the district court failed to\ndocket the relevant submissions within a reasonable time. Despite the\npassage of that period, the district court has taken no corrective action.\nSecond, the requested relief would ensure that properly filed mandamus\nsubmissions - including those previously addressed by this Court - are\nconsistently docketed in a manner that preserves record completeness.\nSelective or inconsistent docketing may result in incomplete procedural\nrecord and undermine transparency.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 11 of 54\nThird, the continued public availability of my unredacted personally\nidentifiable information - including my full name, home address, and\nemployment-related information and failure to correct after I submitted an\nemergency motion- has resulted in online dissemination and subsequent\ntargeting (25-2726, Dkt. 35). The continued maintenance of unredacted\nfilings, despite emergency requests for correction, raises ongoing concerns\nregarding the reliability and completeness of the public record. When\nsensitive information remains publicly accessible without timely remedial\naction, limited supervisory intervention may be necessary to prevent\nfurther procedural harm.\nMandamus relief is therefore appropriate where needed to prevent\nprocedural deficiencies and to ensure that lower~court actions do not\nfrustrate this Court's supervisory authority.\nV. Relief Sought\nI respectfully request that this Court issue a renewed writ of mandamus directing\nthe following relief:\n1. Pursuant to this Court's November 26, 2025 Order in Case No. 25-2726, order\nthe district court to docket redacted CVRA motions, Exhibits A and B, on the\nSDNY docket.\n2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and applicable privacy rules and prevent\nfurther unauthorized dissemination of protected personal information, order the\ndistrict court to seal Dkt.765 or redact my PH including my real name, email,\nphone number and address in Dkt. 765.\n3. Pursuant to this Court's supervisory authority and in the interest of record\nintegrity and procedural consistency, order the district court to docket Exhibit D\nand the redacted version of present renewed petition consistent with its prior\npractice regarding related mandamus submissions, or in the alternative, issue a\nwritten order stating the grounds for any refusal to docket.\nRespectfully submitted:\nRyan Bai I\nMarch 09, 2026\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 12 of 54\nExhibit B Emergency Motion:\nCourt Must Stop Suppressing CRVA\nRights and Grave Misstep and\nDocket victim Motions and Prevent\nCollapse of Proceedings in Light of\nUnaddressed Prosecutorial Fraud -\nAfter Three Successive Defendants\nCounsel Failures, Victim Forced to\nSeek Rule 33 and Prosecution\nMisconduct with Prejudice Relief\n(RE: ECF 733,739,742,744)\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 13 of 54\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\n;\n;\n:\niii\ni\nHO WAN KWOK,a/kla MILES Guo, et al.,\nDefendants.\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n;\nEmergency Motion: Court Must Stop Suppressing CRVA Rights\nand Grave Misstep and Docket Victim Motions and Prevent\nCollapse of Proceedings in Light of Unaddressed Prosecutorial\nFraud -- After Three Successive Defendants Counsel Failures,\nVictim Forced to Seek Rule 33 and Prosecution Misconduct with\nPrejudice Relief (RE: ECF 733, 739, 742,744)\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nDear Judge Torres:\nBackground: The court has deprived victims of their rights.\nI, Ryan Bai, a recognized victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, previously filed ECF\nNo. 733 addressing serious prosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the court.\nRight after my document was docketed, another victim filed ECF Nos. 739, 742\nto attack my victim status, I filed ECF No. 744 to address these attacks\nsubsequently. However, I am now subject to systematic suppression by the\nClerk's Office of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New\nYork. My motion filed on September 14, 2025 which is also related to the fraud-\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 14 of 54\nupon-the-court issue, was suppressed for two weeks. Subsequently, on\nSeptember 19, 2025, I filed a motion to compel, which has now been suppressed\nfor one week. During this period, the prosecution, the trustee, and attorneys\nrepresenting other entities have faced no obstacles in accessing the docket.\nMeanwhile, all victims, including myself, have been systematically prevented\nfrom uploading any motions. This conduct by the Clerk's Office of the Southern\nDistrict of New York constitutes a systemic violation of victims' rights and\ninterests under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, specifically including, but not limited to, the\nfollowing :\n1.\n2.\n3.\nThe Right to Be Reasonably Heard (18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4))\nThe Right to Proceedings Free from Unreasonable Delay (18 U.S.C. §\n3771 (a)(7))\nThe Right to Be Treated with Fairness and Respect for Dignity and Privacy\n(18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8))\nThe procedures in this case have suffered a severe breakdown\nO\nDefense counsel have changed three times, yet none have raised the\ngovernment's Brady violations, highlighting a systemic defense failure.\no\nVictims have begun disputing one another's standing, and filings such as ECF\nNos. 739 and 742 seek to undermine victims' legitimacy by suggesting they are\naligned with the Defendant. In contrast, while the prosecution and the trustee\nfiled ECF Nos. 750, 751, to reply to a prior defense motion, it has entirely failed\nto address my earlier filing, ECF No. 733, which set forth allegations of\nprosecutorial fraud upon the Court. Allegations of fraud upon the Court should\nreceive the highest level of judicial attention, yet, rather than promptly confronting\nthese serious issues, the prosecution has disregarded them. This disparate\ntreatment demonstrates that the prosecution-even while accused of\nperpetrating fraud upon the Court-has been afforded preferential access to the\njudicial process, while victims raising substantive concerns have been excluded.\nSuch circumstances reveal a structural procedural failure undermining the\nfairness of these proceedings.\nO\nOther victims' counsel (e.g,, filings by Geyer) have been challenged as\nrepresenting problematic claims. These circumstances reflect a broader\ncollapse of procedural safeguards.\no\nThe Pro se filing has crashed the pro se department, the court has to recruit a\npro se manager to reduce the risk. This is another proof of the crash of the\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 15 of 54\njudicial process in this case\nI\no\ni\n1\nI\nThe current NFSC leader Qingteng (aka. Forrest Zhou/Yue Zhou) and\nspokesperson Ava Chan (aka Rechael, Sherry) registered as victims in Yvett\nWang's sentencing hearing, however, they have been continuously obstructing\ndefendant's sentencing proceeding by different means for more than 1 year,\nincluding faking visit record of federal prison, illegally endorsing the TDCCP\nvirtual currency in the name of the defendant, causing significant financial losses\nto followers. According to another NFSC member Laojiang, some investors in\nChina have already committed suicide as a result. Under Qingtent's leadership,\nthe Alliance also endorsed a suspicious account in the name of Guo's daughter,\nspreading suspicious information. However, the prosecution failed to react to\ntheir obstructing behavior, the prosecution failed to arrest, detain any NFSC\nco-conspirator (e.g. Yongbing Zhang who again claimed visited the MDC to\nmeet the defendant, meanwhile being identified as a co-conspiritor in\ndifferent court documents), and failed to clarify these suspicious activities\nby the alleged co-conspirator, failed to address some victims's obstructing\nbehaviors, which proofs that the prosecution failed to fulfill its obligation.\nO\nAs I mentioned in ECF No. 733, the trustee and the prosecution have never\naddressed the creditor registration issue (Gongzu, Julia) from the beginning of\nthis case until now, recent filings 750 and 751 serve as the strongest evidence of\ncontinued collaboration between Luc and the prosecution in engaging in\nmisconduct and perpetrating fraud upon the court.\no\nThe prosecution has failed to oppose Trustee Luc A. Despins, despite\nbeing aware that his role prioritizes the interests of creditors-many of\nwhom, as demonstrated in ECF No. 738, are largely unreliable-over the\ninterests of victims in this case.\nO\nECF No. 733, authored by a victim rather than the defendant's counsel,\nexposes serious misconduct and fraud upon the court by the prosecution and the\ntrustee, Luc A. Despins. This filing stands as the most compelling evidence of a\nsystemic procedural breakdown in this case.\nO\nThe Court's Mailing of Orders to Mainland China Victim»Petitioners Constitutes\na GraveMisstep:\nOn September 22 and 24, 2025, the Court docketed two \"return mail\" entries\nrelated to victim~petitioners Chunk Chyi and Beibei Zhu. These entries confirm\nthat the Clerk's Office mailed court orders directly to addresses in mainland\nChina. At the outset, I a hundred percent agree with Judge Torres' prior\nstatement that this case is an economic matter without political elements.\nHowever, that characterization applies only within the United States. in practice,\nfor victim-petitioners who currently reside in mainland China, participation in this\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 16 of 54\ncase carries severe political consequences far beyond the courtroom. By mailing\ncourt documents to these individuals, the Court has inadvertently triggered highly\ncomplex political risks and, more gravely, exposed victims to catastrophic\nscenarios in which their personal liberty and very lives may be endangered. The\ndanger was not speculative. In ECF No. 507, filed by victim-petitioner Chunk\nChyi, he himself warned: \"I am not sure whether what I wrote will lead to my\narrest by the Chinese government.\" This was explicit notice on the record of the\nrisk. Yet, notwithstanding that warning, the Court continued to mail sensitive\norders to mainland China addresses. Such conduct constitutes a grave misstep\nand violates core statutory rights guaranteed to victims under the Crime Victims'\nRights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771):\nO\nThe Right to Be Treated with Fairness and Respect for Dignity and Privacy (§\n3771 (a)(8)): Exposing victims to known foreign-state reprisals by disclosing their\nparticipation is the antithesis of fairness and dignity.\ni\no\nThe Right to Reasonable Protection from the Accused and Others (§ 3771(a)(1)):\nWhile the statute usually concerns protection from the defendant, its logic\nextends to foreseeable external dangers. Mailing to hostile jurisdictions\nrecklessly disregards this protection.\nO\nThe Right to Proceedings Free from Unreasonable Delay (§3771(a)(7)): By\ncreating conditions where victims may be detained, silenced, or placed at risk,\nthe Court has jeopardized their ability to participate without delay or obstruction.\nThis risk is further corroborated by defense witness Yijian Hu, who testified in\nopen court about the political reprisals he personally suffered as a direct\nconsequence of this case. While I fully support Judge Torres' prior statement\nthat this case is fundamentally an economic matter without political\nelements, the Court cannot ignore the evidentiary reality that Mr. Hu's ordeal\nmust have been genuine - for if it were not, his testimony would amount to\nperjury. Thus, whether the Court wishes to acknowledge political dimensions or\nnot, the political risks faced by participants in mainland China are undeniable.\nAs trained judicial officers, the Court and Clerk's Office are expected torecognize\nthese foreseeable risks. The decision to mail orders into such a hostile\njurisdiction was therefore not a harmless clerical error, but a grave misstep\nthat disregarded both the record before the Court and the predictable\nconsequences to vulnerable victims.\nIn sum, the Court's mailing practice did not merely constitute a clerical\nlapse -- it placed victims in jeopardy of state retaliation and life-threatening\nconsequences. That decision, even if unintended, represents a systemic\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 17 of 54\nbreakdown in safeguarding victim rights and must be urgently addressed\nto prevent irreparable harm.\nRisk of Becoming The Most Extreme Instance of Judicial Fraud\nSince the Founding of The Nation:\nAs l listed in my motion on Sep 14, 2025 which was suppressed by the Court, I\nwould list the same comparison here:\nComparative Gravity\nThis case exceeds the seriousness of both Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. and\nStrickland v. Washington from two perspectives:\nt.\nFraud-upon-the-Court (Hazel-Atlas comparison).\nIn Hazel-Atlas, fraud was limited to the concealment of a single ghostwritten article\nthat misled the Third Circuit. Here, the misconduct is broader and systemic:\nO\nAccording to EFT No. 733 and the attached report, the prosecution and\nTrustee Luc A. Despins repeatedly misled multiple judges (Judge Parker,\nJudge Torres, Judge Manning, and the Second Circuit) across separate\nproceedings.\nO\nThe concealment and distortion of Brady material-such as Defendant's\nJanuary 10, 11, and 23, 2023, broadcasts identifying problematic creditors-\nresulted in long-termreliance on false premises that shaped bail, forfeiture,\nand bankruptcy rulings.\nO\nThe fraud is not an isolated episode but a two-year structural practice of\ndeceiving courts and suppressing evidence.\n2. Ineffective Assistance and Defense Breakdown (Strickland comparison).\nIn Strickland, the Court recognized ineffective assistance where one defense lawyer\nfailed to adequately investigate mitigating evidence. In this case, however:\nO\nThree successive defense teams have ignored or declined to raise the\nprosecution's Brady violations and systemic misconduct.\nO\nDefendant himself, in ECF No. 700, discharged his counsel and stated he was\n\"very disappointed\" because \"not even the basics\" were done.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 18 of 54\nO\nThe consistent failure across multiple lawyers reflects not mere negligence but\na structural collapse of the defense function, leaving victims-not defense\ncounsel-to identify prosecutorial violations.\nTherefore, the scale of judicial fraud here surpasses Hazel-Atlas, which involved\nonly one appellate misrepresentation, the defense failure here far exceeds the\nindividual lapse in Strickland, amounting to systemic.ineffective assistance\nacross multiple counsel over years.\nNo case in the history of the United States has exhibited such an\nunprecedented degree of severity in both prosecutorial misconduct and\nineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, this case satisfies the\ncriteria to be regarded as the most extreme instance of judicial fraud since\nthe founding of the nation.\nFirst Victim-Led Exposure of Systemic Judicial Misconduct in\nU.S. History:\nAs reflected in the record (see ECF No. 733 and accompanying exhibits), the\nevents in this case have placed me in an unprecedented position within the\nhistory of American criminal procedure. I have no formal legal training, I am not a\nparty's lawyer, and l have no institutional authority to conduct litigation. Yet,\nfaced with a multi~Iayered collapse of adversarial safeguards --~ successive\ndefense teams that failed to investigate or to vindicate evidentiary matters crucial\nto fairness, and prosecutorial and trustee conduct that the record now shows\nmay have misled multiple courts - l was compelled, as a private citizen and an\ninjured investor, to undertake the factual and documentary investigation that the\nadversarial system did not produce.\nWhat I have submitted to this Court is not conjecture. it is a compilation of\ndocumentary evidence, timestamps, public broadcasts, and court filings that,\nwhen read together, present a coherent account of procedural failures and\npossible misconduct (ECF No. 733). That a non-lawyer victim -- acting alone\nand without institutional power ....-. has assembled and presented this body of\nmaterial, which bears directly on the integrity of the entire procedure, including\nthe bail proceedings, and the forfeiture process etc, is itself historically\nsignificant. lt demonstrates that the ordinary checks and balances of the criminal\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 19 of 54\n•\n•\n.\n.\nI hold no prejudice against the defendant's political inclinations and\nmaintain a neutral stance.\n.\nI fully support Judge Torres' characterization of this case as an economic\nmatter, devoid of political elements.\nAs a victim, although I have exposed the systemic fraud upon the court\nand collaborative misconduct by the prosecution and trustee Luc, I remain\nin opposition to the defendant, whose actions have undeniably caused\nprofound harm to my investments.\nAlthough I, as a victim, have exposed the collaborative misconduct\nand fraud upon the court by the prosecution and Luc, I believe they\nare not the primary parties responsible. If the three successive\ndefense counsel teams had not all turned a blind eye to the\nprosecution's violations, the current absurd situation would not have\narisen. Therefore, l assert that defense counsel should take proactive\nresponsibility for addressing the systemic procedural breakdown.\nAccordingly, I respectfully request that the Court:\n.\n•\n.\nRecognize the systemic breakdown of adversarial safeguards in this case,\nas documented in ECF No. 733 and subsequent filings, where\nprosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the Court were exposed not by\ndefense counsel, but by the victim myself.\nBecause victims in this case have been subjected to systemic\nsuppression - by the defendant and by the prosecution and Trustee\nthrough concealment of evidence, by Defendant's successive\ncounsel through repeated failure to set, and most recently by the\nCourt's Clerk's Office through suppression of victim filings - I, as a\nvictim, am left with no meaningful procedural remedy. It is only under\nthese extraordinary circumstances that I am compelled to request\nthat Defendant's counsel be directed to state, within fourteen (14)\ndays, whether they intend to move for a new trial under Rule 33 and\nto raise Prosecutorial Misconduct with Prejudice, or to explain why\nthey decline to do so.\nAffirm that victims must not be silenced or suppressed, and that filings\nexposing fraud upon the Court should be docketed and adjudicated rather\nthan ignored, in compliance with 18 u.s.c. § 3771, also no suppressing in\nfuture filings,\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 20 of 54\n!\ni\nI\nI\n1\n¥\n2\ng\ng\n.\n•\nUpload the public version of this motion and the attached Chinese version\nto the public while maintaining the signed version under seal on the Clerk's\ndocket for the Court's full consideration.\nThat the Clerk of Court cease mailing any court orders, notices, or\ncorrespondence to victim-petitioners with known addresses in mainland\nChina, unless such victim-petitioners have expressly and affirmatively\nrequested delivery to those addresses in writing, so as to avoid creating\nforeseeable risks of political retaliation, personal harm, or other irreparable\ninjury.\nGrant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\nE\ni!\nI\nI\nI|.\nI\nEI\n!I!1I\nE\n5l!\nI\nrI!\nEII:\n|.I\nDue to the Court's ongoing suppression of victim filings, I am left\nwith no choice but to notify all relevant stakeholders to ensure\ntransparency and protect victims' statutory rights. These\nstakeholders include, but are not limited to:\na\ni\ni\n:\ni\ni\n.\nii!I:\nE\n3\n.\n.\nDefendant's current and former counsel, who bear primary\nresponsibility for addressing Prosecutorial Misconduct with\nPrejudice and Rule 33 issues;\nThe United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York,\nincluding supervisory prosecutors overseeing this matter,\nJudicial Conduct and Disability Committee of the Second Circuit, which\nhas supervisory responsibility regarding the fair administration of justice,\nVictim Rights Committees and the Court-appointed Victim Coordinator, as\nsuppression of filings directly violates 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ,\nOther victims and third-party petitioners under 21 U.S.C. § 853, whose\nrights are equally jeopardized by procedural suppression,\nRelevant congressional oversight committees, should judicial and\nprosecutorial misconduct rise to the level of systemic failure.\nReservation of Rights\nI expressly reserve my rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, including the right to seek\nmandamus review before the Second Circuit if this motion is ignored or denied\nwithout adjudication, as well as any additional remedies available under law.\nDeclaration of Good Faith: I submit this motion in good faith and not for any\nimproper purpose. The factual assertions and exhibits referenced herein are\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 21 of 54\na\niI\nsI\nII1\n4\nsI\ns\n8II\niI\nI\niIEi:|.\nI\n:I\ni\n:aI:Is\niI\ni\nEI!\nExhibit A: Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754:\n|I\nI|\nAddressing Complicity in Court Fraud\nand Urging Discussion of Judicial\nRecusal\na\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 22 of 54\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK,a/kla MILES Guo, et al.,\nDefendants.\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nMotion to Oppose Dkt. 754: Addressing Complicity in\nCourt Fraud and Urging Discussion of Judicial Recusal\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nI. Introduction\nI, Ryan Bai, as a victim of this case, submit this Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754 to address\nthe ongoing and unresolved issues highlighted in my prior filing, Dkt. 733, regarding\nprosecutorial misconduct and suspected court fraud. For over one month, my Dkt. 733\nreport detailing judicial fraud and systemic prosecutorial misconduct has gone\nunaddressed by the Court, the prosecution, or defense counsel.\nDespite this, Dkt. 754-filed by defense counsel-advances forfeiture proceedings,\nostensibly to mitigate the risk of asset depletion. However, given the unresolved\nallegations in Dkt. 733, any action to advance forfeiture is procedurally improper.\nBased on the allegations of prosecutorial fraud outlined in Docket 733 and the\naccompanying report, all associated forfeiture orders, including the Preliminary Order of\nForfeiture (POF), are null and void, thereby rendering any further proceedings\nfundamentally illegitimate.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 23 of 54\nThe recent filings, including Dkt. 754 and the Government's Dkt. 750, exemplify fraud\nupon the court and suggest possible collusion between defense counsel and the\nprosecution, as neither party has acknowledged or acted on the unresolved issues I\nraised regarding asset control, creditor disputes, or the Trustee's role in the bankruptcy\nestate.\nII. Background\nAs outlined in Dkt. 733, for over two years the prosecution failed to verify or correct\ncreditor issues with Luc, resulting in severe harm to victims tike myself. The report\ndocuments systemic misconduct across multiple courts, including Judge Parker,\nJudge Torres, and the Second Circuit, posing a direct threat to the integrity of judicial\ndecisions.\nDespite these allegations, the Court, the prosecution, and defense counsel have\nremained silent, allowing forfeiture proceedings to advance under a potentially\nfraudulent framework. Defense counsel's Dkt. 754 motion requests the Court to\nauthorize the Government to manage forfeiture of assets from Luc. While intended to\nprotect against asset depletion, this request implicitly advances a procedure that is\ninvalid as documented in Dkt 733.\nI have previously requested under Rule 60 that the Court void the existing forfeiture\norders and appoint a neutral third-party receiver or master to oversee any forfeiture\nproceedings. To date, this motion has received no response, and no party has acted\nto halt or correct the ongoing forfeiture process.\nIll. Procedural Impropriety and Complicity\n1. Advancing Forfeiture Without Addressing Fraud Allegations:\nProceeding with forfeiture under the current circumstances is procedurally\nimproper because it assumes the legitimacy of orders that may be null and\nvoid due to alleged court fraud. Defense counsel's Dkt. 754 motion, by\nrequesting the Government to seize and manage assets, risks facilitating fraud\nupon the court rather than protecting victims' interests.\n2. Complicity Concerns:\nThe prosecution's continued inaction after Dkt. 733, combined with defense\ncounsel's Dkt. 754 motion, prosecution's Dkt. 750 and the Court's silence, raises\nthe reasonable suspicion of collaborative complicity in court fraud. The\nongoing forfeiture process is proceeding without any corrective oversight, despite\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 24 of 54\nclear documentation of prior misconduct.\n3. Judicial Silence and Impaired impartiality:\nAs documented in Dkt.733 and the attached report, Judge Torres has been\nexposed to fraudulent filings multiple times and, despite my victim report, has\nremained silent. This raises serious concerns regarding judicial impartiality\nand the Court's ability to oversee the forfeiture process fairly. Both defense\ncounsel and the Court should have acted to correct procedural collapse or\npause the forfeiture process until fraud allegations are addressed. Judicial\nsilence in the face of substantiated fraud allegations constitutes constructive\nacquiescence, which is incompatible with due process obligations under the Fifth\nAmendment.\nIV. Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CRVA)\nThe continuation of forfeiture proceedings despite unresolved allegations of court fraud\nconstitutes a direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771 ).\nAs a victim, I have the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect, and to be\nreasonably heard in proceedings involving the forfeiture of assets derived from the\noffense. By suppressing Dkt. 733 and disregarding its content, the Court, prosecution,\nand defense have collectively deprived victims of their statutory right to participate in a\nfair and transparent process.\nThe CRVA requires that victims' concerns-particularly those alleging prosecutorial\nmisconduct and fraud upon the court affecting the legitimacy of forfeiture-be\naddressed before any substantive action proceeds. Advancing forfeiture under\nfraudulent conditions not only undermines procedural justice but also perpetuates the\nvery harm that the CRVAwas enacted to prevent.\nThis systemic disregard for victims' procedural rights reinforces the appearance that\nboth the Court and counsel are complicit in shielding institutional misconduct rather than\nensuring accountability and redress for victims.\nV. Continuation of the Systematic Breakdown Identified in the September\n28 Motion (suppressed and not docketed)\nThe ongoing pattern of silence and procedural deviation directly aligns with the\n\"systematic breakdown of judicial process\" described in my prior motion submitted on\nSeptember 28, which the Court failed to docket. That motion detailed how multiple\nactors-the prosecution, defense, and the Could-have allowed structural defects in\ndue process to persist, including the suppression of victim filings, selective docketing,\nand the failure to correct known creditor registration issues.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 25 of 54\n3\ni\njustice system were, in practice, ineffective in identifying or correcting the\nproblems at issue.\nThis Court should treat that fact not as a rhetorical flourish but as a sober\nevidentiary reality with consequences. The reality that a private injured party was\nforced into the investigatory role normally borne by counsel and prosecutors is a\nmeasure of systemic breakdown, it is an indicium that ordinary institutional\nremedies may have been exhausted or rendered ineffective. For victims, for\ndefendants, and for the public's confidence in the rule of law, that reality compels\nrigorous, transparent review rather than perfunctory dismissal.\nI do not claim any glory in this role. I present it only to place the Court on notice\nof why the matters raised in ECF No. 733 - and the remedies I request - are\nnot peripheral or speculative: they are the product of an extraordinary factual\nrecord compiled by a private victim precisely because responsible counsel and\npublic officers did not do so. The import of that record, and the remedy\nappropriate to it, are questions this Court must confront on their merits.\nAs an immigrant born in mainland China and later naturalized as a United States\ncitizen, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to participate in this case,\nmade possible by the robust foundation of the American legal system and the\ncontinuous efforts of our nation's founders to refine and perfect judicial\nprocesses. My actions in this matter are driven by a deep belief in the principles\nof judicial independence and fairness, which I seek to uphold in honor of their\nlegacy. l express my gratitude to the United States for embracing me as a citizen,\nand I remain steadfast in my faith in the American judicial system. My efforts in\nthis case are a commitment to advancing the pursuit of justice and equity, as\nenvisioned by those who established this nation's legal framework.\nWhen future generations examine this chapter of history, some will be\nremembered as heroes and others as jesters. At the very least, I have refused to\nbe the latter.\nStatements :\nBefore seeking relief, I wish to make the following declarations:\n.\nI hold no prejudice against the Chinese government and maintain a neutral\nstance.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 26 of 54\nThese failures are not isolated procedural oversights but manifestations of an\ninstitutionalized collapse of judicial integrity. The scope and depth of misconduct and\nfraud upon the court issue that is documented in Dkt. 733 and the September 28 motion\narguably constitute the most serious instances of judicial fraud in the history of the\nUnited States-surpassing the misconduct standards addressed in Hazel-Atlas Glass\nCo. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) and the ineffective assistance\nthresholds defined in Strickland v. Washington.\nThe current advancement of forfeiture proceedings, while the Court remains silent on\nDkt. 733, is a continuation of that systemic failure. It demonstrates that the Court's\nadministrative and substantive processes have been compromised to a degree that no\nlonger ensures impartial adjudication or transparency. This continued procedural\nbreakdown not only denies victims access to lawful remedies but also institutionalizes\nmisconduct, making judicial correction impossible unless external oversight-such as a\nneutral receiver or independent master-is imposed .\nVI. Constitutional Violations Underlying Procedural Collapse\nThe continued advancement of forfeiture proceedings, while the Court has failed to\naddress the substantiated allegations of prosecutorial fraud, constitutes multiple\nconstitutional violations. First, it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth\nAmendment, because property deprivation and related procedural actions are\nproceeding on a foundation potentially tainted by fraud upon the court, depriving victims\nof a fair and lawful process. Second, it implicates the Equal Protection Clause of the\nFourteenth Amendment, as victim filings and critical reports-like Dkt. 733 and the\nsuppressed September 28 motion-have been ignored, while prosecution and defense\nfilings are selectively docketed and acted upon. Third, the ongoing procedural collapse\nundermines the Sixth Amendment right to fair representation, as defense counsel,\nby advancing forfeiture under conditions of suspected fraud without addressing these\ncritical issues, may be complicit in perpetuating a procedurally invalid process.\nCollectively, these constitutional failures demonstrate that the judicial process has been\ncompromised to the point of causing direct and ongoing harm to victims' rights,\nnecessitating immediate corrective intervention.\nVII. Call for Corrective Action\nThe Court, the prosecution, and defense counsel have each failed to respond to my\nprior filing, Dkt. 733, which detailed credible and document-supported allegations of\nprosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the court. Despite the gravity of these\nallegations, all parties have proceeded with substantive actions -- including the\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 27 of 54\nadvancement of forfeiture proceedings under Dkt. 754 - as though no such allegations\nexist.\nThis constitutes a procedural collapse that strikes at the core of due process and the\nintegrity of the judicial system. Under long-standing constitutional principles, no court\nmay continue substantive proceedings where there is an unresolved claim that prior\norders or filings were procured through fraud. Doing so renders all subsequent\nproceedings void ab initio, as actions built upon fraudulent or procedurally tainted\nfoundations cannot carry legal validity.\nGiven the circumstances, I respectfully request the following:\n1.\nraised in Dkt. 733 are addressed,\nImmediate suspension of all ongoing forfeiture procedures until the issues\n2.\nforfeiture proceedings, as no party implicated in Dkt. 733 should control the\nprocess,\nAppointment of a neutral third~party receiver or master to oversee any\n3. Discussion of judicial recusal due to the Court's exposure to fraudulent filings\nand compromised impartiality,\n4. Transparency requirement: if no discussion or action regarding indicial recusal\noccurs within 14 days, I request that the Court publicly state its reasons for\ndeclining to address the issue.\nThese steps are necessary to protect victims' rights, ensure procedural legitimacy, and\nrestore confidence in the judicial process. Proceeding without these measures risks\nfurther damage to victims' rights and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRyan Bar\n\n---\n\ni\n:\ni\nI\ni:\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 28 of 54\n;\na\nEIs.|s\nIiI::\n!IIIII\nI:\nII\nIII\nIi!\nII\nIII\nE\nii\nExhibit C: Order on November 26, 2025\nfor 25-2726\n:\n|\n:\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 29 of 54\nS.D.N.Y.\nN.Y.C.\n23-cr-l 18\nTorres, J.\nUnited States Court of Appeals\nFOR THE\nSECOND CIRCUIT\nAt a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\nCircuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,\nin the City of New York, on the 261\" day of November, two thousand twenty-five.\nPresent:\nDennis Jacobs,\nJoseph F. Bianco,\nCircuit Judges,\nVictor A. Bolden,\nDistrict Judge. *\nIn Re: Ranyue Bai,\n25-2726\nPetitioner.\nPetitioner, pro se, has tiled a petition ion' a writ of mandamus directing the district court to cease\nsuppressing his future filings, docket his submitted but undocketed motions, and rule on his\npending Rule 60(d)(3) motion.\nUpon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the\nmandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner has not demonstrated that his right to the writ\nis clear and indisputable, and that granting the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. See\nCheney p. U.S Dial. CI..bI' D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).\nIn view of' the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court\nwill address expeditiously, Petitioner's mandamus petition as to docketing his submissions is\ndenied without prejudice to renewal it' the district court fails to docket the submissions within a\nreasonable time.\n*\nT\nsitting by designation.\nJudl,e Victor A. Bolden, of the United States District Court tb' the District otlConnecticut,\n\n---\n\n............\n.........................\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 30 of 54\nLikewise, the denial as to his Rule 60(d)(3) motion is without prejudice to renewal if the\ndistrict court fails to take action within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying\ncriminal case. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 41 l\nn.l6 (2d Cir. 2008).\nFOR THE COURT:\nCatherine O'I-Iagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court\nseCOun\n)@%~°~\nSecond Circuit\nA True Copy\nCatherine O'Hagan We\nU n i t e d  S t a t e s  c o u r t\nf + € u\n1.44\nwe I\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 31 of 54\n;\n:\n|\ni\n:\n4\n'.i\ng\n8\ng\n1\nI\ngr\ns\n3\n.\n3\n:\nExhibit D:\nSUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR\nEXPANDED MANDAMUS\nRELIEF DUE TO SDNY'S RETALIATORY\nPII DISCLOSURE\n5\\IIiiI\nE\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 32 of 54\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE\nSECOND CIRCUIT\nCase No. 25-2726\nIn re Ryan Ba\nX RE1'\\,\nPetitioner\nSUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR EXPANDED MANDAMUS\nRELIEF DUE TO SDNY'S RETALIATORY PII DISCLOSURE\nTo the Clerk of Court and the Honorable Judges of the Second Circuit:\nI. INTRODUCTION\nI, Ryan Bai\na crime victim appearing pro se under the\nCrime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully move this\nHonorable Court to expand the scope of my pending mandamus petition\n(docketed October 28, 2025), in right of the Southern District of New York's\nretaliatory disclosure of my personally identifiable information (\"Pll\") in United\nStates v. Ho Wan Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 765. SDNY's\nretaliatory public filing has impaired this Court's ability to conduct independent\nmandamus review, by exposing the CVRA victim-petitioner and chilling protected\nparticipation, thereby interfering with this Court's jurisdiction.\n_\n\"\\_ aw\n.,.\n'.*/, ~\n,:* \\¢/f\nThis filing seeks not to reopen the merits of any criminal conviction, but to invoke\nthis Court's supervisory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to remedy a\nstructural collapse of due process and protect the integrity of ongoing\nproceedings.\nII. BACKGROUND\nAfter the SDNY repeatedly refused to docket my two prior victim motions, I\nsought mandamus relief in this Court. The Second Circuit docketed my original\nmandamus petition on October 28, 2025.\nHowever, on October 29, the Southern District of New York (\"SDNY\") publicly\nfiled the unredacted version of my original mandamus petition as Dkt. 765,\ndisclosing my real name, home address, email address, and phone number. As\nsoon as E discovered this filing, I immediately submitted an emergency request to\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 33 of 54\nthe SDNY Pro Se Intake (attached as Exhibit C), asking the district court to\nremove Dkt. 765 from public access and replace it with a properly redacted\nversion to protect my personally identifiable information (\"PII\"). On the same day,\nbecause I did not know how SDNY obtained the unredacted petition, I also filed\nan emergency motion in this Court requesting that my original mandamus petition\nbe placed under seal and substituted with a redacted version, in order to mitigate\nany further risk.\nFollowing my filing, the Clerk's Office of this Court assisted me in completing the\nnecessary steps, and the motion was granted on November 18, 2025. I am\ngrateful for the prompt actions taken by the Clerk and the Court to protect a crime\nvictim's privacy interests.\nIn contrast, more than fourteen days have passed since the emergency motion\nwas submitted to the SDNY, yet the district court has taken no action to\nsafeguard my information. As a result of SDNY's public disclosure, my personal\ninformation has already been cited and circulated on social media, causing me\nirreparable personal harm.\nThis act was entirely discretionary - the Second Circuit had issued no order\ninstructing SDNY to file my petition. When I verified with the Second Circuit\nClerk's Office on October 29, they confirmed no directive had been transmitted.\nTherefore, SDNY's act of docketing my unredacted mandamus filing was a self-\ninitiated, retaliatory act.\nOn November 19, 2025, SDNY took an even more anomalous step by uploading\nDkt. 766, a redacted version of my mandamus petition that had been submitted\nsolely as an attachment to my emergency motion in this Court. That attachment\nwas never docketed on the docket of this Court, yet SDNY nevertheless\nuploaded it to SDNY docket while refusing to remove or seal Dkt. 765, the\nunredacted filing exposing my Pit. This sequence demonstrates selective and\nretaliatory docketing rather than clerical error.\nIll. EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION\n1. Retaliatory Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information by the\nSDNY\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 34 of 54\nFollowing my earlier victim filings (Dkt. 744 and Dkt. 733), SDNY barred all\nnon-ECF third-party victim filings, claiming it was \"to protect privacy.\" Yet\nthe Court then uploaded my unredacted mandamus petition, exposing\nprecisely the personal data it was obligated--and had previously claimed-to\nprotect.\nPrior to filing this mandamus petition, I was required to mail a service copy of\nthe petition to the SDNY, meaning the district court already possessed a\nproperly redacted version suitable for public docketing. Rather than using\nthat version, the SDNY deliberately retrieved the original unredacted filing\nfrom other resources and uploaded it to the district court docket. Such an act\ngoes far beyond mere clerical oversight, it constitutes a retaliatory disclosure\nin direct response to the petitioner's laMul filings that had raised procedural\nirregularities and misconduct within the district court. This retaliatory action\nnot only violated privacy protections under Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and Fed. R.\nCiv. P. 5.2 but also caused irreparable harm by making sensitive personal\ninformation permanently accessible to the public, therefore violates my\nCVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.\nDespite already being in possession of a redacted version of my mandamus\npetition, SDNY nevertheless uploaded the redacted petition that I submitted\nas part of my emergency motion in this Court to SDNY docket as Dkt. 766.\nThis means the SDNY accessed, extracted, and selectively docketed\nmaterials that I mailed to the Court of Appeals. Such conduct has no\nbasis in any federal rule and constitutes a direct intrusion into the\nappellate process.\nEven more troubling, while uploading the redacted version, the SDNY has\nstill refused to remove the unredacted version (Dkt. 765) as of December 19,\n2025, despite having full knowledge that a redacted version exists.\nThis dual action--(1) refusing to remove the harmful filing for more than\n14 days and (2) selectively uploading filings intended for appellate\nreview, despite already possessing a redacted version-demonstrates\nthat the SDNY's docketing conduct is not an accident or oversight, but\na pattern of retaliation, selective docketing, and interference with the\nappellate record.\n2. Pattern of Retaliatory Exposure\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 35 of 54\nThis is not the first instance of such conduct.\no In this case, Dkts. 723, 730, and 731 were all filed by the same pro se\npetitioner. Dkts. 730 and 731 were motions to compel docketing of Dkt.\n723, which had not been timely uploaded by the SDNY. Notably, in Dkt.\n731, the petitioner explicitly invoked privacy protection rules, stating:\n\"Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, Petitioner .\nfurther requests that personal identifiers (such as. passport numbers,\ngovernment-issued ID, and detailed residential address) be redacted from\nthe public docket, while the complete unredacted version remains under\nseal.\"\nNevertheless, in Dkt. 732, the SDNY inexplicably uploaded a duplicate\ncopy of the petitioner's Dkt. 723 filing - this time in unredacted form,\nthereby publicly exposing all of his personal identifying information,\nincluding his residence in mainland China. This filing served no legitimate\nprocedural purpose, it merely replicated the substance of Dkt. 723 while\nremoving the privacy protections the petitioner had expressly requested\nunder Rule 49.1 / 5.2. This action constitutes a clear act of retaliation by\nthe district court in response to the petitioner's prior filing (Dkt. 723), which\nraised concerns about procedural irregularities and judicial misconduct in\nthe handling of the case. By intentionally re-uploading the same motion\nwithout redaction, the court not only disregarded its duty to safeguard\npersonal information but also subjected the petitioner to grave and\nforeseeable risks, particularly given the sensitivity of this case and its\npotential implications in the People's Republic of China.\no SDNY mailed filings directly to Chinese citizens Chunk Chyi and Beibei\nZhu, then publicly docketed the returned envelopes containing their home\naddresses-a reckless act that could endanger lives.\n»\nThe pattern shows SDNY does not merely neglect privacy obligations-\nit selectively enforces privacy rules depending on whether the filer\ncriticizes procedural irregularities.\n3. A. Risk to Thousands of CVRA Victims (If the government's\nrepresentations are to be believed)\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 36 of 54\nThe government repeatedly emphasizes that this case involves thousands of\nvictims in Dkt. 7, 26, 192 etc. Yet, the Southern District Court's retaliatory\nactions-particularly the public disclosure of unredacted victim information in\nDkt. 765-demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety and privacy of\nthese individuals. If such retaliatory conduct is tolerated, the personal\ninformation of potentially thousands of CVRA-protected victims is placed in\nextreme jeopardy. I am compelled to advocate not only for personal protection\nbut also to safeguard the interests and rights of ail victims whose identities\nand sensitive information are at risk. This systemic failure underscores the\nurgent need for supervisory mandamus to prevent further harm and to restore\nthe integrity of the judicial process.\nIv. JUDICIAL BIAS\n1. Disparate Treatment of Pro Se Filings\nFollowing Dkt. 745, the Court barred all filings by third-party pro se victims\nfrom being uploaded to the public docket, while permitting submissions by\nattorneys through the ECF system. This distinction constitutes unequal\ntreatment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment\nand undermines the principles of equal access to the courts. By creating a\nsystem that privileges attorney-filed submissions over pro se filings, the\nCourt exhibited a clear bias against pro se victims.\n2. Appearance of Judicial impropriety Under Liteky I Caperton\nThe Court has previously recognized that the public disclosure of personal\naddresses constitutes a serious threat to the judicial process. For example,\nin Dkt. 7, the prosecution alleged that supporters of the defendant posted\nthe private home addresses of the Chapter 11 Trustee, the Trustee's\nfamily, and other related parties, calling for protests at these locations. In\nDkt. 51, Judge Torres cited such postings as evidence of obstruction of\njustice and intimidation of officers of the Court, and used this as a factor in\nthe defendant's bail denial. Yet, in direct contradiction to this precedent,\nthe Court itself has publicly posted the private addresses of a victim-\nmyself-and other self-represented petitioners in Dkts. 732 and 765. By\ntreating my filings in a manner that the Court has explicitly condemned in\nothers, the Court demonstrates a clear pattern of bias against pro se\npetitioners and victims, applying double standards in the administration of\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 37 of 54\njustice and disregarding the privacy protections mandated by Rule 49.1 /\n5.2.\nFurthermore, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009),\nestablishes that the probability of bias requiring recusal is heightened\nwhen a party is subjected to systemic disadvantage that could influence\nthe outcome. By publicly disclosing my personally identifiable information\nwhile previously criticizing similar disclosures by other parties (Dkt. 51 ), the\nCourt applied a double standard, fostering the appearance of impropriety\nand undermining public confidence in the impartial administration of\njustice.\n3. Selective Docketing and Ignored Allegations of Judieial Bias\nIn Dkt. 507, Chunk Chyi raised a formal challenge alleging judicial bias.\nWhile the Court referenced Dkt. 507 in its subsequent Order 528, it\nprovided no substantive response, explanation, or ruling regarding the\nrecusal request. By ignoring these allegations, the Court deprived the filer\nof a fundamental procedural right to a fair and impartial tribunal, in violation\nof the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.\nMoreover, under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a judge\nmust avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of\nimpropriety. The failure to address a recusal request-particularly when\nthe filer explicitly raises concerns about bias-creates a reasonable\nappearance that the proceedings may not be impartial. This selective\nconsideration undermines public confidence in the judiciary and\ncontaminates the procedural record, thereby impairing both ongoing and\nappellate review.\nv. SDNY'S ACTIONS THAT MISLED AND INTERFERED WITH THE SECOND\nCIRCUIT'S REVIEW\nThe SDNY docketed my original mandamus document not only violated my\nCVRA, but also interfered with the procedural safeguards and assumptions under\nwhich this Court conducts mandamus review, creating both practical and legal\ncomplications for independent evaluation.\n.\nCorruption of the Appellate Record: Mandamus review presupposes\nthat filings are secure, authentic, and free from unauthorized manipulation.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 38 of 54\nSDNY's unilateral public disclosure of an appellate filing injected an\nextrinsic and unauthorized element into the mandamus record,\nundermining the integrity of the materials before this Court. Specifically, by\ndocketing my appellate mandamus petition while simultaneously refusing\nto docket or acknowledge my properly submitted district~court motions\n(Exhibits A and B), SDNY created an irreconcilable procedural ambiguity.\nThe record is left in a contradictory posture: the filing is publicly visible as\nthough it had been accepted by the district court, yet it was never lawfully\nsubmitted to-or authorized for docketing in-that court. This is not a\nneutral clerical irregularity. lt distorts the procedural history of the case and\ninterferes with this Court's ability to conduct independent mandamus\nreview over matters committed exclusively to its appellate jurisdiction.\nThe unauthorized public filing of my original mandamus petition by the Southern\nDistrict of New York is not the first incident of procedural interference with\nthis Court. In Dkt. 733, I demonstrated that the prosecution relied on tainted\ncreditor registration evidence, which led to the district court's denial of the\ndefendant's bail. The defendant appealed, and this Court, in Dkt. 87, likewise\ndenied the appeal:\n\"Ho Wan Kwok appeals a district cowl' order denying him pre-trial release on the\nbasis that he posed a serious risk of flight and obstruction ofjustice, that he\nposed a danger to the community...\"\nAs detailed in Dkt. 733, the \"obstruction of justice\" finding incorporated the\ntainted evidence submitted by the prosecution. Further, as explained in Section\nlV(2) of this Supplemental Petition regarding Judicial Bias, the district court's\nretaliatory public disclosure of my address contaminates Judge Torres' prior\nreliance in Dkt. 51 on similar disclosures by supporters of Ho Wan Kwok to justify\nobstruction of justice, which may have also influenced this Court's denial of the\ndefendant's appeal in Dkt. 87.\nThus, SDNY's actions have repeatedly interfered with this Court's independent\nreview, affecting both the factual and procedural integrity of the appellate record.\nVI. CRONIC STRUCTURAL ERROR\nThe defendant terminated his counsel in Dkt. 700, stating that the representation\nprovided \"not even the basics\" and expressing that \"| am very disappointed.\" This\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 39 of 54\ncircumstance illustrates why, as a victim, I was able to identify the fraud upon the\ncourt allegedly committed by the prosecutors and Trustee Luc, and subsequently\nsubmit Dkt. 733, while the defendant's three successive counsel failed to detect\nit. This alone demonstrates that the defense process has systemically\ncollapsed. As referenced in Exhibit B to the Mandamus petition, from both the\nperspective of judicial fraud and attorney failure, the severity of the irregularities\nin this case far exceeds the scope addressed in landmark U.S. Supreme Court\ncases such as Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238\n(1944), and Washington v. District of Columbia, 802 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1986). I\nhave detailed in Exhibit B attached to the Mandamus petition that the specific\ncomparisons between this case and Hazel-Atlas, Hartford-Empire Co., and\nWashington, highlighting how the misconduct and systemic failures here surpass\nthose historic precedents. The irregularities in this case-irlcluding systemic\nfailure of defense counsel, alleged prosecutorial fraud, and the mishandling of\nvictim and evidentiary disclosures-surpass the magnitude of these historic\nprecedents. Therefore, this case poses the risk of becoming one of the largest\ninstances of judicial fraud in American history.\nVII. RELIEF REQUESTED\nI invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a), the All Writs Act, which authorizes this Court to\n\"issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and\nagreeable to the usages and principles of law.\" I submit that the relief requested\nherein-necessary to protect CVRA victims, correct procedural defects, and\nprevent further retaliation-is precisely the type of writ contemplated by §\n1651 (a).\nMoreover, I invoke the principle that mandamus relief may be broadened to\naddress subsequent harms caused by the district court's retaliatory actions. As\nthe Supreme Court noted,\n\"Mandamus is not limited to the original relief sought, if the district court's\nsubsequent actions create new harm, the writ may be broadened to correct it.\"\nCheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81\nSimilarly, the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that:\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 40 of 54\n\"When a district court retaliates against a CVRA victim for exercising statutory\nrights, the victim may seek mandamus to vacate the underlying order and obtain\nbroader relief.\"\nKenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017-18\nTo prevent further retaliatory doxxing of CVRA victims, the only effective remedy\nunder §1e5t(a) is to vacate all tainted orders and recuse the presiding judge.\nThus, the SDNY's retaliatory actions in leaking Dkt. 765 trigger my right to\nrespectfully seek an expanded mandamus remedy as follows:\n1. Direct the Southern District of New York (\"SDNY\") to immediately remove\nor seal Dkt. 765, Dkt. 732, and any other filings containing unredacted\nvictim information from all publicly accessible court systems, including but\nnot limited to PACER, CourtListener, and similar platforms, and to upload\nthe two redacted original motions (Exhibit A and B in the mandamus\npetition) that I previously submitted via the SDNY Pro Se email but\nsuppressed from the docket;\n2. Direct the SDNY to docket all proper third-party pro se documents,\n3. In light of the Cronic structural collapse described herein, issue supervisory\ndirections to stay or vacate enforcement of the bail denial order, the\npreliminary forfeiture order, the conviction orders and the sentencing\nproceedings as well as any other tainted procedures resulting from these\nprocedural defects, pending independent review.\n4. Order the recusal of Judge Analisa Torres pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a),\ndue to the appearance of bias and conflict of interest,\n5. Issue such further supervisory instructions as may be necessary to restore\njudicial integrity and prevent further retaliation against CVRA victims.\n6. In order to avoid being retaliated by the SDNY again but also showing\nnecessary document content on the docket, upload the redacted version of\nthis Supplemental Petition_redacted.pdf and Exhibit C_public.pdf to the\npublic docket to the case 25-2726, and retain the fully signed, unredacted\nversions under seal as part of the Court's internal record.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 41 of 54\n7. Direct SDNY to docket the redacted version of this Supplemental Petition\nto SDNY docket, to ensure consistency with Dkt. 765 and to prevent\nfurther selective docketing that impairs this Court's supervisory review.\n'x,.\n21\n\"*~.*,.!\\./\n\"\\7*\nM' \"\n, \\ .t\"\n'\" . \\\n'».\n\"1\n.?\nDecember 19, 2025\nRespectfully submitted,\nRyan Ba >\n24\n*»\n\n---\n\n1\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 42 of 54\nE\nI\nI\nI\ni\nr\nr\nExhibit E:\ni\ns\nE\nrII\ng\n!\nl\n)\nl\nII\nP\ni\nir\nI\n)\nr\n1\nMotion to SDNY:\nEmergency Motion: Unauthorized Public\nUpload of Personal Information in ECF\nNo. 765- Violations of the Crime\nVictims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771),\nFed. R. Crim. P. 49.1, and Judicial\nPrivacy Policy\n\n---\n\nE\nE\ni\nI\n.\n|\n!\n:\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 43 of 54\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nII\\..a8I\nI:\nIe\nI!I.\ne.I\nNOTICE OF PRIVACY BREACH AND CRIME VICTIMS'\nRIGHTS ACT VIOLATION\nI:\nI\nI\nIIi!IIII\nE!\ni\n(Re: Unauthorized Public Disclosure in ECF No. 765)\nREQUEST FOR IMMEDlATE SEALING, INVESTIGATION,\nAND REMEDIAL ACTION\nTo:\nii\n:1\nE\ni\ni!\ni\nChief Clerk of Court\nHon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nEmergency Motion: Unauthorized Public Upload of\nPersonal Information in ECF No. 765 - Violations of the\nCrime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §3771), Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 49.1, and Judicial Privacy Policy\nDear Chief Clerk and Hon. Judge Torres,\nI respectfully submit this notice to report a serious breach of\nprivacy and victims' rights by the Southern District of New\nYork, arising from the Court's public filing of ECF No. 765.\n\n---\n\n6\ni\n:|.|\ni\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 44 of 54\nECF No. 765 contains documents that I originally mailed to\nthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, not to the\nSDNY docket. These materials include my personal\ninformation, such as my real name, phone number, address,\nfull residential address, signature, and identifying details,\nwhich were never intended for public disclosure.\nBy uploading these materials without redaction or\nauthorization, the Court has violated multiple statutory and\nprocedural safeguards, including:\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n5.\n18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(8) - guaranteeing crime victims\n\"the right to be treated with fairness and with respect\nfor the victim's dignity and privacy.\" The public\nrelease of a victim's personal information is a direct\ninfringement of this statutory protection.\nFed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(a) - requiring redaction of\npersonal identifiers such as home addresses, full\nnames, and signatures before documents are made\npublic.\nJudicial Conference Policy on Privacy and Public\nAccess to Electronic Case Files (March 2008) -\nprohibiting courts from exposing private personal\ndata on the ECF system.\nE-Government Act of 2002 §205(c)(3) - requiring\nfederal courts to maintain privacy-protective filing\nprocedures.\n.\nDue Process under the Fifth Amendment -\nprohibiting arbitrary or retaliatory treatment that\nundermines procedural fairness for victims.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 45 of 54\nl\nI\nlk\nI\ni\ng\nL\nP\nl\n8\n1\nI\nI\nAccordingly, I respectfully request that the Court:\nThis action is especially contradictory given that SDNY has\npreviously claimed that victim filings were being restricted \"to\nprotect privacy.\" Yet the Court itself has now publicly\nexposed a victim's private data, demonstrating\ninconsistent and potentially retaliatory treatment toward\nvictims - a further violation of the fairness and dignity\nguarantees in §3771(a)(8).\n2.\n1. In 24 hours, immediately seal or restrict public\naccess to ECF No. 765 and any related entries\ncontaining personal identifying information,\nincluding my real name, signature, email, phone\nnumber, address, then redact these information and\n3.\n4.\n5.\nupload a redacted version.\nConduct an internal review to determine why victim filings\nwere uploaded to the public docket without redaction or\nconsent\nCertify compliance with victims' privacy protections under\n18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1.\nImplement remedial safeguards to prevent recurrence of\nsimilar violations in future filings involving CVRA victims.\nSeal this document.\nFurthermore, the Court's decision to publicly upload the\nunredacted version of my filing-despite having already\nreceived a properly redacted public version which I previously\nserved to the SDNY-constitutes not only a procedural\nviolation under Rule 49.1 but also a willful or reckless\n\n---\n\n|\nE\nKI\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 46 of 54\n:\nI\nE\ndisregard of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C.\n§3771 (a)(8). Such conduct raises serious concerns of\nselective enforcement and retaliatory treatment toward a\nCVRA victim who has lawfully exercised the right to petition\nand oversight.\nThe mishandling of ECF No. 765 has caused significant\nconcern regarding the Court's commitment to treating victims\nfairly and protecting their privacy as mandated by law. I\nrespectfully request acknowledgment of this notice and\nconfirmation of corrective action.\nI\niIr\nIf the Court fails to address this breach promptly, I reserve\nthe right to submit this notice to the Administrative Office\nof the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Council of the Second\nCircuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk's Office as part\nof an oversight petition.\n1\nll\nl\n9\n1\nSincerely,\nRyan Bai\ns\nj\nr\n9\ni\n\n---\n\ni\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 47 of 54\ni\ni\ni\ni\n:\nIIiIie\nI!IiI\niIII:I\nI\na\nIIIII\ni\nI\nExhibit F:\n:IE\nIIII\niI\niI\nI|\ni|\n:|x\na\n3\nTranscript of Status Conference on\nJanuary 20, 2026\ni\niii»\ni\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 48 of 54\n1\nv.\n23 Cr. 118\n(AT)\n2\nMILES GUO,\n3\nDefendant.\nConference\n4\n-x\n5\nNew York, N.Y.\nJanuary 20, 2026\n10:05 a.m.\n6\n7\nBefore :\n8\n9\nHON. ANALISA TORRES,\nDistrict Judge\n10\n11\nAPPEARANCES\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\nJAY CLAYTON\nUnited States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York\nRYAN B. FINKEL\nJULIANA N. MURRAY\nMICAH F. FERGENSON\nJUSTIN HORTON\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n17\n18\nMELINDA M. SARAFA\nJOHN F. KALEY\nJOSHUA L. DRATEL\nAttorneys for Defendant\n19\n20\nAlso Present:\nTuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,\n(212) 805-0300\nP.C.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 49 of 54\n1\nTHE COURT!\nGood morning.\n2\nwe're here in the matter of United States v. Miles\n3\nGuo.\n4\n5\nWould you make your appearances, please.\nGood morning, your Honor.\nMR. FINKEL:\n6\nRyan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Ferguson, and\n7\n8\nJustin Horton, for the government.\nWould the interpreter please make their\nTHE COURT:\n9\nappearance.\n10\nTHE INTERPRETER'\n11\nGood morning, your Honor.\nFederal court professionally qualified interpreter Tuo\n12\nHuang •\n13\nTHE COURT:\nAnd now the defense.\n14\nMS. SARAFA:\nGood morning, your Honor.\n15\nMelinda Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel, for\n16\nMiles Guo.\n17\nTHE COURT:\nPlease be seated.\n18\nMany individuals who believe they are victims of\n19\nMr. Goo's fraudulent scheme have asked for the return of their\n20\nmoney a\nSome have contacted the prosecution and some have\n21\ncontacted the Court.\n22\nApparently, there is confusion about how\nthe process of reimbursement works.\n23\nI'm going to address two types of claims concerning\n24\nthe forfeited assets linked to Mr. Goo's illegal conduct in\n25\nthis case.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,\n(212) 805-0300\nP.C.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 50 of 54\n1\nFirst, under 21, United States Code, Section\n2\n853(i) (1), and 28 Code of Federal Regulations 9, a victim may\n3\nsubmit to the prosecution what is known as a petition for\n4\nremission.\nA petition for remission asks the government to\n5\nreturn assets to the victims of a defendant's crimes.\nThe\n6\n7\ngovernment will evaluate these petitions following the\nprocedures described in Title 28 of the Code of Federal\n8\nRegulations, Part 9.\n9\nIn a letter to the Court dated January 9th of this\n10\n11\nyear, the government states that, in evaluating such petitions,\nit will consider whether a victim alleges a monetary loss that\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\nUnder Title 21,\n17\nwas directly caused by the criminal conduct, whether the\nallegations are supported by documentary evidence and whether\nthe victim did not knowingly contribute to, participate in,\nbenefit from, or act in a willfully blind manner to the events.\nThere is a second type of claim.\nUnited States Code 853(n), an individual can seek return of\n18\ntheir assets if they show a stronger legal claim to the\n19\nforfeited asset than the government does.\nOne way a claimant\n20\ncan do that is by showing that they have superior title to an\n21\nasset as of the date the asset was forfeited to the government.\n22\nIn other words, the claimant must show that he or she had a\n23\n24\nstronger legal right to the asset than the defendant at the\ntime of the criminal offense.\n25\nFor example, if a defendant were to borrow someone's\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,\n(212) 805-0300\nP.C.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 51 of 54\n1\ncar, and then use it to commit a crime, the car owner may be\n2\nable to successfully assert that they have a superior legal\n3\ninterest in the car under Section 853(r1) (6) (A) .\n4\nAnother way a claimant can meet this standard is by\n5\nshowing that they were a bona fide purchaser for value of an\n6\ninterest in the forfeited asset.\nIn other words, that he or\n7\nshe bought the forfeited asset from the defendant in good faith\n8\nafter his criminal acts, but with no knowledge of his criminal\n9\nactivity.\n10\nA person who believes that they have such a claim can\n11\nseek to recover their money by filing a Section 853(n) claim\n12\nwith the Court.\nHowever, I want to emphasize that victims of\n13\nMr. Gun's fraudulent scheme may be viewed under the law as\n14\ngeneral creditors and may not, therefore, be able to recover\n15\nIn other words, Section\n16\ntheir money under Section 853(n).\n853(n) claims are not interchangeable with petitions for\n17\nremission.\n18\nSubmissions received by the Court that do not\n19\nreference Section 853(n), but which the Court has instead\n20\ndetermined to be petitions for remission, have been referred to\n21\nthe government for its consideration.\nThose submissions have\n22\nnot been placed on the docket and will not be placed on the\n23\ndocket .\n24\nThe Court is in the process of considering and\n25\ndocketing a large volume of submissions which name Section\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,\n(212) 805-0300\nP.C.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 52 of 54\n1\n853(n) .\nIndividuals who are represented by attorneys have been\n2\nadded to the docket as interested parties so that they may file\n3\ntheir submissions directly on the docket.\nIndividuals who are\n4\nnot represented by attorneys have not been added as interested\n5\nparties on the docket.\nBut the Court has received and is\n6\nprocessing their petitions and will docket them as needed in\n7\ndue course .\nThe Court may direct that the petitions be\n8\nredacted or filed under seal to protect the claimants'\n9\npersonally identifiable or other sensitive information.\n10\nIn addition, the Court has received miscellaneous\n11\npetitions making various complaints.\nThose submissions are\n12\nbeing evaluated on an individual basis.\n13\nThe Court has called this status conference to discuss\n14\nthese matters with the parties in order to expedite the Court's\n15\nconsideration of the large volume of Section 853(n) petitions\n16\nwhich number over 100.\nThe Court has also asked for the\n17\nparties' views on the appointment of a special master under\n18\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which permits a master to\n19\nperform duties consented to by the parties or to address\n20\n21\npost-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely\naddressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge in\n22\nthe district.\n23\nI've reviewed the government's letter dated January\n24\n9th and the defendant's letter dated January 16th, both of this\n25\nyear.\nThe parties recommend that the Court appoint a special\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT RE PORTERS I\n(212)\n805-0300\nP.C.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 53 of 54\n1\n2\n3\n4\nmaster to assist in evaluating Section 853(n) petitions, and in\nadministering ancillary proceedings in this case as needed.\nCompensation for a special master is limited by\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(9) (2), which states that'\n5\n6\nCompensation must be paid either by a party or parties or from\na fund or subject matter of the action within the Court's\n7\ncontrol •\n8\nHow does the government propose that the special\n9\nmaster be compensated?\n10\nMR. FINKEL:\n11\n12\nYour Honor, the government doesn't have a\nspecific proposal with respect to that issue, but can certainly\nconsider it and file a letter with the Court.\n13\n14\n15\nObviously the government is mindful of the assets that\nit has acquired through forfeiture and wants to retain as much\nas possible for victims.\n16\nTHE COURT!\nIs the government aware of other courts\n17\n18\nnationally where a special master has been appointed to handle\nSection 853(n) petitions?\n19\nMR. FINKEL2\n20\nnot.\nStanding here today, your Honor, I am\nThat's not to say that it hasn't happened.\nI don't know\n21\nif it has.\n22\nTHE COURT:\nI'd like you to look into that and report\n23\nback to me.\n24\nMR. FINKEL:\nWe will do that.\n25\nTHE COURT\nIs there anything from the defense?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,\n(212) 805-0300\nP.C.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 54 of 54\n1\nMS. SARAFA:\n2\nsimilar to that articulated by the government.\nYour Honor, I think our view is very\nWe would like\n3\nto see as much of the seized assets preserved and returned to\n4\nthe investors and customers of the entities involved in this\n5\ncase.\n6\nAnd I'm not aware of any authority, standing here today,\nregarding sources of funds for compensation of a special\n7\nmaster.\n8\nTHE COURT:\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b) (1)\n9\n10\n11\nrequires that prior to appointing a special master, the Court\nmust give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard;\nand that any party may suggest candidates for appointment.\n12\n13\n14\nTherefore, by February 10th of this year, the parties\nshall confer and jointly file a letter recommending candidates\nto serve as special master under Rule 53(b) (1), and a\n15\nOf course, the\n16\nrecommendation as to the terms of compensation.\nletter should also discuss the specific scope of the special\n17\nmaster's appointment.\n18\n19\nMr. Guo, you've been understanding what the\ninterpreter has said; correct?\n20\nTHE DEFENDANT:\n(In English) Yes, your Honor.\n21\nTHE COURT:\nAll righty.\nIs there anything further?\n22\nMR. FINKEL:\n23\nTHE COURT:\nA11 righty.\nNot from the government.\nThe matter is adjourned.\n24\nMS. SARAFA :\nThank you, your Honor.\n25\n*\n*\n*\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS I\n(212) 805-0300\nP.C.","body_zh":"Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 1 of 54\ni\nPublic Redacted Documents for\nDocketing（供登记入卷的公开遮蔽处理文件）\n1;\n;°»~.8\n•\nii .\n;;1~;l\ng\ni\n...,..»1\nC5\"`»\ns\n- ' , '\n( . u\n\" , : I\n.'..4'.:\nI . \"in\n\n- a l\nW I N P\nl \" . l ; \\ ;\n:1\"\n(_./7\n`\\I\n\n. .\n\ni n\nv\"\n\nRa\"\n~~\"\"x\n3 .. .\n.\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 2 of 54\nCertificate of Service（送达证书）\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\nIn re:l（关于：）\n案号：25-2728\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案号：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案），1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n本人，Ryan Bai（白），特此证明如下：\n2026年3月9日，本人提交了以下文件的真实且正确的副本：\n1：Motion to Recall the Mandate and Renew Petition for Mandamus with an Amended Caption, and to Redact Personal information（关于收回判决移送执行令并以修改后的案由重提执行令申请以及遮蔽个人信息的动议）\n2：PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS（执行令申请书）\n3：Exhibit A-F（证物 A 至 F）\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n签署于2026年3月9日。\n谨此提交，\nRyan Bai\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 3 of 54\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n关于：\n，申请人\nSDNY 案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n第二巡回法院案号 25-2726\nMotion to Recall the Mandate and Renew Petition for Mandamus with an Amended Caption, and to Redact Personal Information（关于收回判决移送执行令并以修改后的案由重提执行令申请以及遮蔽个人信息的动议）\n\n本人，Ryan Bai，本人亲自应诉（pro se），依据本法院于2025年11月26日作出的裁定（证物 C）——其中指明，若地区法院未在合理时间内将申请人的提交材料登记入卷，执行令申请驳回但允许重新提出——特此向本法庭恭敬请求：\n1. 收回于2026年1月21日发出的判决移送执行令（Mandate）。\n2. 准许重新提出执行令（writ of mandamus）申请。\n3. 指示将申请人提交材料的公开或经遮蔽处理版本上传至公开卷宗，包括经遮蔽处理的执行令申请书、本动议的经遮蔽处理版本以及所有附带证物。\n4. 遮蔽个人身份识别信息，包括出现在信封、1080表格或付款支票上的任何真实姓名、地址、电子邮件地址或电话号码。\n5. 将该文件放入密封信封中进行封存。\n6. 修改案件案由（caption）以显示为 In re: Ryan Bai（关于：Ryan Bai），同时保留相同案号，以便更好地保护本人的隐私。\n依据 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第49.1条）以及法院保护隐私和安全的固有权力，\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 4 of 54\n对此类敏感信息进行遮蔽处理并更改案由既是必要的也是适当的。\n谨此提交，\nRyan Bai\n2026年3月9日\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 5 of 54\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n关于：\n，\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案）受害人，\nSDNY 案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n第二巡回法院案号 25-2726\nPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS（执行令申请书）\n\nI. 引言\n本人，Ryan Bai，系 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪受害人权利法案》，“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. §3771 含义内的犯罪受害人，恭敬就案号 25-2726 提交本份《重新提出的执行令申请书》。\n\n本人的最初执行令申请于2025年10月28日由本法院登记入卷，该申请请求获得救济，命令地区法院将本人被压制的动议登记入卷（证物 A、B），并指示地区法院对本人在 SDNY 卷宗号 733 中提交的规则60(d)动议作出裁判。\n\n本重新提出的申请系依据本法院于2025年11月26日作出的裁定（证物 C）提交，该裁定驳回了先前的申请，但允许在地区法院未在合理时间内将本人的提交材料登记入卷的情况下重新提出，且同样驳回并在量刑后允许重新提出规则60(d)救济。本申请严格仅限于地区法院持续未能将 CVRA 及相关提交材料登记入卷的情形。本申请不寻求重新提出任何关于 Rule 60(d)(3)（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第60条(d)(3)款）的救济，亦不挑战基础刑事案件中的任何实质性裁决。\n\nII. 背景与新进展\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 6 of 54\n地区法院披露本人的个人身份信息且未能更正：\n在地区法院的诉讼程序中，鉴于围绕本案的高度公众关注以及媒体查阅的可能性，本人一直对其个人身份信息（PII）进行遮蔽处理。鉴于与基础刑事案件相关的广泛公众评论和第三方报道，本人在地区法院的所有归档材料中均采取了预防措施以保护本人的隐私。\n\n当本人首次在第二巡回法院亲自应诉提交文件时，本人并不熟悉巡回法院的具体格式和遮蔽处理做法。因此，本人最初的上诉提交材料并未按照本人在地区法院归档材料那样的遮蔽程度进行格式排版。这并非蓄意不合规，而是由于缺乏上诉程序经验所致。\n\n在纽约南区联邦地区法院将本人未作遮蔽处理的执行令申请书登记为卷宗号 765，从而公开披露了本人的姓名、地址、电子邮件和电话号码之后，本人迅速寻求了更正救济。在发现该披露的当天，本人向 SDNY 亲自应诉受理处（Pro Se Intake）提交了紧急（证物 E）请求，要求撤下或封存该未遮蔽的归档文件并以遮蔽处理后的版本进行替换。本人亦在本法院提交了紧急动议，请求将本人的执行令申请书予以封存并替换为经遮蔽处理的版本（25-2726 卷宗号 11）。本法院书记官办公室迅速向本人提供了协助，该动议于2025年11月18日获得批准。本人对本法院为保护隐私利益而采取的及时行动深表感谢。\n\n在本法院批准本人封存最初执行令申请书的动议之后，地区法院仍然登记了卷宗号 766，该文件为本人申请书的经遮蔽处理版本。尽管地区法院明知本法院已封存了最初的上诉归档文件，且尽管其已持有本人妥善遮蔽处理的版本，地区法院仍未能撤下或进一步遮蔽此前归档的未遮蔽版本（卷宗号 765）。\n\n相比之下，尽管在四个月前就已收到通知，地区法院仍未采取任何行动撤下或封存并妥善遮蔽卷宗号 765，致使本人的个人身份信息仍处于公开可查阅状态。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 7 of 54\n正在持续的二次受害：\n最近几周，出现了一场针对本案亲自应诉参与者的有组织的网络攻击。本人的姓名和职业归属在这些攻击中被公开提及，造成了恐吓风险，并对本人继续行使法定权利产生了寒蝉效应。本人已在第二巡回法院卷宗案号 25-2726 卷宗号 35 中详细记录了这些事件。\n\n未能纠正本人未经遮蔽信息的公开披露，侵害了本人在 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(8) 项下享有的尊严和隐私法定权利，并因随后对披露信息的滥用而造成了持续的二次受害。\n\n扩大的执行令申请归档：\n基于上述事实，本人在2025年11月期间提交了证物 D，以寻求扩大的执行令救济。然而，由于亲自应诉上诉提交材料所特有的程序复杂性，该提交材料存在程序上的缺陷。法院针对本人最初执行令申请所作出的原裁定早于该扩大申请的登记入卷时间。为了遵守适用的程序要求并补正已指出的缺陷，本人于2025年12月22日提交了一份《关于补正扩大的执行令申请书的许可动议》（卷宗号 26、27），请求准许纠正缺陷并妥善提出所请求的救济。2026年1月15日，本法院驳回了该《许可动议》。\n\nIII. 关于 CVRA 及记录完整性的关切\n\n自本法院作出裁定以来无任何 CVRA 动议被登记入卷：\n自本法院于2025年11月26日在案号 25-2726 中发出裁定以来，已过去四个月有余。在此期间，地区法院未曾将任何依据 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪受害人权利法案》，“CVRA”）提交的动议登记入卷。此外，在地区法院于2026年1月20日举行的案情通报会（Status Conference）（证物 F）期间，该法院未曾提及 CVRA 或任何待决的 CVRA 相关提交材料。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 8 of 54\n唯一略微涉及此类归档的陈述是对收到的某些“投诉”的顺带提及。将主张 CVRA 法定权利的归档文件定性为区区“投诉”，引发了对受害人提交材料未被确认为或处理为援引受联邦保护权利之动议的关切。\n\n相比之下，在地区法院于2026年1月20日举行案情通报会之后，至少有另外三份相关的执行令申请在本法院登记入卷，包括案号 26-361、26-364 及 26-441。\n\n第三方继续向本法院提交额外申请这一事实进一步表明，根本问题——即地区法院未能将受害人提交材料登记入卷或予以处理——仍在持续。因此，尽管有本法院2025年11月26日的裁定，地区法院在处理此类归档文件方面并未取得任何实质性改善。\n\n对记录完整性的关切：\n1：地址披露的不一致处理引发对记录完整性的关切：\n如证物 D（扩大的执行令提交材料）中所述，地区法院此前已认识到，公开披露涉入本案人员的私人住址可能会对司法程序构成风险。在 SDNY 卷宗号 7 中，检方指控被告的支持者已将 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章破产受托人）及相关人员的私人地址发布在网上，并煽动在这些地点进行抗议。在 SDNY 卷宗号 51 中，地区法院在讨论关于潜在恐吓和妨碍司法的关切时提到了这些指控。相比之下，地区法院随后将本人未作遮蔽处理的执行令申请书登记为卷宗号 765，其中包含了本人的家庭住址和其他个人身份信息。在发现该披露后，本人迅速提交了一项寻求遮蔽或封存的紧急请求。尽管提出了该请求，该未经遮蔽的归档文件仍在长时期内处于公开可查阅状态。这一系列事件似乎难以与此前所确认的隐私关切相调和\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 9 of 54\n在本案中，并引发了对法院记录内隐私保护适用一致性的担忧。\n\n2: 调卷令状递交文件登记不一致引发程序性担忧：\n\n尽管我并不争议地区法院对案件登记程序享有裁量权，但其先前的实践反映出将某些Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）调卷令状递交文件作为地区法院记录一部分的一贯做法。具体而言，若干相关的调卷令状事项——包括Nos. 25-2726、25-3064和26-0077——均已登记在SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的案卷上。相比之下，近期的递交文件，包括Nos. 26-0361、26-0364和26-0441，迄今尚未予以登记。在地区法院已形成登记与调卷令状相关递交文件的惯例的情况下，该惯例的一致适用对于确保程序公正、避免任意或不一致的对待是必不可少的。案卷登记决定应当遵循中立的行政标准，而不应取决于递交文件的实质内容。因此，同等的一致对待原则应当同时适用于证物D（扩展调卷令状）以及本件《重新提出的调卷令状请愿书》。作为源于同一上诉事项的递交文件，其处理方式应当与本法院先前处理类似递交文件的方式保持一致，以维护记录的完整性和程序的一致性。\n\nIV. Cheney案与 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)\n\n无其他适当的救济途径：\n\n在本法院就Case No. 25-2726于2025年10月28日作出的命令中，本法院驳回了请愿书，“但不妨碍在地区法院未能在合理时间内登记递交文件的情况下重新提出”。自该命令作出以来已过去四个多月，我此前递交的动议（证物A和B）直到最近才予以登记。\n\n尽管时间已经过去，地区法院2026年1月20日的案件进展会议并未提及Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪被害人权利法案》）。唯一相关的表述将某些递交文件定性为“投诉”，而未说明其在 18 U.S.C. § 3771（证物F）之下的法定依据。\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 10 of 54\n将CVRA递交文件归类为“投诉”阻碍了上诉裁决的生成，并实质上封堵了常规的上诉审查程序。\n\n值得注意的是，关于我最初的调卷令状请愿书，我曾联系地区法院书记官办公室，并被告知某些第三方递交文件将不会上传至公开案卷，以“保护隐私”。虽然隐私保护是一项合法的行政目标，但随后在Dkt. 765中公开登记我未经涂改遮蔽的调卷令状请愿书——披露了我的PII（个人身份信息）——以及未能及时更正或予以封存并遮蔽该文件，显与所宣称的隐私理由不符。\n\n由于法院尚未落实先前允许在合理时间内未予登记即可重新提出的指令，故不存在适当的替代救济途径。因此，重新提出调卷令状救济对于维护法定机制并使本法院先前的命令发生效力是必要的。\n\n获得救济的明确且无可争议的权利\n\n本法院于2025年10月28日作出的先前命令明确预期，如果地区法院未能在合理时间内登记我的递交文件，可以重新提出调卷令状请愿。\n\n如今四个多月已经过去，相关递交文件仍未被登记。\n\n因此，本法院确定的重新提出请愿的条件已经满足。\n\n在此情况下调卷令状救济是适当的\n\n首先，自本法院2025年11月26日作出允许在地区法院未能在合理时间内登记相关递交文件即可重新提出的命令以来，现已过去四个多月。尽管该期限已过，地区法院并未采取任何纠正措施。\n\n其次，所请求的救济将确保正当递交的调卷令状文件——包括本法院先前处理过的文件——以维护记录完整性的方式得到一贯登记。选择性或不一致的登记可能导致程序记录不完整并损害透明度。\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 11 of 54\n第三，我未经遮蔽的个人身份信息——包括我的全名、住址以及与就业相关的信息——持续公开可查，且在我递交紧急动议后仍未予更正，导致了网络传播以及随后的针对性骚扰（25-2726, Dkt. 35）。尽管提出了更正的紧急请求，未经遮蔽的递交文件依然持续保留，引发了对公共记录可靠性和完整性的持续担忧。当敏感信息在缺乏及时补救措施的情况下仍处于公开获取状态时，可能需要有限的监督性干预，以防止进一步的程序性损害。\n\n因此，在需要防止程序缺陷并确保下级法院的行为不阻碍本法院监督权的情况下，调卷令状救济是适当的。\n\nV. 请求的救济\n\n我谨请求本法院签发重新提出的调卷令状，指示如下救济：\n\n1. 根据本法院在Case No. 25-2726中于2025年11月26日作出的命令，命令地区法院在SDNY案卷上登记经过遮蔽的CVRA动议（证物A和B）。\n\n2. 根据Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第49.1条）及适用的隐私规则，为防止受保护的个人信息受到进一步未经授权的传播，命令地区法院封存Dkt. 765，或遮蔽Dkt. 765中包括我真实姓名、电子邮件、电话号码和地址在内的PII。\n\n3. 根据本法院的监督权，并为了记录完整性及程序一致性的利益，命令地区法院按照其先前处理相关调卷令状递交文件的做法，登记证物D以及本件重新提出的请愿书的遮蔽版本；或者备选地，出具书面命令说明任何拒绝登记的理由。\n\n谨此呈递：\nRyan Bai\n2026年3月9日\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 12 of 54\n证物B 紧急动议：\n鉴于未受处理的检控方欺诈行为，法院必须停止压制CRVA权利及严重失误，并登记被害人动议以防止诉讼程序瓦解——在被告人律师连续三次失职后，被害人被迫寻求Rule 33（第33条规则）及针对检方不当行为附带永久禁止再诉效力的救济\n（关于：ECF 733, 739, 742, 744）\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 13 of 54\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）,\n原告,\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）,又名 MILES GUO 等,\n被告.\n\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n紧急动议：鉴于未受处理的检控方欺诈行为，法院必须停止压制CRVA权利及严重失误，并登记被害人动议以防止诉讼程序瓦解——在被告人律师连续三次失职后，被害人被迫寻求Rule 33及针对检方不当行为附带永久禁止再诉效力的救济（关于：ECF 733, 739, 742, 744）\n\n致：Honorable Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法院法官）\nSouthern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n背景：法院剥夺了被害人的权利。\n\n本人 Ryan Bai，系 18 U.S.C. § 3771 认可的被害人，此前递交了ECF No. 733，指出严重的检方不当行为以及对法院实施的欺诈。在我的文件被登记后，另一名被害人立即递交了ECF Nos. 739、742以攻击我的被害人身份，随后我递交了ECF No. 744以回应这些攻击。然而，本人现正遭受United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）书记官办公室的系统性压制。本人于2025年9月14日递交的动议（该动议同样涉及对法院欺诈的问题）被压制了两周。随后，在2025年9月19日，本人递交了一份强制作出动议，该动议现已被压制了一周。在此期间，检控方、破产受托人以及代表其他实体的律师在查阅和使用案卷方面未遇到任何阻碍。与此同时，包括本人在内的所有被害人，均被系统性地阻止上传任何动议。纽约南区书记官办公室的此种行为，构成了对 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下被害人权利和利益的系统性侵犯，具体包括但不限于以下各项：\n\n1.\n获得合理陈述的权利（18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4)）\n2.\n诉讼程序免受不合理拖延的权利（18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7)）\n3.\n获得公正对待以及尊严与隐私受尊重的权利（18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8)）\n\n本案诉讼程序遭受了严重崩溃\n\n辩护律师已更换三次，但均未提出政府违反Brady（布雷迪规则）的行为，凸显了系统性的辩护失职。\n\n被害人之间已开始争议彼此的诉讼资格，而ECF Nos. 739和742等递交文件企图通过暗示被害人与被告勾结来削弱被害人的合法性。相比之下，虽然检控方和破产受托人递交了ECF Nos. 750、751以答复先前的辩护动议，但其完全未能回应本人早先递交的ECF No. 733（其中列明了关于检方向法院实施欺诈的指控）。对法院实施欺诈的指控本应受到最高级别的司法重视，然而，检控方不仅没有迅速正视这些严重问题，反而对其置之不理。这种差别对待表明，检控方——即便在被指控对法院实施欺诈的情况下——仍获得了进入司法程序的优待，而提出实质性关切的被害人却被排斥在外。此类情况揭示了破坏本案诉讼程序公正性的结构性程序失灵。\n\n其他被害人的律师（例如 Geyer 递交的文件）被质疑代表存在问题的权利主张。这些情况反映了程序保障机制更广泛的崩溃。\n\n亲自诉讼（Pro se）递交文件导致亲自诉讼部门瘫痪，法院不得不招募一名亲自诉讼主管以降低风险。这是本案司法程序崩溃的又一证明\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 15 of 54\n\n1.\n现任 NFSC（新中国联邦）头目 Qingteng（青藤，又名 Forrest Zhou/Yue Zhou）及发言人 Ava Chan（又名 Rechael、Sherry）在 Yvett Wang（王雁平）的量刑听证会中登记为被害人，然而，一年多以来，他们一直在通过各种手段持续阻碍被告人的量刑程序，包括伪造联邦监狱探视记录、以被告人名义非法为 TDCCP 虚拟货币背书，给追随者造成了重大经济损失。据另一名 NFSC 成员 Laojiang（老江）透露，中国国内已有部分投资者因此自杀。在 Qingteng 的领导下，该联盟还以郭文贵女儿的名义为一可疑账户背书，散布可疑信息。然而，检方对他们的阻碍行为未作出任何反应，检方未能逮捕、拘留任何 NFSC 共犯（例如再次声称前往 MDC（大都会拘留所）探视被告人的 Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵），其同时在多份法院文件中被认定为共犯），且未能澄清涉嫌共犯的这些可疑活动，未能制止某些被害人的阻碍行为，这证明检方未能履行其职责。\n\n正如我在 ECF No. 733 中所述，受托人与检方从本案开始至今，从未解决债权人登记问题（Gongzu、Julia），最近提交的 750 和 751 号文件则是 Luc 与检方继续串通从事不当行为并对法庭实施欺诈的最强有力证据。\n\n检方未能对受托人 Luc A. Despins 提出异议，尽管检方明知其职能优先考虑的是本案债权人的利益——正如 ECF No. 738 所证明的，其中许多人在很大程度上并不可靠——而非本案被害人的利益。\n\nECF No. 733 是由一名被害人而非被告人的辩护律师撰写，揭露了检方与受托人 Luc A. Despins 严重的严重不当行为及对法庭的欺诈。该份文件构成本案存在系统性程序崩溃的最具说服力的证据。\n\n法院向中国大陆被害人申请人邮寄裁定构成严重失策：\n2025年9月22日和24日，法院登记了两笔与被害人申请人 Chunk Chyi 和 Beibei Zhu（朱贝贝）相关的“退信”记录。这些记录证实书记官处（Clerk's Office）直接将法院裁定邮寄至中国大陆境内的地址。首先，我百分之百赞同 Torres 法官（Judge Torres）先前的表态，即本案属于不含政治因素的经济案件。然而，该定性仅适用于美国境内。在实际情况中，对于目前居住在中国大陆的被害人申请人而言，参与本案将带来远远超出法庭范围的严重政治后果。法院向这些人邮寄法院文书，在无意中引发了高度复杂的政治风险，更严重的是，将被害人置于人身自由甚至生命安全可能遭受威胁的灾难性境地。这一危险绝非凭空臆测。在被害人申请人 Chunk Chyi 提交的 ECF No. 507 中，他本人就曾发出警告：“我不确定我写的内容是否会导致我被中国政府逮捕。”这是记录在案的关于该风险的明确通知。然而，尽管有此警告，法院仍继续向中国大陆地址邮寄敏感裁定。此种行为构成严重失策，并侵犯了《犯罪被害人权利法》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，18 U.S.C. § 3771）保障被害人享有的核心法定权利：\n\n获得公平对待以及尊严和隐私受尊重的权利（§ 3771(a)(8)）：通过披露被害人的参与情况，使其面临已知的外国政府报复，完全违背了公平与尊严的原则。\n\n获得免受被告人及他人侵害的合理保护权利（§ 3771(a)(1)）：虽然该法条通常关乎免受被告人侵害的保护，但其逻辑延伸至可预见的外部危险。向敌对管辖区邮寄文书是对这一保护的肆意漠视。\n\n诉讼程序不受不合理拖延的权利（§ 3771(a)(7)）：法院制造了被害人可能被拘留、被噤声或陷入危险的环境，危及了他们不受拖延或阻碍参与诉讼的能力。\n\n辩方证人 Yijian Hu（胡毅坚）进一步证实了这一风险，他在法庭公开作证，讲述了他因本案直接遭受的政治报复。虽然我完全支持 Torres 法官此前关于本案从根本上是没有政治因素的经济案件的表态，但法院不能忽视证据事实，即 Hu 先生的遭遇必定是真实的——因为如果不是真实的，他的证言就构成了伪证。因此，无论法院是否愿意承认政治层面的因素，中国大陆参与者所面临的政治风险都是不可否认的。\n\n作为受过专业训练的司法官员，法院和书记官处应当预见到这些风险。因此，向此种敌对管辖区邮寄裁定的决定并非无害的文书差错，而是一次严重失策，不仅无视了法院面前的现有记录，也无视了对弱势被害人造成的不可预测后果。\n\n总而言之，法院的邮寄做法绝不仅仅是一次文书疏漏——它将被害人置于遭受国家报复和生命受威胁的险境之中。即便该决定并非有意为之，也代表了在保障被害人权利方面的系统性崩溃，必须予以紧急处理以防止造成不可挽回的损害。\n\n面临成为建国以来最极端的司法欺诈案例的风险：\n正如我在2025年9月14日被法院压制的动议中所列出的，我在此列出同样的对比：\n严重程度对比\n从两个维度来看，本案的严重程度均超过了 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.（黑泽尔-阿特拉斯玻璃公司诉哈特福德帝国公司案）以及 Strickland v. Washington（斯特里克兰诉华盛顿案）：\n\n1. 对法庭的欺诈（Hazel-Atlas 案对比）。\n在 Hazel-Atlas 案中，欺诈仅限于隐瞒一篇误导第三巡回法院的代笔文章。而在此案中，不当行为更为广泛且具有系统性：\n\n根据 ECF No. 733 及附带报告，检方与受托人 Luc A. Despins 在多起独立程序中反复误导了多位法官（Parker 法官、Torres 法官、Manning 法官及第二巡回法院）。\n\n对 Brady 材料（布拉迪材料）的隐瞒和曲解——例如被告人在2023年1月10日、11日和23日指认问题债权人的公开直播——导致各方长期依赖虚假前提，从而左右了保释、没收及破产裁决。\n\n该欺诈行为绝非孤立事件，而是长达两年的欺骗法庭和压制证据的结构性做法。\n\n2. 无效辩护协助与辩护崩溃（Strickland 案对比）。\n在 Strickland 案中，法院认定一名辩护律师因未能充分调查减刑证据而构成无效辩护协助。然而在本案中：\n\n三任继任的辩护团队均忽略或拒绝指出检方的 Brady 违规行为及系统性不当行为。\n\n被告人本人在 ECF No. 700 中解除了其律师的委托，并表示他“非常失望”，因为律师“连最基本的工作都没做”。\n\n多名律师一贯的失职反映的不仅是单纯的疏忽，而是辩护职能的结构性崩溃，致使需要由被害人——而非辩护律师——来指出检方的违规行为。\n\n因此，本案司法欺诈的规模超过了仅涉及一次上诉虚假陈述的 Hazel-Atlas 案；本案辩护方的失职也远远超过了 Strickland 案中的个体过失，构成了多年来跨多名律师的系统性无效协助。\n\n在美利坚合众国的历史上，从未有任何案件在检方不当行为和律师无效辩护两方面表现出如此前所未有的严重程度。因此，本案符合被视为建国以来最极端司法欺诈案例的标准。\n\n美国历史上首次由被害人主导揭露系统性司法不当行为：\n正如记录所反映的（见 ECF No. 733 及其附带证据），本案中的事态发展将我置于美国刑事诉讼历史上前所未有的境地。我未受过正规法律培训，不是当事人的律师，也没有进行诉讼的体制职权。然而，面对对抗制保障的多重崩溃——数届辩护团队未能调查或维护对司法公正至关重要的证据问题，而现有记录表明检方与受托人的行为可能误导了多个法庭——作为一名普通公民和受损投资者，我不得不承担起对抗制系统未能产生的法律事实和书证调查工作。\n\n我向本法庭提交的材料绝非凭空揣测。它是书证、时间戳记录、公开直播以及法庭文书的汇编，综合研读即可清晰展现程序失当及潜在不当行为的来龙去脉（ECF No. 733）。一名毫无体制权力的非律师被害人——单枪匹马——收集并呈交了这批直接关乎包括保释程序、没收程序等在内的整个诉讼程序完整性的材料，这本身就具有历史意义。它表明刑事司法体系原有的制衡机制已经失灵。\n\n我对被告人的政治倾向没有任何偏见，并保持中立立场。\n\n我完全支持 Torres 法官关于本案是一起没有政治因素的经济案件的定性。\n\n作为被害人，虽然我揭露了检方与受托人 Luc 之间对法庭的系统性欺诈与协同不当行为，但我依然与被告人保持对立立场，其行为无可否认地对我的投资造成了深刻损害。\n\n虽然我作为被害人揭露了检方与 Luc 的协同不当行为及对法庭的欺诈，但我认为他们并不是主要责任方。如果三任继任的辩护律师团队没有全部对检方的违规行为视而不见，目前这种荒谬的局面就不会发生。因此，我主张辩护律师应当主动承担起解决系统性程序崩溃的责任。\n\n因此，我谨请求法院：\n\n确认本案中对抗制保障机制的系统性崩溃，正如 ECF No. 733 及后续文件所记录的那样，在这些文件中，检方不当行为及对法庭的欺诈并非由辩护律师揭露，而是由我本人作为被害人揭露的。\n\n鉴于本案被害人遭受了系统性的压制——被告人以及检方和受托人通过隐瞒证据予以压制，被告人历任律师通过屡次失职予以压制，以及最近法院书记官处通过压制被害人提交的文件予以压制——我作为被害人，已无任何有实质意义的程序救济途径。正是在这些特殊情况下，我被迫请求法院责令被告人律师在十四（14）日内说明其是否打算根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 33 条（Rule 33）提出重审动议并提出不得重新起诉的检方不当行为（Prosecutorial Misconduct with Prejudice），或者解释他们拒绝这样做的理由。\n\n确认绝不能使被害人噤声或受压制，并且根据 18 U.S.C. § 3771 的规定，揭露对法庭实施欺诈的文件应当予以登记并审理，而非置之不理，在今后提交的文件中亦不得压制。\n\n向公众上传本动议的公开版本及所附中文版本，同时将签署版本在法庭书记官卷宗中保密封存，以供法院全面审议。\n\n责令法庭书记官停止向已知地址位于中国大陆的受害者申请人邮寄任何法院裁定、通知或函件，除非该等受害者申请人已明确且肯定地以书面形式要求寄送至该等地址，以避免造成政治报复、人身伤害或其他不可挽回损害的可预见风险。\n\n准予法院认为公正且适当的进一步救济。\n\n由于法院持续压制受害者的诉状提交，我别无选择，只能通知所有相关利益方，以确保透明度并保护受害者的法定权利。这些利益方包括但不限于：\n\n被告的现任及前任辩护律师，其对解决带有实际损害的检察官不当行为以及 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 33（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第33条）相关问题负有主要责任；\n\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室），包括监督本案的监督检察官；\n\nJudicial Conduct and Disability Committee of the Second Circuit（第二巡回区司法行为与身心失能委员会），该委员会对司法的公正实施负有监督职责；\n\nVictims' Rights Committees（受害者权利委员会）及法院指定的受害者协调员，鉴于压制诉状提交直接违反了 18 U.S.C. § 3771；\n\n21 U.S.C. § 853 项下的其他受害者及第三方申请人，其权利同样受到程序性压制的危害；\n\n相关国会监督委员会（若司法及检方不当行为上升至系统性失灵的程度）。\n\n保留权利\n我明确保留我在 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下的权利，包括若本动议被忽视或未予裁判即遭驳回时向第二巡回区法院寻求职务履行令复核的权利，以及法律规定的任何其他可用补救措施。\n\n善意声明：我系出于善意而非任何不当目的提交本动议。文中所述事实主张及所附证物均属实。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 21 of 54\n\n证物 A：反对 Dkt. 754 的动议：\n指出法庭欺诈中的共谋行为并敦促讨论司法回避\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 22 of 54\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n原告，\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a MILES GUO, et al.（郭文贵，又名郭文贵等），\n被告。\n\n案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n反对 Dkt. 754 的动议：指出法庭欺诈中的共谋行为并敦促讨论司法回避\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉联邦法院大楼）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\nI. 引言\n我，Ryan Bai（白瑞安），作为本案的一名受害者，提交本份《反对 Dkt. 754 的动议》，以应对我此前提交的文件 Dkt. 733 中所强调的关于检方不当行为及涉嫌法庭欺诈的持续且未决问题。一个多月以来，我详述司法欺诈和系统性检方不当行为的 Dkt. 733 报告一直未得到法院、检方或辩护律师的处理。\n\n尽管如此，辩护律师提交的 Dkt. 754 却在推进没收程序，表面上是为了降低资产流失的风险。然而，鉴于 Dkt. 733 中悬而未决的指控，任何推进没收的行动在程序上都是不当的。根据 Docket 733 及其随附报告中概述的检方欺诈指控，所有相关的没收令（包括 Preliminary Order of Forfeiture（初步没收令，简称 POF））均属自始无效，从而使得任何进一步的程序在根本上失去合法性。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 23 of 54\n\n近期提交的文件，包括 Dkt. 754 以及政府的 Dkt. 750，充分体现了对法庭的欺诈，并表明辩护律师与检方之间可能存在串通，因为双方均未承认或处理我就资产控制、债权人争议或破产财产受托人职责所提出的未决问题。\n\nII. 背景\n如 Dkt. 733 中所述，两年多来，检方一直未能核实或纠正与 Luc 相关的债权人问题，对像我这样的受害者造成了严重伤害。该报告记录了横跨多个法院的系统性不当行为，包括 Judge Parker（帕克法官）、Judge Torres（托雷斯法官）以及 Second Circuit（第二巡回区法院），对司法裁判的公正性构成了直接威胁。\n\n尽管存在这些指控，法院、检方和辩护律师仍保持沉默，听任没收程序在可能具有欺诈性的框架下推进。辩护律师的 Dkt. 754 动议请求法院授权政府管理从 Luc 处没收资产的事宜。虽然此举意在防止资产流失，但该请求实质上在推进一项如 Dkt. 733 中所记录的无效程序。\n\n我此前曾根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第60条）请求法院宣告现有的没收令无效，并指定一名中立的第三方接管人或专门主事官来监督任何没收程序。迄今为止，该动议未收到任何回应，也没有任何一方采取行动叫停或纠正正在进行的没收程序。\n\nIII. 程序不当与共谋\n1. 在未解决欺诈指控的情况下推进没收：\n在当前情况下推进没收在程序上是不当的，因为它是以假定该等命令合法为前提，而由于所指控的法庭欺诈，该等命令可能是自始无效的。辩护律师的 Dkt. 754 动议通过请求政府查封和管理资产，非但未能保护受害者的利益，反而有协助对法庭实施欺诈的风险。\n\n2. 对共谋的关切：\n检方在 Dkt. 733 提交后持续不作为，加之辩护律师的 Dkt. 754 动议、检方的 Dkt. 750 以及法院的沉默，引发了对各方协同共谋参与法庭欺诈的合理怀疑。尽管已有先前不当行为的明确记录，正在进行的没收程序仍在没有任何纠正性监督的情况下推进。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 24 of 54\n\n3. 司法沉默与受损的公正性：\n如 Dkt. 733 及随附报告中所记录，托雷斯法官已多次接触欺诈性诉状，且尽管有我提交的受害者报告，却依然保持沉默。这引发了对司法公正性以及法院能否公正监督没收程序的严重关切。辩护律师和法院本应采取行动纠正程序崩溃，或暂停没收程序直至欺诈指控得到解决。在面对有证据支持的欺诈指控时保持司法沉默构成了推定默许，这与 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）项下的正当程序义务是不相容的。\n\nIV. 违反《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA）\n在法庭欺诈指控悬而未决的情况下继续推进没收程序，直接构成了对 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪受害者权利法》，18 U.S.C. § 3771，简称 CVRA）的违反。\n\n作为受害者，我有权获得公正、尊严和尊重的对待，并有权在涉及犯罪所得资产没收的诉讼程序中获得合理陈述意见的机会。通过压制 Dkt. 733 并忽视其内容，法院、检方和辩方共同剥夺了受害者参与公正透明程序的法定权利。\n\n《犯罪受害者权利法》要求，在采取任何实质性行动之前，必须先解决受害者的关切——尤其是那些指控检方不当行为及影响没收合法性的法庭欺诈的关切。在欺诈条件下推进没收不仅破坏了程序正义，更使《犯罪受害者权利法》旨在防止的伤害得以持续。\n\n对受害者程序性权利的这种系统性漠视，进一步加深了法院和律师均在共谋包庇机构不当行为、而非确保对受害者进行追责和救济的表象。\n\nV. 9月28日动议中所指出的系统性崩溃的持续（该动议遭压制且未录入卷宗）\n持续的沉默和程序偏离模式，与我于9月28日提交但法院未能录入卷宗的先前动议中所描述的“司法程序的系统性崩溃”完全吻合。该动议详述了多方参与者——检方、辩方和法院——如何听任正当程序中的结构性缺陷持续存在，包括压制受害者诉状、选择性录入卷宗，以及未能纠正已知的债权人登记问题。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 25 of 54\n\n司法系统实际上在发现或纠正相关问题方面是无效的。\n\n本法院不应将这一事实视为修辞夸张，而应将其视为具有后果的严肃证据事实。一名受害的普通私主体被迫承担起通常由辩护律师和检察官承担的调查职责，这一现实是系统性崩溃的尺度，它表明常规的体制性补救措施可能已经穷尽或已失效。对于受害者、被告以及公众对法治的信心而言，这一现实所要求的是严格、透明的审查，而非敷衍了事的驳回。\n\n我无意在这一角色中邀功。我指出这一点，只是为了提请法院注意：为何 ECF No. 733 中提出的事项——以及我所请求的救济——绝非细枝末节或凭空推测；它们正是因为负责任的律师和公职人员未能履职，而由一名受害者个人所整理出的非同寻常的事实记录的产物。该记录的重大意义，以及与其相称的救济措施，是本法院必须就其实质内容予以正视的问题。\n\n作为一名出生在中国大陆、后归化为美国公民的移民，我对能够参与本案深表感激，这得益于美国法律制度的坚实基础，以及我们国家开创者们为完善和健全司法程序所做出的持续努力。我在本案中的行为源于对司法独立和公正原则的坚定信念，我力图捍卫这些原则以致敬他们的遗产。我向接纳我为公民的美国表达我的感激之情，并且我对美国司法系统始终坚信不疑。我在本案中所付出的努力，是对推进正义与公平追求的践行，正如建立本国法律框架的前辈们所构想的那样。\n\n当后世审视这段历史时，有些人会被铭记为英雄，而有些人则会被记住为小丑。至少，我拒绝成为后者。\n\n声明：\n在寻求救济之前，我谨作出如下声明：\n\n我对中国政府不抱有任何偏见，并保持中立立场。\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 26 页，共 54 页\n这些失职并非孤立的程序性疏忽，而是司法诚信制度性崩溃的体现。Dkt. 733 以及9月28日动议中所记录的司法不端和对法庭的欺诈问题的范围与深度，可以说是United States（美国）历史上最严重的司法欺诈实例——超过了 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 中所处理的不端行为标准，以及 Strickland v. Washington 中所确立的无效协助门槛。\n\n在法院对 Dkt. 733 保持沉默的同时推进没收程序，正是这种系统性失败的延续。这表明法院的行政和实体审理程序已经受到损害，其程度已无法再确保公正裁判或透明度。这种持续的程序崩溃不仅剥夺了受害者获得法定救济的途径，而且使不端行为制度化，使得司法纠正变得不可能，除非实施外部监督——例如中立的接管人或独立的专员。\n\nVI. 程序崩溃背后的宪法侵权\n\n在法院未能处理有据可查的检方欺诈指控的情况下继续推进没收程序，构成了多项宪法侵权。首先，这违反了Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）的正当程序条款，因为剥夺财产和相关程序性行为正在可能受到对法庭欺诈玷污的基础上进行，剥夺了受害者享有公正合法程序的权利。其次，这涉及Fourteenth Amendment（第十四修正案）的平等保护条款，因为受害者的提交文书和关键报告——如 Dkt. 733 和被压制的9月28日动议——遭到无视，而检方和辩护方的文书却被选择性地记录在案并予以处理。第三，持续的程序崩溃破坏了Sixth Amendment（第六修正案）赋予的获得公平代理的权利，因为辩护律师在涉嫌欺诈的情况下推进没收而不解决这些关键问题，可能同谋维持了一个程序上无效的审理程序。\n\n总而言之，这些宪法层面的失职表明司法程序已受损至对受害者权利造成直接和持续损害的程度，必须立即采取纠正性干预措施。\n\nVII. 呼吁采取纠正行动\n\n法院、检方和辩护律师均未对我先前的提交文书 Dkt. 733 作出回应，该文书详述了检方不端行为和对法庭欺诈的可靠且有文件支持的指控。尽管这些指控性质严重，所有各方仍继续开展实体行动——包括\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 27 页，共 54 页\n推进 Dkt. 754 项下的没收程序——仿佛这些指控根本不存在一样。\n\n这构成了直接冲击正当程序和司法系统诚信核心的程序崩溃。根据长期确立的宪法原则，在有关先前命令或文书是通过欺诈获得的指控尚未解决的情况下，任何法院都不得继续进行实体程序。这样做会使所有后续程序自始无效（void ab initio），因为建立在欺诈或程序受玷污基础之上的行为不具有法律效力。\n\n鉴于上述情况，我谨请求如下：\n1. 立即暂停所有正在进行的没收程序，直至 Dkt. 733 中提出的问题得到解决；\n2. 指定中立的第三方接管人或专员监督任何没收程序，因为 Dkt. 733 中牵涉的任何一方都不应控制该程序；\n3. 鉴于法院接触过欺诈性文书且公正性已受损，就司法回避事宜进行讨论；\n4. 透明度要求：如果在14天内未就司法回避进行讨论或采取行动，我请求法院公开说明其拒绝处理该问题的理由。\n\n这些步骤对于保护受害者权利、确保程序合法性以及恢复对司法程序的信心是必要的。在不采取这些措施的情况下继续推进，将面临对受害者权利造成进一步损害的风险，并破坏司法程序的诚信。\n\n谨此提交，\nRyan Bai\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 28 页，共 54 页\n\n证据项 C：2025年11月26日针对 25-2726 号案件的命令\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 29 页，共 54 页\nS.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nN.Y.C.（纽约市）\n23-cr-118\nTorres，法官\nUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\n在United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）的法定开庭期，于二〇二五年十一月二十六日，在City of New York（纽约市）Foley广场40号Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院）举行。\n\n在席：\nDennis Jacobs，\nJoseph F. Bianco，\n巡回法官，\nVictor A. Bolden，\n地区法官。*\n\n关于：Ranyue Bai（白冉跃），\n25-2726\n申请人。\n\n申请人以本人诉讼（pro se）身份提交了一份调卷令/执行令（writ of mandamus）申请书，请求指示地区法院停止压制其未来的提交文书，将其已提交但未记入案卷的动议记入案卷，并对其待决的Rule 60(d)(3)（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第60(d)(3)条）动议作出裁定。\n\n经审慎考虑，特此裁定：\n驳回该执行令申请，因为申请人未能证明其对该令状的权利是明确且无可争辩的，亦未能证明在此情况下准予该令状是适当的。参见 Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)。\n\n鉴于地区法院收到的大量提交文书（我们相信法院会迅速处理），申请人关于将其提交文书记入案卷的执行令申请予以驳回，若地区法院未能在合理时间内将这些提交文书记入案卷，申请人可重新提出申请（without prejudice to renewal）。\n\n* District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）地区法官 Victor A. Bolden 经指定出席审理。\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 30 页，共 54 页\n同样，关于其Rule 60(d)(3)动议的驳回，若地区法院在基础刑事案件判决后未能在合理时间内采取行动，亦不妨碍其重新提出申请。参见 Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81; United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008)。\n\n代表法院：\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe，法院书记官\n\n第二巡回法院\n真实副本\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n美国法院\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 31 页，共 54 页\n\n证据项 D：\n因纽约南区报复性披露个人身份信息而提起的扩大执行令救济范围的补充申请书\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 32 页，共 54 页\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n案件编号：25-2726\n关于 Ryan Bai\n申请人\n\n因纽约南区报复性披露个人身份信息而提起的扩大执行令救济范围的补充申请书\n\n致法院书记官及第二巡回法院尊贵法官：\n\nI. 引言\n\n我，Ryan Bai，作为依据 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪被害人权利法》，“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. § 3771 以本人诉讼身份出现的犯罪被害人，鉴于Southern District of New York（纽约南区）在 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y.)，Dkt. 765 中报复性披露我的个人身份信息（“PII”），谨提请本尊贵法院扩大我待决的执行令申请（2025年10月28日记入案卷）的救济范围。SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的报复性公开提交文书通过暴露 CVRA 被害人-申请人并遏制受保护的参与，削弱了本法院进行独立执行令审查的能力，从而干预了本法院的管辖权。\n\n本次提交文书并非旨在重开任何刑事定罪的实体审理，而是援引本法院在 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 项下的监督职权，以补救正当程序的结构性崩溃并保护正在进行的程序的完整性。\n\nII. 背景\n\n在 SDNY 反复拒绝将我先前的两份被害人动议记入案卷后，我向本法院寻求执行令救济。第二巡回法院于2025年10月28日将我原始的执行令申请书记录在案。\n\n然而，10月29日，Southern District of New York（“SDNY”）将我原始执行令申请书的未经遮蔽版本作为 Dkt. 765 公开提交，披露了我的真实姓名、家庭住址、电子邮件地址和电话号码。我一发现这份提交文书，就立即向 SDNY 本人诉讼接案处（附于证据项 C）提交了一份紧急请求，要求地区法院将 Dkt. 765 从公开访问中撤下，并替换为经过妥善遮蔽的版本，以保护我的个人身份信息（“PII”）。同日，由于我不知晓 SDNY 是如何获得该未经遮蔽的申请书的，我也向本法院提交了一份紧急动议，请求将我原始的执行令申请书予以封存并替换为遮蔽版本，以减轻任何进一步的风险。\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 33 页，共 54 页\n在我提交文书后，本法院书记官办公室协助我完成了必要步骤，该动议于2025年11月18日获准。我深切感谢书记官和法院为保护犯罪被害人隐私利益所采取的迅速行动。\n\n相比之下，自向 SDNY 提交紧急动议以来已经过去了十四天以上，地区法院却没有采取任何行动来保护我的信息。由于 SDNY 的公开披露，我的个人信息已经在社交媒体上被引用和传播，给我造成了无法弥补的个人伤害。\n\n此行为完全是裁量性的——第二巡回法院并未发布任何指示 SDNY 提交我申请书的命令。当我在10月29日向第二巡回法院书记官办公室核实时，他们确认没有传达过任何指令。因此，SDNY 将我未经遮蔽的执行令文书记入案卷的行为是一起自行发起的报复性行为。\n\n2025年11月19日，SDNY 采取了更为反常的一步，上传了 Dkt. 766，即我仅作为本法院紧急动议附件提交的执行令申请书的遮蔽版本。该附件从未在本法院的案卷中记入案卷，然而 SDNY 仍然将其上传至 SDNY 案卷，同时拒绝撤下或封存暴露我个人身份信息的未经遮蔽的文书 Dkt. 765。这一系列行为证明了这是选择性且具报复性的案卷记录，而非文书录入失误。\n\nIII. 报复的证据\n\n1. SDNY 报复性披露个人身份信息\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 34 of 54\n\n在我早前提交受害者文书（Dkt. 744 和 Dkt. 733）之后，SDNY（Southern District of New York，纽约南区联邦地区法院）禁止了所有非 ECF 的第三方受害者提交文书，声称这是「为了保护隐私」。然而，该法院随后却上传了我未作隐名涂抹的调卷令状申请书，所公开的恰恰是它有义务——且此前曾声称要——保护的个人数据。\n\n在提交本调卷令状申请书之前，我被要求向 SDNY 邮寄一份申请书的送达副本，这意味着地区法院已经持有适合公开登记入卷的妥善隐名涂抹版本。SDNY 未采用该版本，反而故意从其他渠道调取未经隐名涂抹的原始文书并将其上传至地区法院案卷中。此种行为绝非单纯的书记员疏忽，而是针对请愿人指出地区法院内部程序违规及不当行为的合法文书所做出的直接报复性披露。该报复性行为不仅违反了《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条（Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1）和《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 5.2 条（Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2）规定的隐私保护，而且通过使敏感个人信息永久可供公众查阅造成了无法弥补的损害，因此侵犯了我依据《犯罪被害人权利法》（CVRA，18 U.S.C. § 3771）享有的权利。\n\n尽管 SDNY 已持有一份我调卷令状申请书的隐名涂抹版本，但它依然将我作为本院紧急动议一部分提交的隐名涂抹申请书作为 Dkt. 766 上传至 SDNY 案卷中。这意味着 SDNY 查阅、提取并选择性地将我邮寄给上诉法院的材料登记入卷。此种行为没有任何联邦规则依据，并构成了对上诉程序的直接干预。\n\n更令人不安的是，在上传隐名涂抹版本的同时，截至 2025 年 12 月 19 日，SDNY 在明知存在隐名涂抹版本的情况下，仍然拒绝撤下未经隐名涂抹的版本（Dkt. 765）。\n\n这一双重举动——(1) 超过 14 天拒绝撤下具有危害性的文书，以及 (2) 尽管已经持有隐名涂抹版本，却选择性地上传拟供上诉审理的文书——表明 SDNY 的案件登记行为并非意外或疏忽，而是一种报复、选择性登记入卷以及干扰上诉案卷记录的既成模式。\n\n2. 报复性公开的既成模式\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 35 of 54\n\n这并非此类行为的首个例证。\n\no 在本案中，Dkt. 723、730 和 731 均由同一名自身代表（pro se）的请愿人提交。Dkt. 730 和 731 是要求强制将 Dkt. 723 登记入卷的动议，后者未被 SDNY 及时上传。值得注意的是，在 Dkt. 731 中，请愿人明确援引了隐私保护规则，声明：「根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 和 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2，请愿人……进一步请求将个人身份识别信息（如护照号码、政府签发的身份证件和详细居住地址）从公开案卷中隐名涂抹，同时完整未涂抹版本保持封存状态。」\n\n然而，在 Dkt. 732 中，SDNY 莫名其妙地上传了请愿人 Dkt. 723 文书的重复副本——这一次为未经隐名涂抹的形式，从而公开暴露了他所有的个人身份识别信息，包括其在中国大陆的住所。该文书的提交没有任何正当的程序目的，它仅仅重复了 Dkt. 723 的实质内容，同时剥夺了请愿人根据规则 49.1 / 5.2 明确请求的隐私保护。该行为构成了地区法院针对请愿人此前指出案件审理中存在程序违规和司法不当行为的文书（Dkt. 723）所采取的明确报复行为。通过故意重新上传未经隐名涂抹的同一动议，法院不仅无视其保护个人信息的职责，而且使请愿人面临严重且可预见的风险，特别是鉴于本案的敏感性及其在中华人民共和国的潜在影响。\n\no SDNY 直接向中国公民 Chunk Chyi 和 Beibei Zhu（朱贝贝）邮寄文书，随后将包含其家庭地址的退回信封公开发布在案卷中——这是一种可能危及生命的鲁莽行为。\n\n»\n\n这种模式表明，SDNY 不仅仅是怠于履行隐私保护义务——它还会根据提交人是否批评程序违规行为来选择性地执行隐私规则。\n\n3. A. 数千名 CVRA 受害者面临的风险（若政府的陈述属实）\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 36 of 54\n\n政府在 Dkt. 7、26、192 等文书中反复强调本案涉及数千名受害者。然而，纽约南区联邦地区法院的报复性行为——特别是 Dkt. 765 中对未涂抹受害者信息的公开披露——表明其对这些人员的安全和隐私表现出鲁莽的漠视。如果此类报复行为得到容忍，可能受到 CVRA 保护的数千名受害者的个人信息将处于极度危险之中。我不得不不仅为个人保护而发声，而且还要维护身份和敏感信息面临风险的所有受害者的利益与权利。这一系统性失职凸显了通过监督性调卷令状以防止进一步损害并恢复司法程序完整性的紧迫必要性。\n\nIV. 司法偏见\n\n1. 对自身代表（Pro Se）文书的差别待遇\n\n在 Dkt. 745 之后，法院禁止第三方自身代表（pro se）受害者提交的所有文书上传至公开案卷，同时允许律师通过 ECF 系统提交。这一区别构成了不平等待遇，违反了第五修正案正当程序条款，并损害了平等诉诸法院的原则。通过建立一个优待律师提交文书而非自身代表（pro se）提交文书的体系，法院表现出对自身代表（pro se）受害者的明显偏见。\n\n2. 根据 Liteky / Caperton 案确立的司法不当表象\n\n法院此前已经承认，公开披露个人地址对司法程序构成严重威胁。例如，在 Dkt. 7 中，控方指控被告的支持者张贴了破产法第 11 章受托人（Chapter 11 Trustee）、受托人家属及其他相关方的私人家庭地址，并呼吁在这些地点举行抗议。在 Dkt. 51 中，Torres 法官将此类张贴列为妨碍司法和恐吓法庭官员的证据，并将其作为拒绝被告保释的一个考量因素。然而，与这一先例直接相悖的是，法院自身却在 Dkt. 732 和 765 中公开发布了一名受害者——即我自己——以及其他自行代理请愿人的私人地址。通过以法院曾明确谴责他人的方式来对待我的文书，法院表明其对自身代表（pro se）请愿人和受害者存在明确的偏见模式，在司法审判中采用双重标准，并漠视规则 49.1 / 5.2 所规定的隐私保护。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 37 of 54\n\n此外，Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) 确立了这样一项原则：当当事人遭受可能影响案件结果的系统性不利对待时，要求法官回避的偏见可能性会增加。通过公开披露我的个人身份识别信息，同时此前又批评其他当事方的类似披露（Dkt. 51），法院适用了双重标准，助长了不当行为的表象，并削弱了公众对公正司法的信任。\n\n3. 选择性登记入卷与被忽视的司法偏见指控\n\n在 Dkt. 507 中，Chunk Chyi 提出了指控司法偏见的正式异议。尽管法院在其后的第 528 号裁定（Order 528）中提及了 Dkt. 507，但未就回避请求作出任何实质性回应、解释或裁决。通过忽视这些指控，法院剥夺了文书提交人获得公平公正法庭审理的基本程序权利，违反了第五和第十四修正案正当程序条款。\n\n此外，根据《美国法官行为守则》，法官不仅必须避免实际的不当行为，还必须避免不当行为的表象。未能对回避请求作出处理——特别是在提交人明确提出对偏见的担忧时——造成了诉讼程序可能不公正的合理表象。这种选择性考量削弱了公众对司法的信任，并污染了程序记录，从而损害了正在进行的审理及上诉审理。\n\nV. SDNY 误导并干扰第二巡回法院审理的行为\n\nSDNY 将我原始的调卷令状文件登记入卷，不仅侵犯了我的 CVRA 权利，而且干扰了本院进行调卷令状审理所依据的程序保障与假设，为独立审查制造了实际和法律上的双重困难。\n\n上诉案卷记录受损：调卷令状审理的前提是文书安全、真实且未受未经授权的篡改。\n\n---\n\nCase: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 38 of 54\n\nSDNY 单方面公开披露一份上诉文书，向调卷令状案卷中注入了外部且未经授权的成分，破坏了呈递本院材料的完整性。具体而言，SDNY 在将我的上诉调卷令状申请书登记入卷的同时，拒绝将我妥善提交的地区法院动议（附件 A 和 B）登记入卷或予以确认，制造了无法调和的程序歧义。记录陷入了相互矛盾的境地：该文书在公开层面上清晰可见，仿佛已被地区法院接受，然而它从未合法提交给该法院，亦未获准在该法院登记入卷。这绝非中立的书记员违规行为。它扭曲了案件的程序历史，并干扰了本院对专属其上诉管辖权范围内的事务进行独立调卷令状审理的能力。\n\n纽约南区联邦地区法院未经授权公开提交我的原始调卷令状申请书，并非对本院进行程序干预的首起事件。在 Dkt. 733 中，我证明了控方依赖了受污染的债权人登记证据，从而导致地区法院拒绝了被告的保释。被告提出上诉，而本院在 Dkt. 87 中同样驳回了上诉：\n\n「Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）不服地区法院以其具有严重的潜逃风险和妨碍司法风险、对社区构成危险为由拒绝其审前释放的裁定，提出上诉……」\n\n正如 Dkt. 733 所详述，「妨碍司法」的认定采纳了控方提交的受污染证据。此外，正如本补充申请书关于司法偏见的第 IV(2) 节所解释的那样，地区法院报复性地公开披露我的地址，污染了 Torres 法官此前在 Dkt. 51 中对 Ho Wan Kwok 支持者类似披露行为的依赖（该依赖曾被用于认定妨碍司法），这可能同样影响了本院在 Dkt. 87 中对被告上诉的驳回。\n\n因此，SDNY 的行为一再干扰本院的独立审理，损害了上诉案卷记录的事实与程序完整性。\n\nVI. 长期系统性错误\n\n被告在 Dkt. 700 中解除了其律师的代理资格，声明所提供的代理「连基本的要求都未达到」，并表示「我感到非常失望」。这\n\n---\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 39 页（共 54 页）\n此种情况说明了为何我作为一名受害人，能够识别出检方与受托人 Luc（卢克）涉嫌实施的对法庭的欺诈，并随后提交了 Dkt. 733，而被告连续聘请的三任辩护律师却未能察觉。仅此一点就表明辩护程序已出现系统性瓦解。正如向人身保护令/执行令（Mandamus）申请书所附的证物 B 中所引述的，无论从司法欺诈的角度还是律师过失的角度来看，本案中违规行为的严重程度都远远超出了诸如 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.，322 U.S. 238 (1944) 以及 Washington v. District of Columbia，802 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 等美国联邦最高法院（U.S. Supreme Court）里程碑式判例所处理的范围。我已在 Mandamus 申请书所附的证物 B 中详细列出了本案与 Hazel-Atlas、Hartford-Empire Co. 及 Washington 案的具体对比，重点阐明了本案中的不当行为和系统性失职如何超越了那些历史先例。本案中的违规行为——包括辩护律师的系统性失职、涉嫌的检方欺诈，以及对受害人和证据披露的不当处理——在严重程度上超越了这些历史先例。因此，本案面临着成为美国历史上最大司法欺诈案例之一的风险。\n\nVII. 请求的救济\n我援引 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)，即《通用令状法》（All Writs Act），该法案授权本法院“签发在其各自管辖权范围内必要或适当且符合法律惯例和原则的一切令状”。我认为，在此请求的救济——对于保护 CVRA（《犯罪受害人权利法》）受害人、纠正程序缺陷以及防止进一步的报复而言是必要的——正是 § 1651(a) 所预设的令状类型。\n\n此外，我援引以下原则：执行令救济可以予以扩大，以应对地区法院报复性行为所造成的后续损害。正如最高法院所指出的：\n“执行令不仅限于最初请求的救济，如果地区法院随后的行为造成了新的损害，该令状可以予以扩大以纠正该损害。”\nCheney v. U.S. Dist. Court，542 U.S. 367, 380-81\n同样地，第九巡回上诉法院（Ninth Circuit）已经确认：\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 40 页（共 54 页）\n“当地区法院因 CVRA 受害人行使法定权利而对其进行报复时，受害人可以寻求执行令以撤销原裁定并获得更广泛的救济。”\nKenna v. U.S. Dist. Court，435 F.3d 1011, 1017-18\n为了防止 CVRA 受害人进一步遭受报复性人肉搜索（doxxing），根据 § 1651(a)，唯一有效的救济途径就是撤销所有受到污染的裁定并回避主审法官。\n因此，纽约南区联邦地区法院（Southern District of New York，“SDNY”）在泄露 Dkt. 765 方面的报复性行为，触发了我恭请寻求如下扩大的执行令救济的权利：\n\n1. 指令纽约南区联邦地区法院（“SDNY”）立即从所有可公开访问的法院系统中移除或封存 Dkt. 765、Dkt. 732 以及任何其他包含未隐去受害人信息的案卷归档材料，包括但不限于 PACER、CourtListener 及类似平台，并上传我此前通过 SDNY 本人代表（Pro Se）电子邮箱提交但被从案卷中压制的两份经过隐名处理的原始动议（Mandamus 申请书中的证物 A 和 B）；\n\n2. 指令 SDNY 将所有合规的第三方本人代表诉讼文件登记入卷；\n\n3. 鉴于本申请书中所述的 Cronic 结构性瓦解，发布监督性指示，在独立审查完成前，暂缓执行或撤销拒绝保释裁定、初步没收裁定、定罪裁定和量刑程序以及由此类程序缺陷所致的任何其他受到污染的程序；\n\n4. 鉴于存在偏见的外观和利益冲突，依据 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) 裁定 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）法官回避；\n\n5. 发布为恢复司法公正和防止对 CVRA 受害人进行进一步报复所必需的其他监督性指示；\n\n6. 为了避免再次受到 SDNY 的报复，同时在案卷上展示必要的文件内容，将本补充申请书隐名版 Supplemental Petition_redacted.pdf 和证物 C 公开版 Exhibit C_public.pdf 上传至案件 25-2726 的公开案卷中，并将完整签署且未隐名版本作为法院内部记录予以封存。\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 41 页（共 54 页）\n7. 指令 SDNY 将本补充申请书的隐名版本登记到 SDNY 案卷中，以确保与 Dkt. 765 保持一致，并防止损害本法院监督性审查的进一步选择性入卷行为。\n\n2025年12月19日\n谨呈，\nRyan Bai\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 42 页（共 54 页）\n证物 E：\n\n向 SDNY 提出的动议：\n紧急动议：ECF No. 765 中未经授权公开上传个人信息——违反《犯罪受害人权利法》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条及司法隐私政策\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 43 页（共 54 页）\n美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区\n\n关于侵犯隐私及违反《犯罪受害人权利法》的通知\n（关于：ECF No. 765 中未经授权的公开披露）\n请求立即封存、调查和采取补救措施\n\n致：\n法院主管书记官\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）美国联邦地区法官\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n案件编号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n紧急动议：ECF No. 765 中未经授权公开上传个人信息——违反《犯罪受害人权利法》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条及司法隐私政策\n\n尊敬的主管书记官及尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n我谨此提交本通知，报告纽约南区联邦地区法院因公开归档 ECF No. 765 而严重侵犯隐私和受害人权利的行为。\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 44 页（共 54 页）\nECF No. 765 包含我最初邮寄给美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit）的文件，而非寄往 SDNY 案卷的文件。这些材料包括我的个人信息，例如我的真实姓名、电话号码、地址、完整居住地址、签名和身份识别细节，这些信息绝非用于公开披露。\n\n法院在未作隐名处理且未经授权的情况下上传这些材料，违反了多项法定和程序性保障措施，包括：\n\n1. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8)——保障犯罪受害人享有“受到公正对待以及尊严和隐私受到尊重的权利”。公开发布受害人的个人信息是对这一法定保护的直接侵犯。\n\n2. 《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Crim. P.）第 49.1(a) 条——要求在文件公开之前隐去个人身份标识，例如家庭住址、全名和签名。\n\n3. 《司法咨议会关于电子案件档案隐私与公众查阅的政策（2008年3月）》（Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files）——禁止法院在 ECF 系统上暴露个人私密数据。\n\n4. 《2002年电子政务法》（E-Government Act of 2002）§ 205(c)(3)——要求联邦法院维持保护隐私的归档程序。\n\n5. 《第五修正案》（Fifth Amendment）下的正当程序——禁止破坏受害人程序公正的任意或报复性对待。\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 45 页（共 54 页）\n鉴于 SDNY 此前曾声称限制受害人归档材料是“为了保护隐私”，这一行为显得尤为自相矛盾。然而，法院自身如今却公开暴露了受害人的私密数据，表明了对受害人的不一致且具有潜在报复性的对待——这进一步违反了 § 3771(a)(8) 中关于公正和尊严的保证。\n\n因此，我谨请求法院：\n\n1. 在 24 小时内，立即封存或限制公众查阅 ECF No. 765 及任何包含个人身份识别信息的关联分录，包括我的真实姓名、签名、电子邮件、电话号码、地址，随后对这些信息进行隐名处理并上传隐名版本。\n\n2. 进行内部审查，以查明受害人归档材料为何在未作隐名处理或未经同意的情况下被上传至公开案卷。\n\n3. 证明已遵守 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) 及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条下的受害人隐私保护规定。\n\n4. 实施补救性保障措施，以防止在未来涉及 CVRA 受害人的归档中再次发生类似违规行为。\n\n5. 封存本文件。\n\n此外，尽管法院此前已收到我向 SDNY 送达的经过合规隐名处理的公开版本，但法院仍决定公开发布我所提交文件的未隐名版本，这不仅构成了第 49.1 条下的程序性违规，而且构成了对《犯罪受害人权利法》18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) 的故意或轻率漠视。\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 46 页（共 54 页）\n此类行为引发了关于对依法行使请愿权和监督权的 CVRA 受害人进行选择性执法和报复性对待的严重关切。\n\n对 ECF No. 765 的不当处理引发了对法院是否致力于依法公正对待受害人并保护其隐私的重大担忧。我谨请求确认收到本通知并确认采取纠正措施。\n\n若法院未能及时处理此次违规事件，我保留向美国法院行政管理局（Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts）、第二巡回区司法委员会（Judicial Council of the Second Circuit）以及美国最高法院书记官处提交本通知作为监督申请一部分的权利。\n\n此致，\nRyan Bai\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 47 页（共 54 页）\n证物 F：\n\n2026年1月20日案情进展会议记录\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 48 页（共 54 页）\n诉\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nMILES GUO（郭文贵），\n被告。\n\n会议\n\n纽约州纽约市\n2026年1月20日\n上午 10:05\n\n审理法官：\nHON. ANALISA TORRES（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯），\n地区法官\n\n出庭人员\n\nJAY CLAYTON（杰伊·克莱顿）\n纽约南区联邦检察官\nRYAN B. FINKEL（莱恩·B·芬克尔）\nJULIANA N. MURRAY（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMICAH F. FERGENSON（米卡·F·弗格森）\nJUSTIN HORTON（贾斯汀·霍顿）\n联邦助理检察官\n\nMELINDA M. SARAFA（梅琳达·M·萨拉法）\nJOHN F. KALEY（约翰·F·凯利）\nJOSHUA L. DRATEL（约书亚·L·德拉特尔）\n被告辩护律师\n\n其他在场人员：\nTuo Huang（黄拓），口译员（普通话）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 49 页（共 54 页）\n法庭：\n早上好。\n我们在此审理 United States v. Miles Guo（美国诉郭文贵案）。\n请各方登记出庭。\n\nFINKEL 先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\nRyan Finkel、Juliana Murray、Micah Ferguson 和 Justin Horton 代表政府出庭。\n\n法庭：\n请口译员登记出庭。\n\n口译员：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n联邦法院专业合格口译员 Tuo Huang。\n\n法庭：\n现在请辩方。\n\nSARAFA 女士：\n早上好，法官阁下。\nMelinda Sarafa、John Kaley 和 Joshua Dratel 代表 Miles Guo 出庭。\n\n法庭：\n请就座。\n许多认为自己是 Guo（郭）先生欺诈方案受害人的人士已要求退还其款项。\n有些人联系了检方，有些人联系了法庭。\n显然，对于退款程序的运作方式存在困惑。\n我将就本案中与 Guo 先生非法行为相关的被没收资产处理两类权利主张。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件编号：25-2726，2026年3月16日，案卷分录：38.1，第 50 页（共 54 页）\n首先，根据《美国法典》第 21 编第 853(i)(1) 条以及《联邦行政法典》第 28 编第 9 部，受害人可以向检方提交所谓的赦免申请（petition for remission）。\n赦免申请是请求政府\n\n向被告犯罪行为的受害者发还资产。政府将按照《联邦法规汇编》（Code of Federal Regulations）第 28 编第 9 部分所述的程序对这些申请进行评估。\n\n在今年 1 月 9 日致本法院的信函中，政府表示，在评估此类申请时，将考虑受害者是否主张了由犯罪行为直接造成的金钱损失、该主张是否有书面证据支持，以及受害者是否存在明知而促成、参与该事件、从中获益或对该事件采取故意视而不见态度的情况。\n\n存在第二类权利主张。根据《美国法典》（United States Code）第 21 编第 853(n) 条，如果个人能够证明其对被没收资产拥有比政府更强的合法权利主张，则可以申请发还其资产。主张人实现这一目的的一种方式是证明截至资产被没收给政府之日，其对该资产拥有优先所有权。换句话说，主张人必须证明在发生犯罪行为时，其对该资产拥有的合法权利强于被告。\n\n例如，如果被告借用了某人的汽车，然后用它来实施犯罪，车主或许能够根据第 853(n)(6)(A) 条成功主张其对该汽车拥有优先合法权益。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n---\n\n案号：25-2726，03/16/2026，案卷分录：38.1，第 51 页，共 54 页\n\n主张人符合这一标准的另一种方式是证明自己是被没收资产权益的善意有偿受让人。换句话说，其是在被告实施犯罪行为之后出于善意从被告处购买了被没收资产，但对被告的犯罪活动不知情。\n\n认为自己拥有此类权利主张的人可以通过向本法院提出第 853(n) 条主张来寻求追回其资金。但是，我想强调的是，郭先生（Mr. Guo）欺诈计划的受害者在法律上可能被视为普通债权人，因此可能无法根据第 853(n) 条追回其资金。换句话说，第 853(n) 条主张与减免申请不可混为一谈。\n\n本法院收到的未援引第 853(n) 条、而被本法院认定为减免申请的文件，已转交政府予以考量。这些文件未被记入案卷日程，也不会被记入案卷日程。\n\n本法院目前正在审查并登记大量载明第 853(n) 条的提呈文件。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n---\n\n案号：25-2726，03/16/2026，案卷分录：38.1，第 52 页，共 54 页\n\n有律师代理的个人已被作为利害关系方添加到案卷日程中，以便他们可以直接在案卷日程上提交文件。没有律师代理的个人尚未被作为利害关系方添加到案卷日程中。但本法院已收到并正在处理他们的申请，并将在适当的时候根据需要予以登记。本法院可指示对申请进行涂抹遮蔽处理或进行密封归档，以保护主张人的个人身份信息或其他敏感信息。\n\n此外，本法院还收到了一些提出各类申诉的零散申请。这些文件正在逐案评估中。\n\n本法院召开此次案件进展会议与各方当事人讨论这些事项，是为了加快本法院对数量超过 100 份的大量第 853(n) 条申请的审理。本法院还征求了各方当事人关于根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure）第 53 条任命特别主事官（special master）的意见，该规则允许主事官履行经各方同意的职责，或处理本地区现有的地区法官或治安法官无法有效且及时处理的审后事项。\n\n我已经审阅了政府今年 1 月 9 日的信函和被告今年 1 月 16 日的信函。双方均建议法院任命一名特别主事官，以协助评估第 853(n) 条申请，并根据需要在本案中协助管理附属程序。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT RE PORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n---\n\n案号：25-2726，03/16/2026，案卷分录：38.1，第 53 页，共 54 页\n\n特别主事官的报酬受到《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 53(g)(2) 条的限制，该条规定：“报酬必须由一方或多方当事人支付，或从法院控制下的诉讼标的或资金中支付。”\n\n政府建议如何向特别主事官支付报酬？\n\n芬克尔先生（MR. FINKEL）：法官大人，政府就该问题目前没有具体的方案，但当然可以进行考量并向法庭提交信函。显然，政府时刻关注着通过没收所获得的资产，并希望尽可能多地为受害者保留资产。\n\n法庭：政府是否知悉全国范围内其他法院有任命特别主事官来处理第 853(n) 条申请的情况？\n\n芬克尔先生：今天站在这里，法官大人，我并不知晓。这并不是说没有发生过。我不知道是否发生过。\n\n法庭：我希望你们能就此进行调研并向我汇报。\n\n芬克尔先生：我们会这样做的。\n\n法庭：辩方有什么要说的吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n---\n\n案号：25-2726，03/16/2026，案卷分录：38.1，第 54 页，共 54 页\n\n萨拉法女士（MS. SARAFA）：法官大人，我认为我们的观点与政府表达的观点非常相似。我们希望看到扣押的资产尽可能多地得到保全并返还给本案所涉实体的投资者和客户。而且，今天站在这里，我也不知道有任何关于特别主事官报酬资金来源的法律依据。\n\n法庭：《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 53(b)(1) 条要求，在任命特别主事官之前，法院必须向当事各方发出通知并给予其陈述意见的机会；并且任何一方均可建议任命人选。因此，在今年 2 月 10 日之前，各方应当进行协商，并共同提交一份信函，推荐根据第 53(b)(1) 条担任特别主事官的人选，并就报酬条款提出建议。当然，信函中还应当讨论特别主事官任命的具体职责范围。\n\n郭先生（Mr. Guo），你一直能听懂口译员所说的内容，对吗？\n\n被告：（用英文）是的，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事情吗？\n\n芬克尔先生：政府方面没有了。\n\n法庭：好的。休庭。\n\n萨拉法女士：谢谢法官大人。\n\n*\n*\n*\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":13374,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:33:14"}