{"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":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":13374,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-07 13:44:16"}