{"id":"court_2cir_26-1476_dkt_24","court":"2Cir","case_no":"26-1476","doc_number":24,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2026-07-20","title":"Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (1 of 39) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","summary_zh":"非律师代理申请人补充证据信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），2Cir 26-1476 Dkt #24（2026-07-20立案）。非律师代理申请人 Sarah 提交此份指定为补充证据 D-1 的信函，旨在为上诉审理保留证据记录而不寻求实体或紧急救济。该文件梳理了所谓「挺郭」与「砸郭」派别（包括网络评论员黄河边/高冰尘）的场外言论及社媒宣传活动，陈述了其对案卷真实性及当事人可能造成的干扰。","summary_en":"Supplemental Exhibit Letter of Pro Se Petitioner — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), 2Cir 26-1476 Dkt #24 (filed 2026-07-20). Pro se petitioner Sarah submitted this supplemental letter (designated Supplemental Exhibit D-1) for the limited purpose of record preservation for appellate review without seeking emergency relief. The submission details alleged extrajudicial statements, social media campaigns by \"pro-Guo\" and \"anti-Guo\" factions (including commentary by Bingceng Gao), and potential interference affecting the integrity of the record and pro se participants.","body_en":"Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (1 of 39)\n\n                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                          FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n\n                         S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n                            IN RE: Sarah, Pro Se Petitioner\n\n            Docket No: 26-1476 (Consolidated with Related Matters)\n\n      SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT D-1: LETTER SUBMISSION OF PRO SE\n PETITIONER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF RECORD PRESERVATION\n(Supplementing Exhibit D, Dkt. 18.7 [July 20, 2026] and Dkt. 22.1 [August 21, 2026])\n\nDear Clerk of Court and Honorable Judges:\nI, Sarah, respectfully submit this supplemental letter as a pro se petitioner for the sole\npurpose of further preserving the evidentiary record for appellate review, without\nseeking substantive or emergency relief at this time.\nSupplementing Exhibit D of Dkt. 18.7 (filed July 20, 2026) and the Letter Submission of\nDkt. 22.1 (filed August 21, 2026), this submission (designated as Supplemental Exhibit\nD-1) is provided to inform the Court of ongoing extrajudicial statements and social\nmedia activities that bear directly upon the integrity of the record in this matter.\nWhether originating from self-identified \"pro-Guo,\" \"anti-Guo,\" or various Alliance-\naffiliated entities, these coordinated online campaigns and non-neutral extrajudicial\nrepresentations risk confusing the factual record and intimidating pro se participants.\nFurthermore, within the pro se claimant community itself, conflicting representations\nhave emerged; these warrant the Court's awareness to ensure the integrity of judicial\nreview.\nTo ensure the historical accuracy and appellate reliability of this matter, this submission\npresents seven key areas of observed record interference and systemic vulnerabilities,\nsupported by attached screenshots and documentary records:\n\n                                             1/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (2 of 39)\n\nChapter I: The symbiotic information manipulation between \"Pro-Guo\" and \"Anti-Guo\"\nfactions;\nChapter II: The operational mechanics of community mobilization and the systemic\nconversion of investors into a standardized \"victim\" framework;\nChapter III: Pseudo-dissidents and the non-judicial diversion of victim energy away\nfrom statutory remedies;\nChapter IV: Cross-platform extrajudicial pressure campaigns and narrative deification\nby specific network agents;\nChapter V: Facial defects, structural cross-contamination, and assembly-line\nduplication in bad-faith pro se filings;\nChapter VI: Recent malicious network acts, including private mail interception, direct\ndoxing, and manufactured assassination narratives; and\nChapter VII: Systemic vulnerabilities, extraterritorial pressure, and the forced\ndisappearance of independent grassroots pro se pioneers.\n\n                                           2/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (3 of 39)\n\n                                          Chapter I\n      THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF \"PRO-GUO\" VS. \"ANTI-GUO\" FACTIONS:\n        COORDINATED INFORMATION MANIPULATION AND THEATRICAL\n                                       POLARIZATION\n\nContrary to the public optics of fierce ideological opposition, the self-proclaimed \"Anti-\nGuo\" and \"Pro-Guo\" social media factions operate not as genuine opposing interests,\nbut as a coordinated, symbiotic ecosystem. Both sides manipulate public perception,\nexploit victim resources, and distract from the objective realities of these proceedings.\n\n§1.1 The \"Anti-Guo\" Faction: Commercialized Ridicule and Superficial Framing\nA prominent figure within the \"Anti-Guo\" commentary network is Canadian-based\ncommentator Bingceng Gao (known online as \"Huanghebian\" / 黄河边). Maintaining an\n\nactive presence across YouTube (@huanghebian) and X (@huanghebian), Gao\nproduces commercialized commentary targeting Defendant Guo Wengui and his\nnetwork of figures. However, rather than offering objective or substantive exposure of\nthe underlying network, Gao’s commentary fails to address the operational reality of\nthese actors, reducing complex information operations to superficial mockery.\nSuperficial Ridicule as Diversion: Rather than conducting neutral analysis or exposing\nstructural covert operations, Gao systematically reduces key Alliance figures to a\nsimplistic, theatrical narrative of \"blind followers\" or \"infatuated victims.\" This superficial\nframing is epitomized in Gao’s public graphics (Figures 1B-E), which fail to objectively\nreveal how these supposedly \"pro-Guo\" figures actually operate to the Defendant’s\ngrave legal detriment.\n       Analysis of the 16 x 10 Matrix (Fig. 1D): On July 11, 2024, Gao published a\n       matrix depicting 160 female figures as a \"Fangirl Family Portrait\". As an early and\n       persistent observer who closely followed these broadcast platforms since late\n       2017—frequently liking, supporting, and respecting these individuals in their early\n       streams—the petitioner possesses direct, first-hand familiarity with these 160\n       featured figures. While initially presented as devout supporters, long-term\n\n                                              3/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (4 of 39)\n\n       observation and procedural developments reveal that their coordinated conduct\n       is fundamentally malicious: under the disguise of devotion, they systematically\n       engineered actions that heightened Defendant Guo’s legal liabilities and ensured\n       his prolonged detention. Yet, Gao’s commentary over the years has remained\n       entirely static, endlessly recycling surface-level mockery that shields these bad-\n       faith actors from meaningful public and judicial scrutiny.\n       Analysis of the \"Eight Female Cadres\" Post (Fig. 1E) & Judicial\n       Interference: On August 24, 2026, Gao published a 13-minute YouTube\n       commentary and corresponding X post featuring an AI-generated graphic of eight\n       prominent female figures. The original text of Gao’s X post reads: \"President Guo\n       Wengui and his eight female provincial and ministerial-level cadres: half are\n       lovesick, half are cannon fodder!\" Gao explicitly labeled these eight individuals as\n       Guo’s loyal followers:\n       Back Row: An Hong (安红, @maryann_3040 in X, see Fig.1D at grid E3),\n\n       Zhengdao Zhuyi Xiaocao (Grass Roots, Angelina, 正道主义小草,\n\n       @GrassRoots79741 in X), Witch (魔女/摩女), and Zhimakaimen (ZMKM, 芝麻开门).\n\n       Front Row: Rushui / Hao Yumei (如水/郝玉梅), Rebecca, Fengqiyunyong Sarah\n\n       ( 风起云涌, FQYY Sarah), and Karl Alice (卡尔爱丽丝).\n\nWhile the petitioner was once intimately familiar with and respectful of all eight\nindividuals, extensive observation demonstrates that they are false supporters who,\nunder the banner of \"protecting Guo,\" actively push for his ultimate incarceration. Gao—\nwho has covered this ecosystem for years—cannot be unaware of this reality. Crucially,\nGao’s fabrication of a \"President Guo\" narrative actively interferes with the judicial\nprocess by reinforcing a false premise. In truth, Defendant Guo opposed authoritarian\ndictatorship, advocating explicitly for a \"one-person, one-vote\" democratic system in the\nofficial NFSC Declaration, never held any official corporate or governmental title, never\ncoerced others, and expressed no ambition for a presidency. However, both the \"Pro-\nGuo\" Alliance leaders and \"Anti-Guo\" commentators like Gao have symbiotically\nmanufactured a narrative framing Guo as an autocratic \"Boss\" or \"Commander-in-\nChief.\" This misrepresentation conveniently aligns with the prosecution's RICO framing:\n\n                                            4/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (5 of 39)\n\nwhen individual network actors commit independent wrongful acts, this manufactured\ntop-down hierarchy allows them to shift sole liability onto Guo as the alleged\n\"commander.\" By echoing and perpetuating this false hierarchy for online traffic, Gao\nactively obstructs judicial clarity and aids in framing Defendant Guo within a RICO\nstructure while shielding autonomous actors from individual accountability.\n\n§1.2 The Pro-Guo Faction: Manufactured Loyalty and Control of Supporter\nNarrative\nOn the opposing side, public \"Pro-Guo\" figures maintain a posture of extreme personal\ndevotion to the Defendant. However, as documented across related Circuit filings (e.g.,\nCase No. 25-2726, Dkt. 35 and Case No. 26-1476, Dkts. 8.1 and 18.7), these figures\nfunction primarily as gatekeepers. They cultivate an emotionally charged environment\nthat deters followers from seeking independent legal counsel or filing objective Pro Se\npetitions before this Court.\nFirst-Hand Evidence of Supporter-Group Exclusion and Monitored Pro Se\nForums: While \"Pro-Guo\" factions appear exponentially larger in membership than\n\"Anti-Guo\" networks, their operations rely on strict ideological filtering. The petitioner’s\ndirect experience demonstrates that independent, objective voices are actively purged\nfrom primary \"Pro-Guo\" Alliance chat groups within days, as the NFSC organizers fear\nany discourse that challenges their controlled narrative or influences rank-and-file\nmembers.\nConversely, genuine Pro Se legal inquiry has been forced to operate independently. A\nprimary example is a dedicated Pro Se legal discussion group established on Discord\nby an independent grassroots pioneer, Chunk Chyi (known online as \"Brother Screw\" /\n\"Luosi-Ge,\" a welder by trade), who first identified and mapped out the Pro Se petition\npathway for victims. Unlike top-down Alliance channels, this community grew\norganically from a few individuals to over 500 independent petitioners. However,\nprominent public figures from both \"Pro\" and \"Anti\" factions strictly avoid participating\nunder their public identities, instead deploying anonymous secondary accounts (\"spies\")\nto covertly monitor group activity.\n\n                                             5/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (6 of 39)\n\n§1.3 The Symbiotic Reality: Mutual Preservation and Record Pollution\nDespite their surface-level hostility, neither faction exposes the true underlying\ndynamics of the other:\nAbsence of Substantive Exposure: \"Anti-Guo\" commentators like Gao consistently\nfocus on superficial mockery of low-level supporters rather than exposing how key\nAlliance figures manipulate funds, petitions, and legal representations.\nFabricated Hostility for Engagement: The endless feud between \"Pro\" and \"Anti\"\nfactions serves as theatrical entertainment to capture supporter attention, monetize\nonline traffic, and create overwhelming noise (\"pumping sand\") to obscure legitimate\njudicial filings.\nChilling Effect on Independent Pro Se Petitioners: Independent victims and pro se\npetitioners who refuse to align with either the \"Pro-Guo\" Alliance or the \"Anti-Guo\"\nonline commentary circle are systematically harassed, doxed, or blocked by both sides,\ndepriving them of a neutral forum to preserve their rights.\n\n§1.4 Explicit Proof of Content Recycling and the Qmay- Huanghebian (Gao) Direct\nInformation Pipeline\nThe symbiotic mechanism between the \"Pro-Guo\" hype apparatus and the \"Anti-Guo\"\ncommentary network is vividly demonstrated by the direct information pipeline\nbetween Min Chen (known online as \"QMAY\" / @Q_May_007 in X and @ QMAY007 in\nGETTR, see Chapter VI for more details), a key spokesperson for the alleged\nDefendant’s supporters, and Bingceng Gao (\"Huanghebian\").\nInformation Origin: On August 21, 2026, Min Chen published posts on X (formerly\nTwitter) asserting that the Defendant's transfer between federal correctional facilities\n(FCI Schuylkill to Danbury) involved \"coordination between the CCP and U.S.\ngovernment entities\" and framing Danbury as a safer, luxury facility. She further\nscheduled a live broadcast (Episode 147 of The Qmay Show) to disseminate these\nclaims.\nImmediate Repurposing: Within hours, Bingceng Gao extracted Min Chen’s live\nbroadcast feeds and X posts, presenting them verbatim in his own YouTube and X\nstreams to manufacture breaking commentary.\n\n                                            6/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (7 of 39)\n\nEvidentiary Significance: This direct pipeline demonstrates that \"Anti-Guo\"\ncommentary does not conduct independent investigation. Instead, it relies entirely on\nfed narratives provided by primary \"Pro-Guo\" organizers. This mutually beneficial\narrangement generates traffic and monetization for both parties while saturating public\nand judicial record channels with dramatic, conflicting, and unverified noise.\nLegal Implication for Judicial Proceedings: This total absence of adversarial scrutiny\nbetween the \"Pro\" and \"Anti\" factions proves that the public commentary surrounding\nthese cases does not offer genuine counter-perspectives. Instead, it forms an\nuncritically recycled echo chamber that obscures factual records, misleads victim\ninvestors, and distorts the true nature of proceedings before this Court.\n\n                                           7/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (8 of 39)\n\n   Fig. 1A: Gao’s Profile in X (Bilingual, @huanghebian)                  Fig. 1B: Screenshot on Mocking Alliance Members\n\n         Fig. 1C: Post Targeting “Pro-Guo” Women                         Fig. 1D: Matrix of 16x10(A-J) =160 Female Influencers\n\n      Fig. 1E: Screenshots of Attacks on “Supporters”                     Fig. 1F: Content of Recycling of Qmay's Allegation\n\nFig. 1A: Public profile of Bingceng Gao's X account (@huanghebian) shown in Chinese original and auto-translated English.\nFig. 1B: Screenshot of YouTube video published by Gao on Nov. 28, 2025, titled \"Huanghebian Comments on the Nonsense of Two\nInfatuated Followers\", ridiculing two key Alliance figures in Europe, Zhou Zhe and “Xiaopijiang” (偷窥皮皮, @ToukuiP82522t in X).\nFig. 1C: Screenshots of Gao's X post showing the auto-translated English version beside the Chinese original, titled \"Guo Wengui’s\nInfatuated Fan Family Portrait\", categorizing 160 prominent Alliance figures into a simplistic matrix.\nFig. 1D: Gao’s X post compiling portraits of 160 prominent female Alliance figures, framing them collectively as \"infatuated followers”\nFig. 1E: Screenshots of Gao’s X post and YouTube video commentary dated August 24, 2026, wherein Gao falsely constructs a\nnarrative of a \"President Guo\" and his \"cadres,\" symbiotically reinforcing a top-down hierarchy that aligns with RICO liability theories\nwhile diverting attention from the autonomous misconduct of individual network actors.\nFig. 1F: Screenshots of Gao’s broadcast overlaying and playing \"QMAY's\" live video feed verbatim within his own channel, proving\nthe instantaneous recycling of primary Alliance content for secondary commentary monetization. Specifically, Gao reposts and\ncomments on Qmay’s sensationalized narrative alleging that Guo was subjected to a \"prison assassination plot\" and emergency\ntransfer, adopting these unsubstantiated assertions uncritically as factual premises for his own commercial broadcast content .\n   Fig. 1: Uncritical Content Recycling, Manufactured Hierarchy and Theatrical Mockery\n\n                                                                 8/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (9 of 39)\n\n                                        Chapter II:\n  OPERATIONAL MECHANICS OF COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION, PROCEDURAL\n  PIVOT, AND THE UNRESOLVED PROVENANCE OF ATTORNEY BRADFORD L.\n             GEYER’S REPRESENTATION OF OVER 6,000 HEX USERS\n\n§2.1 Community Trust Exploitation, Legal Framing Evolution, and Public\nSolicitation via Alliance\nThe mechanism by which Attorney Bradford L. Geyer (“Geyer”)—previously an\nunknown practitioner to the investor base—secured authorization from over 6,000\nindividual Himalaya Exchange (“HEX”) users relies entirely on the structural influence of\nthe Himalaya Alliance (“Alliance”). The targeted investor pool comprised ordinary\nindividuals globally whose primary language is Chinese, most of whom lacked\nproficiency in English, complex U.S. federal court procedures, or administrative law.\nDriven by a shared political aspiration to support Defendant Miles Guo (“Guo”) in\nadvocating for democratic reform in China, these investors entrusted both their political\nfaith and personal assets to the movement.\nFollowing Guo’s arrest on March 15, 2023, the investor community experienced\nwidespread vulnerability. Rather than fracturing, the Alliance leadership actively\nprojected an image of absolute solidarity and resolve. To construct institutional authority\nand consolidate trust, the Alliance orchestrated large-scale public demonstrations\nacross two key locations: high-profile rallies opposite the Sherry-Netherland in\nManhattan where Miles Guo was residing before his arrest, as well as maritime\ndemonstrations on the Hudson River directly opposite the Metropolitan Detention\nCenter (MDC), where a chartered vessel carrying over 400 supporters chanted \"Free\nMiles Guo\" during live broadcasts. The gathering at the plaza featured invited members\nof the local American media.\nThese public actions elevated the Alliance’s credibility and community authority to an\nall-time high. Leveraging this peak institutional trust, Alliance leadership introduced\nGeyer to the community. Prominent Alliance figureheads, including primary\nspokesperson Little Sarah (Real Name: Xingfang Zhang, @LittleSarah in GETTR), who\nre-emerged on live broadcasts following a prolonged absence after Guo’s arrest, utilized\n\n                                            9/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (10 of 39)\n\nemotional and ideological messaging (\"anti-CCP movements\" and \"resisting unlawful\ngovernment seizures\") to rally support. Through GETTR live-streams, leadership\nactively encouraged retail investors to sign retainers with Geyer, presenting his legal\nrepresentation as a unified defense of their assets and Guo’s cause. Unaware of the\nunderlying legal implications or conflicting interests, thousands of investors deferred to\nthe organization’s direction.\nInitial Framing and Asset Recovery Mandate (Sept–Dec 2023): In September 2023,\nHEX distributed mass communications to customers (Exhibit 28, ECF No. 740), framing\nGeyer as an \"entirely independent counsel\" (ECF No. 526-1) and directing users to\ncomplete HID registration on himalayarestoration.com. Acting on this initial mandate,\nGeyer filed a Rule 41(g) Motion for Return of Property on behalf of 3,345 HEX\ncustomers (ECF Nos. 184, 186), explicitly asserting distinct third-party ownership\ninterests (\"distinct, identifiable third-party interest\") and directly challenging government\nasset freezing without alleging fraud against Defendant Guo.\nGovernment Scrutiny and Identity Verification Concerns (Jan 2024): The\nprosecution formally challenged Geyer’s independence and representation scope in\nECF No. 223, noting to the Court that \"it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer.\" The\ngovernment highlighted that Geyer’s client acquisition and verification mechanics relied\nalmost exclusively on HEX database HIDs rather than direct attorney-client engagement.\nSubtle Procedural Expansion (Nov 2024): In ECF No. 478, Geyer’s filings began\nincorporating terms such as \"victims/investors\" alongside citations to the Crime Victims’\nRights Act (CVRA) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), blending original third-party property\narguments with victim-based relief language.\nAlignment with the Remission Process (Feb–Mar 2025): As the government moved\nfor a consolidated remission framework (ECF No. 493), Geyer engaged in direct\ncommunications with prosecutors, offering to alter filings to prevent objections (\"Let me\nknow what I need to cut or alter... so that I can file this without triggering an objection,\"\nECF No. 506). The USAO expressed intent to collaborate with Geyer to streamline the\nclaims administrator process (ECF No. 506).\nMulti-Track Relief and Authorization Controversies (Apr–Aug 2025): In ECF No.\n676, Geyer formally asserted claims for approximately 6,575 members across restitution,\n\n                                            10/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (11 of 39)\n\nancillary forfeiture, and remission tracks. This systemic transformation triggered severe\ninternal client disputes, culminating in numerous termination demands (ECF Nos. 506,\n612) and formal pro se motions seeking to nullify original engagement agreements\n(ECF Nos. 508, 709, 734, 740).\n\n§2.2 Operational Conversion: Instructions to Choose \"Victim\" Status\nDespite public messaging assuring investors that Geyer’s representation aimed to\nrecover seized assets on behalf of independent owners, internal operational directives\ndiverted from this premise. The Alliance drafted, standardized, and circulated step-by-\nstep instructional guides (e.g., Forfeiture-Petition-Filling Guide.pdf) to assist members in\nsubmitting administrative claims on forfeiture.gov.\nSpecifically, these instructional materials did not allow investors to independently\nassess their legal standing among the statutory options provided by the government\nportal (i.e., Owner, Lienholder, or Victim). Instead, the Alliance's tutorials explicitly\ninstructed applicants—via mandatory directional markers—to select \"Victim\".\nFurthermore, the guide supplied uniform, pre-formulated English text templates for\nsubmission. Applicants were directed to assert that their funds were \"misappropriated\nas part of the underlying criminal offense\" and to declare their financial loss strictly \"as a\nvictim\".\nThis standardized instruction systematically funneled thousands of investors—who\ninitially sought to assert independent, third-party ownership interests—into a formal\nadministrative posture acknowledging the underlying criminal offense.\n\n§2.3 Evidentiary Realization in the Criminal Record and Subsequent\nOrganizational Disavowal\nThe structural conversion of investors into \"victims\" directly impacted the government’s\nsentencing submissions in the underlying criminal matter:\nIntegration into Government Submissions: In its Sentencing Memorandum (See\nECF No. 833), the prosecution established \"Section IV: VICTIM STATEMENTS,\"\nreferencing approximately 225 victim impact statements submitted across multiple\ndockets (See ECF Nos. 477, 482, 486, 832). The government relied heavily on these\n\n                                             11/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (12 of 39)\n\nstatements to corroborate its loss calculations under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and to justify a\nminimum sentence of 30 years.\nEmergence of Internal Dissidence and Evidentiary Conflicts (The \"Chunk Chyi\"\nPrecedent) : As individual investors realized that their administrative filings contradicted\ntheir true intentions—or that their identities were being leveraged to substantiate\ncriminal loss—dissident filings emerged. A pivotal turning point occurred when pro se\npetitioner Chunk Chyi (\"Brother Screw\") filed ECF No. 508 (Motion to Revoke the\nRepresentation Agreement with Attorney Geyer and Declare the Agreement Invalid).\nCiting Section 162 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Chyi formally moved to\nvoid his representation agreement with Geyer, asserting that his signature was procured\nthrough third-party fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts.\nCrucially, Chyi’s motion requested that the Court declare Geyer's broader\nrepresentation agreement covering thousands of HEX clients invalid in toto, thereby\nexposing the structural flaw in Geyer’s \"master roster.\"\nDefensive Organizational Severance: In response to increasing pro se independence\nand potential legal liability, the Alliance altered its public guidance. The Alliance issued\npublic notices stating it would no longer assist or organize forfeiture petitions, explicitly\ndeclaring that it \"does not support members participating in any organized forfeiture\npetition/claim.\" This shift represented a calculated structural retreat—attempting to\ninsulate the organization from legal liability after having successfully facilitated the\ncreation of a standardized victim pool for administrative and sentencing purposes.\n\n                                            12/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (13 of 39)\n\nDescriptions for Fig.2 on the following page:\nFig. 2A: Profile page of \"Justice Little Sarah\" on Gettr alongside archival photos of her with Defendant\nGuo and Feifei, used to construct institutional authority within the movement.\n Fig. 2B: Photographs of large-scale public demonstrations organized by the Alliance outside the Sherry-\nNetherland in Manhattan.\n Fig. 2C: Video stills of primary spokesperson Little Sarah during live-stream broadcasts, mobilizing\ninvestor participation and driving legal petition initiatives following her public re-emergence.\nFig. 2D: Video stills showing Geyer introducing and pitching legal retainer services on Alliance platforms\nacross two broadcasts with Alliance/HEX backgrounds. Initially framed as an \"independent counsel\" to\nhelp HEX depositors recover seized assets, his representation eventually expanded to over 6,000\nclaimants.\nFig. 2E: Official Discord announcement issued by the Alliance Committee on March 27, 2025, distributing\nstandardized forfeiture petition guides, application templates, and operational FAQs. (English translation\nadded by the Petitioner.)\nFig. 2F: Screenshots of Pages from the Alliance’s Forfeiture-Petition-Filling Guide, explicitly directing\napplicants to select \"Victim\" status and providing standardized template language linking asset losses to\nthe \"underlying criminal offense.\"\n\n                                                  13/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (14 of 39)\n\nFig. 2A: Justice Little Sarah (@ LittleSarah in GETTR，张星芳)       Fig. 2B: Large-scale Gatherings Organized by the Alliance\n\n   Fig. 2C: Little Sarah Mobilizing Investor Participation           Fig. 2D: Geyer Introducing Himself and Pitching Legal\n                                                                          Retainer Services Across Alliance Platforms\n\n   Fig. 2E: Official Discord Announcement Issued by the                    Fig. 2F: Screenshots of Pages from the\n      Alliance Committee and its English Translation                      Alliance’s Forfeiture-Petition-Filling Guide\n\n   Fig. 2: Operational Funneling of Community Mobilization into Standardized \"Victim\" Relief Frameworks\n\n                                                             14/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (15 of 39)\n\n                                         Chapter III\n PSEUDO-DISSIDENTS, CONTROLLED DIVERSION, AND THE DECOUPLING OF\n              COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION FROM JUDICIAL REMEDIES\n\n§3.1 Opportunistic Dissent, Historical Alignment, and the Strategic Co-optation\nof Community Disillusionment\nFollowing the conviction of Defendant Miles Guo in July 2024, the investor community\nentered a state of severe disillusionment. The operational credibility of the original\nHimalaya Alliance leadership (\"Old Alliance\"), exemplified by figures such as \"Brother\nIsland\" (aka Changdao, David Xia, Qidong Xia), collapsed after fulfilling their temporary\nrole during the trial proceedings. Although the newly installed leadership under\nQingteng (aka Forrest Zhou, Yue Zhou) (\"New Alliance\")—who retains the\nchairmanship—initially maintained a degree of obscurity, its rapid and overt suppression\nof rank-and-file participants accelerated its institutional exposure. Capitalizing on this\ninstitutional breakdown, a figure operating under the moniker \"Little Lamb\" (identifying\nas Yunfei Zhu, residing on the West Coast of Canada) emerged as the primary public\ncommentator to simultaneously attack both the Old and New Alliance leaderships.\nHowever, Zhu’s public posture as an independent challenger is completely undermined\nby his historical track record within the movement. Prior to Guo’s conviction, Zhu was an\nactive insider of the organization, physically visiting Alliance Headquarters in New York\non April 8-9 2023, participating in official broadcasts (such as the \"4/19\" live streams),\nand posing for promotional photographs with key figureheads during the visit, including\nChangdao and Jessica G (Fig. 3C). During this period, Zhu maintained a distinct\npersonal image marked by a prominent long beard, which he later shaved under the\npretext of legal proceedings and court decorum. It was only after July 2024 that Zhu\nexecuted a calculated pivot to sever visible ties with both factions. Far from acting as a\ngenuine reformer, Zhu’s total repudiation of prior leadership functioned as a calculated\nbid by a former insider to position himself as a prospective \"third-tier\" figurehead. When\nrational independent observers and retail participants publicly exposed this opportunistic\nrepackaging on platforms like X, Zhu’s network responded with severe personal\n\n                                            15/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (16 of 39)\n\nretaliation and hostilities, underscoring the friction between genuine grass-roots critique\nand opportunistic political positioning.\nUnlike systemic opposition figures, Zhu established initial credibility by pioneering\naggressive public criticism against both the Old Alliance and the New Alliance, going so\nfar as to publicly condemn prominent movement figures and trial attendees. Notably,\nZhu was among the early commentators to publicly critique Attorney Bradford L.\nGeyer’s master representation model—an observation that independently alerted pro se\nlitigants such as Chunk Chyi to the structural legal risks of Geyer's retainer structure.\nHowever, subsequent operational shifts reveal that this initial critique functioned not as\nan entry into legal self-help, but as controlled co-optation. Instead of channeling\ncommunity awareness toward independent judicial intervention, Zhu’s platform abruptly\nhalted legal exposure once Geyer’s credibility was eroded. By absorbing disillusioned\ninvestors who had rejected institutional Alliance leadership, Zhu’s network effectively\nneutralized potential pro se legal filings, sequestering vulnerable participants within non-\njudicial online discussion channels.\nCalculated Dissidence and Strategic Hind-sight (\"Hind-sight Manipulation\"): Zhu’s\nstrategic fracture from the Alliance leadership was primarily executed through two\ncalculated public stances designed to build credibility and absorb disillusioned followers:\nExploiting Trial Attendance Contradictions: Following July 16, 2024, Zhu\naggressively criticized Alliance organizers for suppressing general supporter attendance\nunder the pretext of \"Guo’s telephonic instructions,\" while simultaneously organizing\ntheir own privileged delegation to dominate trial coverage and narratives. While\nmathematically sound and resonant with frustrated victims, this critique served to boost\nZhu’s personal audience rather than provide legal redress.\nRetrospective Condemnation of the Geyer Retainer: Zhu publicly exposed the\nAlliance’s compromise of the legal defense through Attorney Bradford L. Geyer’s master\nrepresentation scheme, which tied together over 6,000 Himalaya Exchange users.\nThe Strategic Pattern: Crucially, Zhu never preemptively warned victims or intervened\nto prevent these compromised arrangements; instead, he waited until the damage was\nfully executed by the Alliance before issuing scathing \"post-mortem\" commentary. This\nhind-sight tactic achieved a dual operational objective: it permitted the Alliance to\n\n                                           16/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (17 of 39)\n\ncomplete its structural obstruction, while simultaneously positioning Zhu as a visionary,\ntruth-telling figurehead to capture victim traffic. Having consolidated this follower base\nunder the guise of superior insight, Zhu systematically steered these absorbed\nsupporters away from direct Pro Se judicial remedies and channeled their momentum\ntoward non-binding congressional petitions.\n\n§3.2 Non-Judicial Diversion via Congressional Petitions and Social Media\nInformation Control\nRather than pursuing statutory remedies available under federal criminal and asset\nforfeiture procedure, Zhu and an associated network of aligned accounts initiated\nexternal, non-judicial campaigns, primarily centering on an online petition platform\n(Petition: Request for Congressional Hearing on Miles Guo's Case, launched via\nChange.org). Through broadcast statements, Zhu framed legislative petitioning as the\nprimary avenue for relief, explicitly discouraging participants from engaging in direct\ncourt interventions or challenging the forfeiture framework through independent legal\nfilings.\nThis operational diversion was enforced through strict digital information control within\nprivate platforms:\nSuppression of Pro Se Legal Dialogue: Investors who raised inquiries regarding\nindependent court filings (Pro Se motions) or questioned the legal efficacy of non-\nbinding congressional petitions were systematically removed from discussion groups\n(such as Discord channels managed by the network) and blocked across public\nplatforms (e.g., X). The petitioner herself experienced being quietly kicked out of his\nDiscord chat group (named “True Fellow Fighters”) without any notice on July 4th, 2025.\nDelegitimization of Independent Litigants: Pro se litigants who filed formal court\npapers to invalidate compromised retainer agreements—most notably Chunk Chyi (ECF\nNo. 508)—were publicly labeled as hostile actors or intelligence operatives. As\ndocumented in public exchanges (e.g., Chunk Chyi’s response filed March 24, 2025),\nthese accusations served to isolate independent litigants from the broader victim pool,\npreventing the adoption of effective judicial remedies.\n\n                                           17/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (18 of 39)\n\n§3.3 Institutional Alignment and Structural Impact on the Forfeiture Framework\nThe systematic diversion of investors away from judicial intervention into non-binding\nlegislative petitions produced a dual operational effect:\nProtection of the Master Victim Roster: By dissuading claimants from filing individual\nRule 41(g) or ancillary forfeiture challenges under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), the network\nprevented mass invalidations of Geyer’s consolidated client list (ECF No. 676). This\nensured that the administration’s victim-remission framework (ECF No. 493) remained\nunencumbered by widespread pro se objections.\nSubversion of Dissident Energy: Under the guise of continued loyalty to the\nunderlying movement (\"Take Down the CCP\"), this pseudo-dissident strategy co-opted\npolitical energy while insulating the ongoing judicial proceedings from meaningful third-\nparty property claims. By steering retail investors away from standard federal procedure,\nthe operational mechanics effectively served to finalize asset forfeitures and secure\nsentencing parameters without internal evidentiary interference.\nThe Cultivation of a \"Devout and Truth-Seeking\" Public Persona: To solidify his\nstanding as a prospective figurehead and retain follower trust, Zhu carefully curated a\npublic persona centered on Christian faith, moral rectitude, and unyielding loyalty to\nDefendant Guo. A prime illustration is documented in Fig. 3B (Left Image), taken from\nZhu’s 233rd YouTube broadcast—a three-hour solo stream. In the opening segment,\nZhu displayed images of Jesus Christ's passion and suffering, explicitly drawing a\nparallel between Christ's martyrdom and Guo's legal predicament. Zhu asserted that\nGuo, like Christ, was suffering for speaking the truth, proclaiming that \"speaking truth\ndemands a price, including liberty and life itself.\" By framing Guo's criminal prosecution\nthrough the lens of religious martyrdom, Zhu maintained an online persona anchored in\nunshakeable devotion to Guo's innocence, thereby emotionally binding disillusioned\nfollowers to his channel while shielding them from objective judicial realities.\n\n                                           18/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (19 of 39)\n\n  Fig. 3A: Digital Footprint of Zhu’s YouTube Channel             Fig. 3B: Archival Recordings of Zhu’s Online Live\n                                                                   Broadcast (Showing Appearance Progression)\n\nFig. 3C: Historical Alignment: Zhu Visiting Headquarters        Fig. 3D: Historical Participation in Official Alliance Live\n             (“3C Office”) in NY (Apr. 9 2023)                                 Broadcast on Apr. 19 2023\n\n  Fig. 3E: Social Media Posts Promoting Non-Judicial            Fig. 3F: Rhetorical Mobilization, Digital Exclusion, and\n                Congressional Petitions                                     Public Rebuttal on Platform X\n\nFig. 3: Evidence of Zhu’s Media Operations, Historical Alliance Ties, Non-Judicial Petition Promotion, and\n   Online Rhetorical Mobilization (Yunfei Zhu: known online as \"Little Lamb\" / @xiaoyangshiping in X)\n\n                                                        19/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (20 of 39)\n\n                                        Chapter IV\n\n  CROSS-PLATFORM COORDINATION: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF \"JAPAN\n              WITCH\" AND EXTRAJUDICIAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGNS\n\n§4.1 Identity Evolution, Psychological Persona, and Platform Dynamics\nThe operator managing the social media presence under @peace8774949 (X, formerly\nTwitter) and @witchpeace (GETTR) functions as a key narrative agent for the \"Japan\nGalaxy\" (日本银河系) Farm. Whistleblower intelligence and court-adjacent archives\nidentify her behind reported real-name aliases including Guo Nannan (郭楠楠), Guo\nChunli (郭春莉), and Guo Xiaonan (郭晓楠). She is identified at grid coordinates E7 in\nFig. 1D.\nTo build fanatical authority among base followers, she constructed a specialized\nnarrative persona—a passionate, infatuated devotee portraying a \"hero-worshiping\nbeauty.\" She occasionally engages in public displays of personal jealousy against other\nfemale figures in the ecosystem (e.g., publicly disparaging figures like Yang Lanlan in\nAustralia) while romanticizing Miles Guo’s incarceration.\nHer digital branding and cross-platform operations reflect calculated optics and\nadaptation to platform decline:\nBranding and Handle Evolution: Across platforms, her social media identities exhibit\na mix of display names incorporating both \"魔女\" (Witch) and its homophonic variant \"摩\n女\" alongside \"peace.\" Crucially, while her Chinese display titles have shifted over time,\nher registered GETTR handle (@witchpeace) explicitly retains the English root \"witch,\"\nanchoring her core digital identity (Fig. 4A).\nVIP Status Amidst Purges: While the accounts of former top NFSC Alliance leaders—\nsuch as former Chairman Long Island Weige (David Xia, Qidong Xia) and former\nSecretary-General \"Old Monitor\" (Wang Xuebing, 老班长)—as well as ordinary\ndissenting members have been systematically banned and erased, Guo Nannan’s\nGETTR account uniquely retains the gold crown VIP badge (Fig. 4A). This official\nverification demonstrates that her operations remain directly endorsed and protected by\nthe movement’s current platform proxies (\"NFSC Proxies\").\n\n                                            20/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (21 of 39)\n\nCross-Platform Mobilization Strategy: The reliance on mainstream platforms like X\n(@peace8774949) reflects a strategic necessity caused by GETTR's internal decay.\nFollowing aggressive censorship and purges that turned GETTR into a dead-end echo\nchamber, key operatives like Witch (Guo Nannan) were forced to shift their primary\npropaganda, recruitment, and mass-mobilization efforts back to X to reach external\naudiences (Fig. 4A and 4C).\n\n§4.2 Systemic Interference in Judicial Protocols: The Letter-Writing Campaign\nA central operational directive executed by Guo Nannan involves organizing and\nenforcing large-scale extrajudicial pressure campaigns targeting the U.S. federal\njudiciary following Guo’s conviction in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). She\nrepeatedly instructed followers across X, GETTR, and Discord to send standardized,\nemotional appeals directly to presiding Judge Analisa Torres and Assistant U.S.\nAttorneys (SDNY ECF Docket 482).\nTo manipulate followers into participating, her posts systematically deployed structured\npsychological conditioning:\nFrame Interference as \"Civic Duty\": She explicitly instructed followers that writing to\nthe court is not \"judicial harassment\" but a rightful exercise of citizenship, asserting that\n\"judges work for us\" and are funded by taxpayers.\nManufacture Narrative Hegemony: Citing internal ideology (e.g., \"Dr. Eglise's logic\" ,\nsee Fig. 1D at grid J15), she argued that if 99% of followers remain silent, the public will\nassume 100% of victims were defrauded, framing letter-writing as a tool to control public\nperception rather than legal evidence.\nEquate Compliance with Loyalty: She repeatedly framed letter-writing as a loyalty test\ntelling followers that if they truly believe in her and want to \"save Seventh Brother\"\n(Miles Guo), writing to the court is mandatory.\nTargeting Official Email Channels: She publicly disseminated official court and\nprosecutorial email addresses (Torres_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov and\nWendy.Olsen@USDOJ.gov), directing followers to flood these endpoints under the\nguise of grassroots advocacy.\n\n                                            21/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (22 of 39)\n\n§4.3 Internal Financial Frictions and Infiltration Motives\nDespite her high-profile campaigns rallying followers to defend Guo, public records and\ninternal Discord archives (魔女 tracking threads) reveal deep financial contradictions,\npredatory exploitation, and evidence of hostile infiltration within her operation:\nCapital Interception and Grassroots Exploitation: During her tenure as a farm leader\nduring the launch of \"Himalaya Coin\", Guo Nannan retained and accumulated massive\ncrypto assets—reportedly over 7 million coins. As the asset was artificially pumped from\nan initial issue price of $0.10 to over $50.00, she profited enormously by cashing out\nsubstantial fiat capital. While securing personal wealth, she treated lower-tier rank-and-\nfile followers as disposable shields and financial targets (\"leeches\"), weaponizing sweet-\nsounding devotion to mask predatory motives (\"口蜜腹箭\").\nMDC \"Prison Phone Call\" Deceptions and TDCCP Token Promotion: Following\nGuo’s incarceration in MDC Brooklyn, Witch and affiliated network figures heavily\nleveraged unverified claims of direct phone communications with Guo to manufacture\nartificial divine authority. On X (@peace8774949), she routinely cited these reported\n\"MDC phone calls\" to glorify Guo (\"he has achieved godhood\") and drive promotion for\nsecondary speculative assets like TDCCP (MEME coin), framing coin ownership as a\nbadge of allegiance. These speculative schemes, coupled with fierce internal infighting\nover illicit financial distribution, resulted in massive financial losses for grassroots\ninvestors, with a known individual victim losing tens of thousands of dollars in a year.\nAttempted Assassination and Covert Infiltration Motives: Far from being a genuine\n\"hero-worshiping\" follower, evidence indicates covert operations aimed at neutralizing\nGuo as CCP's primary adversary. On July 7, 2020, Miles Guo publicly disclosed\nshipping receipts from Tokyo on GETTR, directly accusing \"peace 魔女\" and Sara of\nmailing packages containing lethal poison disguised as health supplements. Her\nwillingness to operate publicly without fear of retaliation aligns with an endgame of\nsystemic destruction: extracting maximum financial wealth while ensuring Guo remains\npermanently incarcerated or eliminated, thereby securing her own impunity.\nThis structural analysis reveals that her ultimate operational objective goes beyond\nmere financial fraud—it reflects a hostile mechanism to exploit the movement, siphon\nassets, and ensure the permanent silence of its core leadership.\n\n                                             22/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (23 of 39)\n\nDescriptions for Fig. 4 on the following page:\nFig. 4A: Digital Footprint across Platforms. Profiles on X (formerly Twitter) and GETTR, showing\naccount setup, follower metrics, and active block/moderation parameters targeting dissenting\naccounts.\nFig. 4B: Promotion of Alternative Speculative Token (TDCCP). Posts and profiles from key\noperators—including \"Taishan\" (real name: Jiao Jianhai, 焦建海) (@S1lzF6u0WSo0BzD), a\nprominent figure dedicated to crypto promotion, and \"Japan Witch\" (@peace8774949)—actively\ndriving subsequent speculative assets (TDCCP / MEME tokens) to followers after previous\nschemes were targeted by law enforcement.\nFig. 4C: Historical Ties to NFSC Core Figures and Amplification of Post-Conviction Leadership\n(QMAY Broadcasts) and Deification of Miles Guo. Media broadcasts and promotional materials\nhighlighting affiliations with alliance leadership, post-conviction operational directives, and\nrhetoric elevating Guo to divine status.\nFig. 4D: Unverified \"MDC Direct Call\" Claims. Posts in Chinese alongside automated English\ntranslations showcasing claims of repeated direct phone contact with Miles Guo (referencing 22\nalleged calls) from MDC Brooklyn to engineer divine authority and consolidate movement\ncontrol.\nFig. 4E: Coordination of Non-Judicial Letter-Writing Campaigns. Structured campaign posts\nurging followers to flood federal court and prosecutorial email endpoints with standardized\nemotional appeals targeting presiding Judge Analisa Torres and SDNY prosecutors.\nFig. 4F: Historical Evidence of Poisoning Allegations and Infiltration Tactics (July 7,\n2020). Archive of Miles Guo's official GETTR disclosure featuring Tokyo EMS postal receipts,\npackaging details, and public statements accusing \"peace 魔女\" and Sara of mailing deadly\npoison disguised as nutritional supplements to New York.\nFigure 4: Multi-Platform Operational Evidence and Narrative Dynamics of \"Japan Witch\"\n(@peace8774949 / @witchpeace).\n\n                                             23/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (24 of 39)\n\n        Fig. 4A: Digital Footprint across Platforms          Fig. 4B: Secondary Token Promotion (TDCCP/MEME Coin)\n\nFig. 4C: Ties to NFSC Core Figures, Amplification of Post-          Fig. 4D: Unverified \"MDC Direct Call\" Claims\nConviction Leadership (Qmay) and Deification of Miles Guo\n\n   Fig. 4E: Coordination of Non-Judicial Letter-Writing       Fig. 4F: Historical Evidence of Poisoning Allegations and\n                       Campaigns                                           Infiltration Tactics (July 7, 2020)\n\n            Fig. 4: Multi-Platform Operational Evidence and Narrative Dynamics of \"Japan Witch\"\n                                 (@peace8774949 in X / @witchpeace in GETTR)\n\n                                                          24/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (25 of 39)\n\n                                             Chapter V\n\nFACIAL DEFECTS IN PRO SE SUBMISSIONS: INDICATIONS OF COMMON ORIGIN\n                           AND PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES\n\nPreamble: Respect for Pro Se Access and Objective Observations of Record\nIrregularities\nAs a pro se litigant appearing before the court, I hold deep respect and gratitude for the\nAmerican legal system, which guarantees citizens the constitutional right of direct\naccess to justice. The overwhelming majority of pro se litigants engage with the court in\ngood faith, upholding the solemnity of the judicial process. Pro se access is a\ncornerstone of equal justice. However, precisely because this mechanism is so vital,\npreserving its integrity against bad-faith exploitation is paramount.\nIn complex proceedings, judicial scrutiny is often drawn to objective irregularities\nappearing on the face of the record. A comparative review of formal court entries\nreveals observable patterns—evidenced by document layouts, timelines, and technical\nformatting—that strongly suggest a shared origin and mechanical duplication across\nfilings purportedly submitted by independent pro se litigants. These observations\nindicate that alongside genuine pro se filers, improper attempts have been made to\ndilute and disrupt the record by deploying assembly-line filings through the pro se\nchannel.\n\n§5.1 Cross-Contamination of Case Numbers and Verbatim Repetitions: Objective\nIndications of Shared Origin\nIn the Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (Case No. 26-1296 / ECF 848)\nsubmitted to the Second Circuit, the case number box on the cover page explicitly\ndesignates the matter as Case No. 26-1129.\n\n[Fig. 5A] (Cover page of ECF 848 / Page 1 of 65, showing the erroneously inserted Case No. 26-1129)\n[Fig. 5B] (Cover page and pages 1–2 of ECF 842, showing the earlier 26-1129 petition containing\nverbatim repeating paragraphs)\n\nA chronological review of the docket records establishes the following facts:\n\n                                                25/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (26 of 39)\n\nCase No. 26-1129 corresponds to an earlier appellate petition uploaded on April 23\nunder the moniker \"Anonymous Registered Crime Victim\" (ECF 842).\nCase No. 26-1296 (ECF 848) represents a subsequent, standalone petition filed by Bao\nChu.\nFrom an objective evidentiary standpoint, if Bao Chu and the prior Anonymous\npetitioner were entirely independent litigants, the pre-emptive inclusion of a separate\npetitioner’s prior appellate case number (26-1129) within a new filing raises a\nreasonable inference of document cross-contamination. This error strongly points to the\nuse of a common underlying template or preparation within the same operational\nframework.\nFurthermore, within the body of ECF 842 (as highlighted in Fig. 5B), two consecutive\nparagraphs setting forth sealing requests are repeated verbatim. Such mechanical\ncopy-paste errors provide further objective support for the inference that these filings\nwere assembly-prepared.\n\n§5.2 Discrepancies between Textual Assertions and Attachment Logs: Internal\nInconsistencies\nIn addition to case number misallocations, the record reveals marked disconnects\nbetween narrative assertions in the body of submissions and the actual attached exhibit\nlogs.\n\n[Fig. 5C] (Gmail record dated April 23, 2026, from ECF 848 Page 15 of 65, showing narrative claims\nversus actual attachment entries)\n[Fig. 5D] (Gmail record from ECF 848 Page 52 of 65, provided for comparative standard formatting)\n\nIn the email log at Page 15 of ECF 848 (Fig. 5C), the submitter explicitly represents that\nfour specific files are attached, including a dated audio file\n(Exhibit_Extra_Judicial_Admission_by_Yongbing_Zhang_Apr_10_2026.mp3). However,\nthe actual attachment field reflects five files, containing duplicate file extensions\n(.mp3.mp3), omitting the key date identifier, and adding an unmentioned PDF document.\nBy contrast, the record at Page 52 (Fig. 5D) illustrates a filing where text entries and\nattachments correspond fully. This internal conflict demonstrates a pattern of structural\n\n                                                26/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (27 of 39)\n\ncarelessness and discrepancy between proffered representations and actual record\nsubmissions.\n\n§5.3 High-Frequency Saturated Filings and Their Procedural Impact\nDocket entries confirm that within a narrow window (spanning April 17, 21, 23, 28, and\n29), the submitter transmitted numerous pro se filings and emergency requests to the\nSDNY Pro Se Intake Unit.\nObserved through a procedural lens, this filing pattern created a distinct sequence of\nevents:\nDocket Congestion: The high frequency of incoming submissions placed an immediate\nadministrative burden on the district court's processing docket.\nBasis for Appellate Relief: Following the administrative delay inherent in processing\nsuch high-frequency submissions, the submitter of those saturated filings relied on the\nresulting delay to seek mandamus relief from the Circuit Court, citing a structural\ndeprivation of Due Process.\n\n§5.4 Substantive Divergence and Conflicting Procedural Goals among Pro Se\nFilers\nBuilding upon these observed technical irregularities, a substantive review of the record\nfurther reveals deep fracture lines and acute conflict among pro se litigants themselves.\nSpecifically, the submitter of Case No. 26-1129 (ECF 842)—filing under the designation\nof \"Anonymous Registered Crime Victim\"—explicitly declared within the petition that\nthey were also the author of prior district court submissions ECF Nos. 739 and 742.\nNotably, ECF Nos. 739 and 742 directly challenged the legal standing and victim status\nof Ryan Bai (the submitter of ECF Nos. 733, 744, and Case No. 25-2726).\nThis directly demonstrates that the pro se cohort is by no means a unified entity. Rather,\ntwo distinct procedural pathways have emerged: one group prioritizes the strict\nenforcement of statutory rights under the CVRA to expedite criminal forfeiture and DOJ\nremission compensation; conversely, another group focuses on challenging underlying\nprocedural regularity, seeking to stay or void forfeiture proceedings altogether rather\nthan claiming direct financial remission. This fundamental divergence in litigation\n\n                                           27/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (28 of 39)\n\nstrategies confirms that filings within the pro se docket serve markedly different\nprocedural objectives.\nSynthesis: Safeguarding the Integrity of Pro Se Access\nIn sum, whether viewed through facial cross-contamination of docket numbers,\nstructural duplication, and internal exhibit discrepancies, or through the lens of opposing\nlitigation objectives, the record reflects improper efforts to exploit the pro se channel.\nIdentifying both procedural defects and substantive conflicts provides this Court with\nobjective grounds to evaluate the independence, credibility, and procedural intent of\nthese submissions, thereby safeguarding both authentic pro se litigants and the court's\nprocess from administrative abuse.\n\n                                            28/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (29 of 39)\n\nFig. 5A: Erroneously Inserted Case No. 26-1129 in Filing 26-1296   Fig. 5B: Verbatim Repeated Paragraph in Filing 26-1129\n\n Fig. 5C: Key Attachment Omitted from Actual Attachment List           Fig. 5D: Proof of the Omitted Attachment Entry\n\n                         Fig. 5:Facial Defects and Structure Discrepancies Across Filings\n\n                                                         29/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (30 of 39)\n\n                                        Chapter VI\n       MALICIOUS ACTS OF THE ALLIANCE AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:\n            INTERCEPTION OF PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE, DOXING, AND\n       MANIPULATION OF \"ASSASSINATION\" CONSPIRACY NARRATIVES\n\n§6.1 Digital Footprints, Intolerance to Dissent, and the Hypocrisy of Free Speech\nAdvocates\nThe core figures of the NFSC and Alliance have long presented themselves as\nchampions of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. However, an analysis of their\ndigital presence reveals a stark contradiction: extreme fragility, intolerance toward\nlegitimate inquiry, and a pattern of censorship.\n\nFig. 6A: Qmay Accounts: Digital Footprints and Block Records across Platforms\n\n      Left & Right: The homepages of Qmay’s official X (formerly Twitter) account\n       (@Q_May_007) and her crown-verified GETTR account (@QMAY007),\n       demonstrating her primary broadcasting channels.\n      Center: A screenshot showing that Qmay blocked the Petitioner on X following a\n       legitimate inquiry.\nAs shown in Fig. 6A, Qmay (Min Chen) leverages prominent social media setups to\ndisseminate daily narrative content. Yet, when independent observers raise rational\nquestions, these figureheads instantly resort to blocking and silencing dissent. This\npattern exposes the fragile ego behind their self-righteous facade; despite claiming to\nchampion open expression, they display an inability to withstand even minor public\nscrutiny.\n\n§6.2 Coordinated Exposure of Intercepted Private Mail and Contempt for\nJudicial Order\nOn July 17, 2026, the Alliance escalated its control tactics from platform censorship to\nthe unauthorized public exposure of private mail.\n\nFig. 6B: On 7/17, Qmay and Forrest Post an Identical Intercepted Inmate Letter\n\n                                           30/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (31 of 39)\n\n      Left & Right: Synchronized posts published on July 17, 2026, by Alliance\n       Chairman Forrest (Qingteng/Forrest Zhou, @Forrest01 in GETTR)) and key\n       spokesperson Qmay, both sharing an identical PDF-formatted letter addressed to\n       Miles Guo at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC).\nAs documented in Fig. 6B, Forrest and Qmay published the exact same private letter on\nthe same day, claiming it was provided to them directly by Guo. This claim is highly\nimprobable. A far more reasonable assumption is that the communication was illicitly\nobtained through compromised access or internal leaks at the MDC facility. By publicly\nbroadcasting stolen inmate mail, the Alliance leadership displays an arrogant disregard\nfor standard judicial procedures and individual privacy rights.\n\n§6.3 Doxing of Private Correspondents and Intimidation Tactics\nOn August 12, 2026, Alliance media channels escalated their public intimidation\ncampaign through direct doxing.\n\nFig. 6C: On 8/12, Qmay Exposed the Name of the Letter Sender during Live Stream\n\n      Main Panel: Broadcast screenshots from Qmay’s August 12, 2026 live stream\n       showing her explicitly reading aloud the full identity of an individual who wrote to\n       Guo.\n       As captured in Fig. 6C, Qmay read out the full name of a private correspondent\n       during a live show. This act was designed to dox, humiliate, and intimidate\n       independent individuals into silence. Such coercive tactics reflect the network's\n       overwhelming obsession with controlling all external communication channels\n       with Guo, raising critical questions about who authorizes and supports their\n       operations.\n\n§6.4 Unverified Prison Visitations and the Influence of Key Financial Operatives\nIn mid-August 2026, Alliance leaders began recounting claimed prison visitations with\nGuo to solidify their authority over followers.\n\n                                            31/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (32 of 39)\n\nFig. 6D: On 8/18, Forrest and Jiajia (also see Fig. 1D at grid 7A) Claimed They Visited\nGuo at Danbury\n      Main Panel: Broadcast and social media posts from August 18, 2026, in which\n       Forrest and Jiajia recount an August 17 visitation with Miles Guo alongside\n       Rushui (Yumei Hao, also refer to Fig. 1D at grid E4) and Wenkang.\nAs shown in Fig. 6D, Alliance figures claimed that four individuals – Rushui (Yumei Hao),\nForrest, Jiajia, and Wenkang – visited Guo at the facility on August 17. Whistleblower\ndocumentation (such as Tony's filing) identifies Rushui not as a minor participant, but as\na key operative managing movement finances. Lacking physical proof, the leadership\nused these verbal accounts to establish themselves as the sole legitimate conduits of\nGuo's instructions.\n\n§6.5 Manufacturing \"Assassination\" Plots and Heroic Mythology\nOn August 21, 2026, the Alliance deployed psychological manipulation by fabricating\nsafety threats during Guo's facility transfer.\n\nFig. 6E: On 8/21, Qmay Promoted Conspiracy Theories Alleging an \"Assassination\nAttempt\" During Prison Transfer:\n      Main Panel: Screenshots of Qmay's August 21 broadcast detailing alleged\n       assassination plots against Guo during his transfer, while framing his detention\n       as a \"VVIP\" experience.\nAs documented in Fig. 6E (and noted in Sarah's August 21 records, Entry 22.1), Qmay\ndevoted extensive airtime to claiming that Guo survived an \"assassination attempt\"\nduring his transfer from FCI Schuylkill to Danbury. Concurrently, the broadcast elevated\nGuo into an invincible, heroic figure receiving \"VVIP treatment\" wherever he goes. By\ncombining manufactured existential threats with deification, the Alliance maintains\nemotional panic and dependency among its base.\n\n§6.6 Systematic Deification, \"Temple\" Narratives, and Strategic Sabotage\n\n                                            32/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (33 of 39)\n\nThe Alliance leveraged multiple visitation narratives to transform standard correctional\nfacilities into symbolic centers of spiritual authority.\n\nFig. 6F: On 8/31, Reports of Subsequent Facility Visits and Public Deification of Guo\n\n      Top Panel: Shared images forwarded by critic Mr. A (@dDiVul8m3g82864) in X)\n       identifying the four August 17 visitors (left to right: Wenkang, Rushui, Forrest,\n       and Jiajia).\n      Center Panel: GETTR post by crown-verified operative Ava describing her\n       August 30 visit to Guo.\n      Bottom Panel: Screenshot of the August 31 live stream hosted by Forrest\n       (Qingteng), featuring panel guests Ava (@S7gril in X and @S7Gril in GETTR),\n       Jiajia, and Luoyi (Roy / Hai Guo, @royguo in GETTR and @roy_guo64 in X),\n       who recounted their August 30 visit to Danbury along with Rushui and Wenkang\n       (who were absent from the stream).\n      As shown in Fig. 6F, following a second reported visit on August 30 by five\n       operatives [Rushui, Wenkang, Ava, Jiajia, and Roy], the Alliance hosted a live\n       broadcast on August 31 with Forrest as the host. During the stream, Jiajia\n       explicitly stated that visiting Guo did not feel like being in a prison, but rather like\n       standing in a sacred temple receiving teachings from a saint. This deliberate\n       deification serves a specific psychological function: by elevating Guo to\n       sainthood while feeding his hubris, the Alliance operatives effectively isolate him\n       and sabotage his legal appeals (such as the Second Circuit proceedings),\n       ensuring he remains incarcerated while they retain control over money and\n       messaging.\n\n§6.7 Proxy Operation of Social Media and Questionable \"Guo Mei\" Narrative as a\nStability Tool\nThe available record indicates that Guo’s official media channels have remained active\nunder proxy operation post-detention, conspicuously featuring a pinned post attributed\nto a family member in a manner that appears designed for audience control.\nFig. 6G: Guo's Proxy-Managed GETTR Account and \"Guo Mei\" Posts:\n\n                                              33/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (34 of 39)\n\nMain Panel: Screenshots of Miles Guo’s official GETTR account (@milesguo) remaining\nactive long after his arrest, prominently displaying a pinned post attributed to \"Guo Mei\"\n(@nizi17) comforting followers.\n\nAs illustrated in Fig. 6G, Guo's GETTR account continues to be managed by proxy\nentities long after his detention. There is strong reason to question whether the \"Guo\nMei\" posts are written by Guo's actual daughter. Given the prolonged incarceration of\nDefendant Guo, keeping such an unverified, pacifying message permanently pinned at\nthe top of the profile raises reasonable concerns that it serves primarily as a\npsychological stabilization tool. Furthermore, the absence of independent verification—\nsuch as authentic audio, video, or verifiable photos of Guo Mei—strongly suggests that\nmaintaining this pinned post is a calculated effort to appease followers, quell internal\nanxiety, and preserve narrative control over the movement's follower base.\n\n                                           34/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (35 of 39)\n\nFig. 6A: Qmay Accounts: Platform Footprints and User     Fig. 6B: 7/17 Identical Interception of Inmate Private Mail by\n                     Blocking                                                  Qmay and Forrest\n\n Fig. 6C: 8/12 Live Stream Doxing of Letter Sender's     Fig. 6D: 8/18 Alliance Broadcast Claiming Facility Visitation\n               Identity: 灵娟 (Lingjuan!)\n\nFig. 6E: 8/21 Qmay Broadcast Alleging \"Assassination    Fig. 6F: Two Subsequent       Fig. 6G: Guo’s GETTR Account\n                        Plot\"                               Facility Visits and       Managed by Proxy with Pinned\n                                                          Deification Narratives              “Guo Mei” Post\nFig. 6: Alliance Leadership Tactics: Interception of Mail, Doxing, Narrative Manipulation, and Proxy Control\n\n                                                       35/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (36 of 39)\n\n                                        Chapter VII\n   SYSTEMIC VULNERABILITIES AND EXTRATERRITORIAL PERSECUTION OF\n          GRASSROOTS PRO SE PIONEERS: THE CASE OF CHUNK CHYI\nThe Emergence of an Autonomous Pro Se Community: Independent Pro Se\nlitigation within this proceeding was first mapped out by Chunk Chyi (legal\nname Chunhong Qi / 齐春宏, born January 1, 1987; X/Twitter: @baoliaogeming)—a\n\nwelder by trade who became widely recognized as a foundational figure among\nindependent victim-petitioners. Following his initial pro se submission before the District\nCourt (ECF No. 508) in April 2025, his Petition for Writ of Mandamus before the Second\nCircuit (Case No. 26-77), and his establishment of the Discord Pro Se discussion group\nin May 2025, Chyi built a primary platform for victim discourse.\nAs documented in Fig. 7A–7C, Chyi serves as the primary Server Owner/Administrator\nof this Discord community. This forum functions as an open-access space with dynamic,\nfluid membership exceeding 500 participants (Fig. 7B–7C depict a real-time tally of 20\nonline members and 493 offline members, yielding over 500 total accounts). Crucially,\nthe group is unvetted and freely accessible to all sides: it includes genuine Pro Se\npetitioners, curious observers, and actively hostile anti-Pro Se operatives who attempt\nto manipulate narratives from within.\nNotably, prominent figures and high-profile leaders from the Alliance strictly avoid\nparticipating under their verified public identities to engage in open debate or face public\nscrutiny, choosing instead to covertly monitor or influence this specific Discord\ndiscussion group on the Guo case via secondary accounts. Recent observations over\npast months strongly suggest that certain prominent Alliance figures have used\nalternate accounts to infiltrate this Discord community, adopting \"anti-Guo\" or dissenting\npersonas specifically to discourage independent Pro Se filings and oppose victim\nintervention under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) across both the District Court\nand Second Circuit proceedings. This pattern of covert suppression—under active\nobservation—exposes a profound paradox: while publicly projecting a \"pro-Guo\" stance,\nthese key figures actively sabotage independent legal avenues for victims, effectively\naligning with interests that leave the defendant indefinitely incarcerated while\nsystematically neutralizing genuine Pro Se advocacy.\n\n                                           36/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (37 of 39)\n\nAbrupt Disappearance and State Intervention: Having maintained a prominent, daily\npublic presence via video broadcasts and audio spaces on X and Discord for nearly a\nyear and a half, Chyi abruptly vanished. His final public communication (Figs 7D–7F)—a\nvideo broadcast posted on X on August 20, 2026—utilized sharp satire regarding his\npresence in Cangzhou, Hebei, mockingly asserting that local authorities would not\npersecute him for his public dissent. He has been completely unresponsive across all\nplatforms for over two weeks since.\nPrior to his sudden disappearance, Chyi entrusted trusted group members with\nemergency contact info. A recent phone call placed to his mother revealed that local\nvillage officials notified her of his situation, though she has received no formal written\nlegal notice regarding his detention. He is reportedly detained by mainland Chinese\npublic security authorities—a stark, real-time illustration of the extreme risks and\nsystemic vulnerabilities facing independent Pro Se petitioners who attempt to engage\nwith the judicial process outside controlled factional networks.\n\n                                            37/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (38 of 39)\n\n Fig. 7A: Discord member directory       Fig. 7B: Consecutive Discord member       Fig. 7C: Consecutive Discord member\n screenshot identifying Chunk Chyi         list screenshots documenting the          list screenshots documenting the\n(@baoliaogeming) as the founder and      dynamic membership scale, displaying      dynamic membership scale, displaying\nowner (indicated by the crown icon) of          20 active online members            493 offline members (demonstrating\n    the open-access Pro Se legal                                                     an aggregate pool exceeding 500\n          discussion group.                                                                      accounts).\n\n     Fig. 7D: Profile and X post          Fig. 7E: Chinese original video frame      Fig. 7F: Auto-translated English\n     screenshots of Chunk Chyi             screenshot from Chyi’s final public      version generated by Grok from the\n (@baoliaogeming) dated August 20,            broadcast on August 20, 2026         same post shown on the left (Fig. 7E).\n  2026, displaying his public identity      (accumulating over 7,400 views),\n          details (National ID:             wherein he satirically addressed\n130926198701013057) and location in      mainland authorities shortly before his\n           Cangzhou, Hebei.                       forced disappearance\n   Fig. 7: Evidentiary Documentation of the Open-Access Pro Se Discord Community and the Final Public\n                Broadcast and Disappearance of Pioneer Chunk Chyi (@baoliaogeming in X).\n\n                                                        38/39\n\nCase: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (39 of 39)\n\n                                       CONCLUSION\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Sarah respectfully submits this Supplemental\nLetter (Supplemental Exhibit D-1) for the sole and limited purpose of preserving a\ncomplete, transparent, and accurate record for appellate review.\nAs documented across the attached materials, the presence of competing extrajudicial\nnarratives, ongoing social media campaigns, facial irregularities in certain pro se filings,\nand the severe external vulnerabilities faced by independent grassroots petitioners (as\nhighlighted in Chapter VII) underscore the complex environment surrounding these\nproceedings.\nPetitioner does not seek substantive or emergency relief through this submission, but\nrespectfully requests that this Court take note of these record observations to assist in\nmaintaining the integrity, objectivity, and historical clarity of the appellate record.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nXXXXXXXXXVVXXX\nXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\nXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n\nSarah (Pro Se Petitioner)\n\nSeptember 9, 2026\n\ncc:\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (Attn: AUSA\nNathan Rehn)\n\n                                             39/39","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","Pro Se","pro se","Geyer","GETTR","Miles Guo","CIPA","forfeiture","Himalaya","CCP","Crime Victim","CVRA","RICO","Torres","Analisa Torres","Himalaya Exchange","Himalaya Alliance","853(n)","Rule 41(g)"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"2Cir"},{"doc_number":35,"court":"2Cir"},{"doc_number":223,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":478,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":493,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":506,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":508,"court":"2Cir"},{"doc_number":526,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":676,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":740,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":833,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":842,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":848,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":9289,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-07-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-07-20","updated_at":"2026-10-02 10:32:10"}