{"id":"court_2cir_26-361_dkt_34","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_34","summary_zh":"强制令续请愿书(Renewed Petition for Writ of Mandamus)——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)案第二巡回上诉法院 26-361 号 ECF #34(2026年6月15日立案)。请愿人 Tony 以犯罪被害人权利法(CVRA,18 U.S.C. § 3771(e))下的被害人身份续请上诉法院发出强制令,指其2月18日、5月23日提交地区法院的材料迟迟未获正式立案,并称地区法院'拒绝直接受理 pro se 强制令材料、却将其作为上诉材料副本挂上 SDNY 案卷'的做法构成程序性规避,已致 Ryan Bai 等人的姓名、住址、联系方式等个人信息在公开案卷中泄露(如 SDNY Dkt. 765、845);其援引'Cheney 标准'三要件,指出6月29日量刑日期临近、此前两个月延期未解决相关问题。","summary_en":"Renewed Petition for Writ of Mandamus — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-361, ECF/DktEntry #34 (filed June 15, 2026). Petitioner Tony, proceeding as a crime victim under the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)), renews his request that the Circuit compel the District Court to docket his February 18 and May 23, 2026 submissions, arguing that the District Court's practice of declining to docket pro se mandamus materials directly while later posting copies of appellate mandamus filings on the SDNY docket amounts to \"procedural shielding\" that has exposed petitioners' personal information (citing Ryan Bai's name/address/contact details via SDNY Dkt. 765 and a Chinese investor's ID data via SDNY Dkt. 845). Invoking the three Cheney factors, he contends the prior two-month adjournment did not resolve the underlying issues as the June 29, 2026 sentencing date approaches.","body_en":"Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 26\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\nIn re: Tony,\nVictim in United States v. Kwok, et al.,\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nRENEWED PETITION FOR WRIT OF\nMANDAMUS\nI. Introduction\nI, Tony, a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act\n(“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e), respectfully petition this Court for a renewed writ\nof mandamus.\nII. Background\nOn February 18, 2026, this Court docketed my mandamus petition, which sought\nan order directing the District Court to docket my submission, which is materially\nrelated to sentencing. That submission was included as Exhibit D to my original\nmandamus petition and is attached here as Exhibit A.\nOn March 11, 2026, the Court directed that multiple related matters—Nos. 25-\n3046, 26-77, 26-361, 26-364, 26-441, and 26-563—be heard in tandem.\nOn March 16, 2026, I filed a record-preservation submission in the district court\n(referenced in Second Circuit No. 26-361, Dkt. 16), requesting that materials\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 26\nrelating to the other mandamus proceedings be consistently docketed and made\npart of the district court record, to avoid inconsistent treatment across petitioners.\nAlthough the district court had received my mandamus-related materials as early\nas February 18, 2026, those materials were not publicly docketed until March 26,\n2026 (SDNY Dkt. 817).\nOn April 18, 2026, I filed an emergency motion in this Court seeking to stay\nsentencing pending resolution of the mandamus petition. The Government filed\nits opposition on May 1, 2026, and I submitted a reply the same day.\nOn April 23, 2026, the District Court adjourned the original sentencing to June\n29, 2026, stating “Due to the complexity of the outstanding issues raised in the\nparties' voluminous sentencing submissions”.\nOn May 15, 2026, this Court issued an order addressing the tandem petitions,\nmy mandamus petition was denied with the stating in relevant part: “In view of\nthe large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the\ncourt will address expeditiously, petitioners’ mandamus petitions as to docketing\ntheir submissions are denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails\nto docket the submissions within a reasonable time.”\nOn May 23, 2026, while reviewing my case materials, I identified an additional\nexhibit relating to alliance ledger records. I promptly submitted that material to\nthe district court for record preservation and filed it in this Court (Dkt. 29).\nIII. Procedural Concern of how District Court Treat Mandamus\nPetitions\nA separate procedural concern arises from the manner in which the District Court\nhas treated mandamus petitions filed in the Court of Appeals by pro se\npetitioners in this case.\nMore than ten pro se mandamus matters arising from this criminal case have\nnow been opened in the Second Circuit. In each instance, the underlying pattern\nhas been similar: the petitioners attempted to submit materials directly to the\nDistrict Court, but those submissions were not docketed in the ordinary course,\nthereby preventing the petitioners from obtaining access to the District Court as a\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 26\nforum in which a motion could be formally filed and adjudicated.\nOnce mandamus proceedings are opened in the Court of Appeals, however, the\nDistrict Court has repeatedly placed copies of those appellate mandamus papers\nonto the SDNY docket. This creates a serious procedural distortion. No rule\nrequires the District Court to treat an appellate mandamus petition as a substitute\nfor docketing the underlying district-court submission. Nor does the later\nappearance of mandamus papers on the SDNY docket cure the earlier failure to\ndocket the original filing in a form that is actually adjudicable. At most, this\npractice makes the substance visible while avoiding ordinary district-court\ntreatment of the submission itself. In practical effect, it operates as a form of\nprocedural shielding.\nThis practice has also produced concrete privacy harms. Because of the\nsensitivity of this case, the SDNY docket is closely monitored by multiple\ninterested actors. After Ryan Bai’s first mandamus filing was placed on the SDNY\ndocket as Dkt. 765, his full name, home address, telephone number, and email\naddress were exposed. More recently, in connection with SDNY Dkt. 845, a\nMainland Chinese investor—apparently unfamiliar with the relevant procedural\nand privacy rules—had highly sensitive identifying information exposed on the\npublic docket, including Chinese identification information. These exposures are\nespecially serious in a case involving Mainland Chinese investors, many of whom\nhave alleged interrogation, coercion, arrest, or prosecution by PRC authorities.\nRyan Bai has specifically asserted that the District Court’s decision to place his\nmandamus materials on the SDNY docket in this manner was a retaliatory\nmove, resulting in the public exposure of his personal information. Ryan Bai\nsubsequently filed Second Circuit Dkt. 30 to expand the mandamus relief in Case\nNo. 25-2726 seeking, inter alia, recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), citing the\nappearance of bias and conflict arising from the District Court’s handling of these\nmatters. Regardless of the ultimate merit of that request, the fact that the District\nCourt’s treatment of mandamus-related filings has itself generated further claims\nof bias, privacy harm, and appellate litigation underscores the seriousness of the\nissue.\nAccordingly, the Court should address whether its current practice—refusing\nordinary docketing of pro se submissions while later placing appellate mandamus\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 4 of 26\npapers on the SDNY docket—has deprived me of meaningful district-court\naccess, distorted the ordinary adjudicative process, and exposed sensitive\nindividuals to avoidable harm.\nIV. The District Court’s Prior Adjournment Has Not Resolved the\nIssues, and the Failure to Act Has Become More Serious as\nSentencing Nears\nThe District Court’s prior two-month adjournment did not resolve the underlying\nissues. As of now, fewer than three weeks remain before the currently scheduled\nJune 29, 2026 sentencing date, and more than four weeks have passed since\nthe Second Circuit’s May 15, 2026 order stated: “In view of the large number\nof submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will\naddress expeditiously,” while denying docketing-related mandamus relief\nwithout prejudice to renewal if the District Court failed to docket the submissions\nwithin a reasonable time. Yet, to date, the District Court still has not meaningfully\naddressed the core issues that several victims identified in their stay motions\n(See other petitioners’ stay motion: 25-2726, 26-77, 26-441) as directly bearing\non sentencing. Those issues did not disappear merely because sentencing was\nadjourned. To the contrary, they have become more serious with time, as\nthe District Court has neither provided a procedural path for resolving them\nnor stated that it will decline to rely on the disputed matters at sentencing.\nUnder these circumstances, the prior adjournment cannot be viewed as having\ncured the problem; it has instead exposed the continuing failure to confront\nissues that directly affect the reliability and integrity of the sentencing\nprocess.\nV. Cheney Standards:\n1: I lack any other adequate means of obtaining relief.\nThis is not the first time the Court of Appeals has expressed the expectation that\nthe District Court would promptly address pro se submissions in this case. In\naddition to the May 15, 2026 tandem order, the Second Circuit had already\nstated in Ryan Bai’s earlier mandamus matter that, “[i]n view of the large number\nof submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 5 of 26\nexpeditiously,” relief was denied without prejudice to renewal if the District Court\nfailed to act within a reasonable time. See SDNY Dkt. 767 (reflecting the\nNovember 26, 2025 order). Despite that prior appellate warning, the same\ndocketing and access problems have continued.\nThe District Court’s own handling of victim-rights submissions has further\ndemonstrated the absence of any effective district-court remedy. At the January\n20, 2026 status conference, the Court referred to CVRA motions as “complaints.”\nBy omitting any reference to the CVRA and by characterizing victim-rights\nsubmissions in that manner, the Court effectively downgraded those filings into a\ncategory carrying no assurance of docketing, adjudication, or procedural\nrecognition as statutory victim-rights motions.\nThe Court’s subsequent two-month adjournment did not cure these problems.\nNow, with fewer than three weeks remaining before the June 29, 2026\nsentencing date, the District Court still has not opened an evidentiary hearing,\nprovided a meaningful remedial framework, or docketed multiple third-party\nsubmissions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA. Nor has it resolved the\nissues that several victims identified in their stay motions as directly bearing on\nsentencing. Those issues have not disappeared with time; they have instead\ndeepened. Under these circumstances, the continuing failure to docket, hear, or\notherwise process these matters now reflects a state of procedural paralysis,\nleaving petitioners without any adequate means of obtaining relief except through\nmandamus.\n2. My right to relief is clear and indisputable.\nMy right to relief is clear and indisputable. First, the District Court may not\neffectively deny basic docket access where the Court has expressly\nrecognized § 853(n) and CVRA as the only statutory avenues for nonparties\nin SDNY Dkt. 528, it may not render those avenues illusory through non-\ndocketing or procedural downgrading. Docketing is a ministerial function, and the\nlater appearance of mandamus materials on the district-court docket does not\nconvert the underlying submission into a properly docketed and adjudicable\ndistrict-court motion. I therefore have a clear right to ordinary docket treatment of\nsubmissions properly directed to the District Court.\nSecond, several of the unresolved submissions identify issues that directly bear\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 6 of 26\non sentencing, including victim identity, ownership, tracing, forfeiture scope,\nrecord contamination, and the reliability of the Government’s asserted loss\nframework. As explained in my stay motion (26-361 Dkt 18), the source structure\nof the funds included within the Government’s proposed loss calculation was\nnever meaningfully developed at trial. My Chinese court materials, together with\nthe Alliance-ledger materials later submitted in Dkt. 29 for record-preservation\npurposes, reflect a highly intermixed funding structure in which Mainland Chinese\ninvestors entered the U.S.-linked pool through layered intermediary mechanisms,\nincluding Chinese yuan settlement through intermediaries (黄牛). In that posture,\nthe Government’s loss model remains materially unverified. It does not appear to\nhave explicitly tested whether the same funds can be consistently classified as\n“actual loss” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 across competing interpretive frameworks,\nnor does it resolve whether portions of the aggregated inflows should instead be\ntreated as non-loss, disputed, or legally ambiguous funds.\nUnder Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B), the District Court may not\nsimply proceed on an untested and materially disputed loss framework to the\nextent that framework bears on sentencing. Where the underlying source pool\nremains unresolved, highly commingled, and subject to competing legal\ncharacterizations, the Court must either resolve those disputes through an\nadequate process or expressly determine that it will not rely on the disputed loss\nmatters in imposing sentence.\n3. Mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances.\nMandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals has\nalready reminded the District Court, on more than one occasion, that the large\nnumber of submissions in this case should be addressed expeditiously. Yet, with\nfewer than three weeks remaining before the currently scheduled June 29, 2026\nsentencing date, the District Court still has not restored any meaningful\nprocedural path. It has not opened an evidentiary hearing, has not provided a\nworkable remedial framework, and has not even ensured ordinary docketing of\nmultiple pro se victims and third-party submissions. In practical effect, affected\nvictims and claimants are still being denied the most basic form of access to the\nDistrict Court as a forum in which their statutory motions may be filed, heard, and\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 7 of 26\nadjudicated.\nThis failure is especially serious because the District Court itself expressly\nrecognized in Dkt. 528 that nonparties may seek relief through a motion under\nthe Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Having acknowledged the availability of the CVRA\nas a statutory avenue, the Court cannot then, in practice, deny victims any\nmeaningful ability to enter the Court, docket their submissions, and seek\nadjudication of those rights. To do so is not merely administrative delay; it\neffectively strips the CVRA route of practical force and deprives victims of the\nprocedural protection the statute was meant to provide.\nThe circumstances are also extraordinary because the submissions at issue do\nnot concern marginal or collateral matters. In my own filings, I submitted Chinese\ncharging and court materials bearing directly on the treatment of G-Series\ninvestors in the People’s Republic of China, including evidence showing the\npolitical and sovereign risks those investors faced there. That evidentiary\ndimension was not presented at trial. Only after my mandamus filings did the\nissue emerge in a concrete form: namely, that the same underlying funds may be\ntreated in China as connected to “the crime of funding activities that endanger\nnational security,” while in the United States they are treated as funds belonging\nto ordinary fraud victims. This is not a minor dispute. It bears directly on the\nfactual architecture of the case, on the characterization of victim status and loss,\nand on the reliability of the sentencing and forfeiture record now before the\nDistrict Court.\nUnder these circumstances, mandamus is not being sought as a substitute for\nordinary review, but because ordinary process has broken down. Where the\nDistrict Court has repeatedly failed to docket, hear, or otherwise process\nsubmissions that bear directly on sentencing and on the factual integrity of the\ncase itself, issuance of the writ is appropriate.\nVI. Relief Sought\nMy original mandamus filings only focused primarily on the CVRA because the\nDistrict Court had indicated in the status conference on January 20, 2026 that §\n853-related matters would be addressed through a special-master process. That\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 8 of 26\nprocess, however, has not materialized. No special master has been appointed,\nno schedule has been set, and no alternative mechanism has been identified for\nadjudicating those property-interest issues. Under these circumstances, it is now\nnecessary for the District Court at minimum to confirm receipt of my previously\nsubmitted § 853-related motion, sent on May 19, 2-02cr-500, t11h8 e titlei s “1:23\n– Tony – Petition under 21 U.S.C §853(n) (Public Version)”, I also attached the\nproof of delivery in Exhibit E to the original mandamus which was sealed by this\nCourt.\n1. Order the district court to docket my redacted CVRA motion, Attached in\nExhibit A.\n2. Enter a docketed procedural disposition on my request, reflected in Exhibit A,\nRelief 4, for the limited purpose of preserving the appellate record and clarifying\nthe status of my submission in the district court record, including confirming\nreceipt of my CVRA motion and my § 853(n) property-interest motion without\ndirecting any substantive outcome.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony\nJune 7, 2026\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 9 of 26\nExhib i t\nA\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 10 of 26\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a MILES GUO, et al.,\nDefendants.\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nVictim’s Motion to Remedy Structural Procedural\nBreakdown and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action\nUnder Court’s Inherent Authority\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:\nI, a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully submit this motion\npro se to request that the Court to Remedy Structural Procedural Breakdown\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 11 of 26\nand Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action Under Court’s Inherent\nAuthority\nI. Background\nI, have submitted multiple pro se motions to the SDNY in\nan effort to exclude my lawful G-related investments from the forfeiture\nproceedings. My filing history is as follows:\nOn September 19, 2025, I submitted my first 853(n) Third-Party\nPetition by email to the SDNY pro se intake.\nOn September 20, 2025, I submitted my first CVRA Crime Victim\nMotion.\nA few days later, I discovered that those versions lacked handwritten\nsignatures. I immediately corrected them. On September 25, 2025, I\nresubmitted both the signed 853(n) petition and the signed CVRA\nmotion by email, and also mailed the hardcopy packages to both the\nCourt and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. USPS records confirm that both\ninstitutions received and signed for the mailed filings.\nDespite these steps, none of the filings were docketed.\nOn October 22, 2025, I submitted my second CVRA motion, and in\nthat submission I included USPS Proof of Delivery showing that my\nearlier hardcopy filings had indeed been delivered but never docketed.\nIn total, I submitted three motions (one 853(n) petition and two CVRA\nmotions), each sent both electronically and in physical hardcopy.\nThese Proof-of-Delivery records are contained in\nAppendix_A_Proof_of_Delivery_to_SDNY_and_USA_Nov3_2025.pdf.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 12 of 26\nNotwithstanding these repeated attempts, none of my filings were\nuploaded to the docket, and this multi-week failure constitutes a clear\nviolation of my CVRA rights:\n1. The right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4));\n2. The right to be treated with fairness and respect (§3771(a)(8));\n3. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay\n(§3771(a)(7));\n4. The right to be protected from further harm (§3771(a)(1));\n5. The right to full and truthful consideration of victim status under\nthe statutory definition of “crime victim.”\nII. Procedural irregularity\nAs in my previous suppressed motion that was filed by 09-20-2025 :\nI am a lawful investor in G-related projects, and have never engaged\nin fraud, wrongdoing, or political activism. Nevertheless, I was\ntargeted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities, labeled\nas “a threat to national security,” and subjected to retaliatory\nprosecution solely because of the investment and the identity of the\nindividuals and platforms associated with it. I was forced to flee,\nsuffered loss of home, livelihood, community, and safety, and has\nremained in exile ever since. These facts are verified, documented,\nand corroborated by court records, including parallel cases such as\nthe prosecution and imprisonment of investor Wu who\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 13 of 26\nremains incarcerated after being accused of “subverting the State” for\npublishing minor online posts with negligible readership. The\npersecution of investors like Wu and Petitioner demonstrates that the\ndanger is real, ongoing, and directly tied to this matter.\nIf a victim is classified as a “threat to national security” and subjected\nto political persecution in their home country, and Judge Torres still\nsuppressed victims’ filing, this constitutes a serious procedural\nviolation:\n1. Violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA, 18 U.S.C. §\n3771)\n● Failure to recognize Petitioner’s status as a crime victim.\n● Denial of the right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4)).\n● Denial of fair treatment (§3771(a)(8)).\n● Failure to protect the Petitioner from further harm (§3771(a)(1)).\n● Ignoring statutory deadlines and causing procedural delays\n(§3771(a)(7)).\n● Allowing personally identifiable information (PII) to remain\nexposed, despite life-threatening risks from foreign persecution.\n2. Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process\n● Court knowingly increased risk to Petitioner (State-Created\nDanger Doctrine).\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 14 of 26\n● Denied meaningful participation in proceedings affecting\nproperty, rights, and victim recognition.\n3. Violation of Equal Protection Clause\n● Differential treatment of victims persecuted by foreign actors\n(CCP) versus baseless creditor registrants which detailed in Dkt.\n733.\n● Silencing legitimate victims while elevating unverified or\nillegitimate claimants.\n● Failure to provide heightened procedural protection to a uniquely\nvulnerable class.\n4. Violation of the Court’s Inherent Authority to Protect Litigants\nFacing Foreign Persecution\n● Ignored documented, ongoing life-threatening risk from foreign\ngovernment persecution.\n5. Continuation of Proceedings Despite Known Contamination of\nVictim Identity and Evidence\n● Bankruptcy (22-50073) Doc. 2083 admitted that creditor and\nvictim pools are overlapping and subjective.\n● Criminal proceedings proceeded without resolving identity\nconflicts, allowing baseless claimants to dominate the narrative.\n6. Ignoring External Influence and Foreign Interference Risks\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 15 of 26\n● Failed to consider CCP’s targeted persecution of G-investors as\na material factor in procedural decisions.\n● Allowed narrative and evidentiary record to reflect interests\naligned with foreign persecution actors.\n● Neglect of this factor constitutes a structural and constitutional\nviolation requiring corrective action.\n7. Structural Procedural Breakdown\nVictim-Perpetrator Identity Conflict and Structural Procedural\nBreakdown, Foreign Influence on Victim Classification\n7.1 Conflict of Legal Status\nA triple-layer identity conflict:\nIn China:\nThe same investment is classified as a threat to national\nsecurity; I am treated as a perpetrator under a political-security\nframework. Subsequently, I suffered political persecution at the\nhands of Chinese authorities, effectively making me a victim of\nstate retaliation.\nIn the United States:\nThe identical investment is characterized as part of a fraudulent\nscheme perpetrated by Guo Wengui; I am treated as a victim\nunder the CVRA and federal criminal fraud statutes.\nDirect contradiction:\nI am simultaneously considered:\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 16 of 26\n● A perpetrator by Chinese authorities;\n● A victim of political persecution by the same Chinese\nauthorities;\n● A victim of fraud under U.S. law.\nAdditional conflict – the case of Wu :\nAnother investor, Wu , was criminally convicted in China\nfor the very same investment scheme that the U.S. government\nlabels as investor fraud. Despite clearly qualifying as a fraud\nvictim under U.S. law, Wu was entirely excluded from the\nSDNY’s victim-identification process.\nSystemic implication:\nThese conflicts demonstrate that the identity contradictions\nare not isolated, but systemic, affecting the entire victim\nframework in the U.S. proceedings.\n7.2 Impact on Legal Proceedings\nU.S. court determinations regarding victim status, asset\nforfeiture, restitution, and CVRA participation rely on the\nassumption that investors are genuine victims of fraud.\nHowever:\n● If the same individual is legally treated as a perpetrator by\nanother sovereign authority;\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 17 of 26\n● If other investors such as Wu are criminally\npunished abroad for the same investment;\n● If these individuals are excluded from the U.S. victim list,\n● …then the evidentiary foundation of the U.S.\nproceedings collapses.\nThis constitutes systemic misclassification of victims, because:\n● Similarly situated individuals are classified inconsistently;\n● Core facts about who qualifies as a “victim” remain\nunresolved;\n● The evidentiary record becomes internally contradictory.\nAs a result, a structural procedural breakdown occurs: U.S. court\ndecisions rely on factual premises that cannot simultaneously be\ntrue.\n7.3 Consequences for Court Actions\nMisidentification and systemic misclassification of\nvictim/perpetrator status produce:\n● Improper inclusion or exclusion of individuals in criminal\nand forfeiture proceedings;\n● Reliance on contaminated, incomplete, or contradictory\nevidence;\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 18 of 26\n● Potential violations of Due Process, Equal Protection, and\nstatutory CVRA protections;\n● A breakdown of procedural legitimacy, because the court\ncannot lawfully proceed while the fundamental identity and\nfactual framework of the case remain contradictory.\nIn short:\nWhen the same investment produces “perpetrators” in\nChina, “victims” in the U.S., and key individuals like Wu\nare excluded, the entire victim framework becomes\ninternally inconsistent, requiring a structural corrective\nresponse to restore fairness and lawful participation.\nWhen two sovereigns classify the same individual as both a\nnational-security perpetrator and a fraud victim, the U.S.\ncourt cannot rely on unverified victim lists without first\nresolving the conflict. Proceeding without resolving this\ncontradiction renders the forfeiture framework legally\nunreliable and constitutionally infirm.\nIn addition, the victim's misclassification in this case is\nexacerbated by foreign influence. Evidence—including the\npersecution of investors like Wu and myself by the\nChinese Communist Party—demonstrates that external actors\nhave directly or indirectly shaped the narrative of who qualifies\nas a “victim.” When the U.S. court relies on these classifications\nwithout independent verification, the proceedings risk being\ncontaminated by foreign political interests, further undermining\ndue process, fairness, and the integrity of the forfeiture\nframework.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 19 of 26\n8. U.S. Court Cannot Adopt a Narrative That Aligns With a\nPersecuting Regime\nA U.S. criminal proceeding cannot constitutionally adopt a victim-\nidentification narrative that aligns, even inadvertently, with the\ninterests of the very foreign regime persecuting the victim. Doing so\nundermines the neutrality of the judicial process and violates\nfundamental due process principles.\n9. Ignoring Judicial Misconduct and Proceeding Despite Known\nContamination\nIn Dkt. 733, Ryan Bai identified potential misconduct by the\nProsecution and Trustee Luc, amounting to fraud upon the Court.\nHowever, the court:\n● failed to act on the allegations for several months, ignoring the\npotential harm to legitimate victims and allowing the\ncontinuation of forfeiture-related proceedings based on a\nrecord known to be compromised.\n● After the submission of Dkt. 733, the Court proceeded to\nadvance the forfeiture process, even though the issues raised\ndirectly undermine the reliability and legality of the underlying\nvictim-identification and asset-forfeiture determinations.\nLegal Implications:\n● Due Process Violation: Continuing proceedings on a record\nknown to be contaminated violates the Petitioner’s Fifth\nAmendment rights. The situated victims are being denied a fair\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 20 of 26\nopportunity to be heard.\n● CVRA Violation: The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §\n3771) guarantees that victims have the right to participate in\nmatters affecting assets and proceedings. Ignoring the alert in\nDkt. 733 prevents legitimate victims from exercising this\nright.\n● Structural Procedural Breakdown: By proceeding despite\nnotice of record contamination, the Court propagates the\nmisclassification of victims and creditors, creating an\ninternally inconsistent evidentiary framework that\nundermines the integrity of the entire forfeiture process.\n● Abuse of Discretion / Failure to Correct: The Court’s inaction\nin response to clear warnings of procedural contamination\nconstitutes judicial inaction in the face of structural error,\nwarranting corrective intervention.\n10. Potential Procedural and Legal Violations Related to Dkt. 765\nSuppression of a victim’s lawful motions requesting judicial\nrecusal\n○ The district court failed to consider or act upon Petitioner’s\nmotions seeking judicial recusal, directly suppressing the\nexercise of rights guaranteed under the Crime Victims’\nRights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and depriving Petitioner of a\nfair opportunity to be heard.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 21 of 26\n○ This suppression undermines Due Process and may\nviolate Equal Protection, as other similarly situated parties\nmay have been permitted to pursue procedural relief.\nContamination of the appellate record\n○ By filing Dkt. 765 while Petitioner’s recusal-related motions\nwere still pending, the district court potentially prejudiced\nthe Second Circuit appellate review by introducing\ncontent that could influence appellate consideration before\nthe Court had issued a ruling on the underlying motions.\n○ This act creates a structural procedural conflict because\nthe appellate record now includes materials reflecting the\ndistrict court’s suppression of legitimate victim motions,\nthereby tainting the evidentiary and procedural record\nupon which appellate review will rely.\nStructural Procedural Breakdown\n● The combination of suppressing the motions and then\npublicly exposing them demonstrates a structural\nprocedural failure:\n● Victim’s right to participate and be heard was denied\n(CVRA §3771(a)(4), (a)(8));\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 22 of 26\n● Core procedural mechanisms meant to protect victims were\nundermined;\n● The integrity of the record was compromised because the\ncourt ignored a pending motion regarding its own\nimpartiality (recusal).\nThis is not merely a “technical error”; it strikes at the\nfoundation of due process, because the procedural system\nfailed to allow the victim to assert their rights while\nsimultaneously exposing them to potential retaliation.\nIII — RELIEF REQUESTED\nBased on the foregoing facts, including my persecution by the\nChinese Communist Party (CCP), the misclassification and silencing\nof legitimate victims, and the resulting structural procedural\nbreakdowns in this case, I respectfully request that this Court exercise\nits inherent authority, sua sponte, to grant the following relief:\n1. Exclusion of My Investments from Forfeiture Proceedings\nas a Gateway to Correcting the Record\nI was forced to flee China due to targeted political persecution,\nlosing all financial resources and means of livelihood. My G-\nrelated investments, totaling approximately [XXX] USD, were\npreviously documented but never properly entered into the\nrecord. I respectfully request that the Court exclude these\ninvestments from any ongoing or future forfeiture\nproceedings, not merely to protect my property, but as the\nnecessary first step to correct the contaminated evidentiary\nand victim-identification record that underpins the criminal\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 23 of 26\nforfeiture and related proceedings.\n2. Structural Corrective Action and Sua Sponte Authority\nThe structural procedural errors identified—including\nmisidentification of victims, contradictory classification of\nvictim/perpetrator status, suppression of motions, and reliance\non contaminated evidence—have corrupted the foundation of\nall related orders and determinations.\nI therefore request that the Court exercise its inherent authority\nto:\n○ rectify the misclassification and exclusion of legitimate\nvictims, including myself;\n○ correct the evidentiary record and any tainted\ndeterminations; and\n○ restore procedural and constitutional integrity in this case.\n3. Vacatur or Reconsideration of All Orders Contaminated by\nProcedural Breakdown\nAs a consequence of the structural collapse in this case, I\nrequest that the Court sua sponte review, vacate, or\nreconsider all orders and judgments that relied on the\ncontaminated record, including, but not limited to:\n○ criminal conviction(s) related to G-related investments;\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24 of 26\n○ forfeiture or asset seizure orders; and\n○ any bail or pretrial release determinations and conviction\naffected by misidentified victims, prosecutorial misconduct\nor suppressed motions.\n4. Protection of the Appellate Record\nThe release of Dkt. 765 revealed that Ryan Bai previously\nsuppressed victim motions were excluded, raising a risk of\ncontaminating the appellate record. I request that the Court\ntake sua sponte action to correct and clarify the record before\nany appellate consideration.\n5. Any Further Relief the Court Deems Just and Proper\nI respectfully request that the Court grant any additional relief\nnecessary to restore fairness, protect my rights as a victim,\nand ensure the lawfulness and integrity of all proceedings in\nthis matter.\n6. Upload a redacted version of this motion as Victim’s motion\nredacted.pdf on the public docket, with personal identifying\ninformation (such as addresses, phone numbers, and account\nnumbers) removed, while maintaining the unredacted version\nunder seal on the Clerk’s docket for the Court’s full\nconsideration.\nRespectfully submitted\nNovember 23, 2025\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 25 of 26\nCertificate of Service\nIn re: Tony Petitioner\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nCase No: 26-361\nSDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI, Tony, hereby certify as follows:\nOn June 10, 2026, I mailed true and correct copies of the following documents:\nRENEWED PETITION FOR WRIT OF\nMANDAMUS\nExhibit A\nwere served on the following parties:\n1: Nathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n2: Micah F. Fergenson\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278\nExecuted on June 10, 2026, 2026.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 26 of 26\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony","body_zh":"案号：26-361，2026年6月15日，案卷记录编号：34.1，第 1 页，共 26 页\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit）\n关于：Tony，\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案）中的被害人，\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n重新提出的人身保护令/执行令（Writ of Mandamus，职务履行令）申请书\n\nI. 引言\n我，Tony，系《Crime Victims’ Rights Act（犯罪被害人权利法）》（“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. § 3771(e) 所界定的犯罪被害人，谨此恭敬向本院重新申请职务履行令。\n\nII. 背景\n2026年2月18日，本院对我提出的职务履行令申请予以登记立案，该申请请求本院下达命令指示District Court（地区法院）将我提交的文件登记入卷，该文件与量刑存在实质关联。该提交文件作为我原职务履行令申请书的附件 D 提交，现作为附件 A 附于本申请书之后。\n\n2026年3月11日，法院指示将多起相关案件——案号分别为 25-3046、26-77、26-361、26-364、26-441 及 26-563——合并审理。\n\n2026年3月16日，我在地区法院提交了一份案卷保全文件（见第二巡回法院案号 26-361，Dkt. 16），请求将与其他职务履行令诉讼程序相关的材料一致地登记入卷并作为地区法院案卷记录的一部分，以避免对不同申请人产生不一致的待遇。\n\n案号：26-361，2026年6月15日，案卷记录编号：34.1，第 2 页，共 26 页\n尽管地区法院早在2026年2月18日就已收到我与职务履行令相关的材料，但这些材料直到2026年3月26日才被公开登记入卷（SDNY Dkt. 817）。\n\n2026年4月18日，我向本院提交了一份紧急动议，请求在职务履行令申请得出裁决前中止/暂缓量刑程序。政府方于2026年5月1日提交了反对意见，我于当日提交了答辩意见。\n\n2026年4月23日，地区法院将原定宣判日期延期至2026年6月29日，并称“鉴于各方海量量刑材料中提出的未决问题的复杂性”。\n\n2026年5月15日，本院就合并审理的申请案作出一项裁定，我的职务履行令申请被驳回，相关部分裁明：“鉴于地区法院收到大量提交文件，我们相信该法院将迅速予以处理，申请人关于将其提交文件登记入卷的职务履行令申请予以驳回，但不影响若地区法院未在合理时间内将提交文件登记入卷时重新提出申请的权利。”\n\n2026年5月23日，在审查我的案件材料时，我发现了一份与联盟账目记录有关的额外证据。我随即向地区法院提交了该材料以保全记录，并向本院进行了备案提交（Dkt. 29）。\n\nIII. 关于地区法院对待职务履行令申请方式的程序性关切\n另一个程序性关切源于地区法院对待本案中由 pro se（本人亲自诉讼/无律师代理）申请人向上诉法院提交的职务履行令申请的方式。\n\n目前，第二巡回法院已就该刑事案件立案受理了十余起亲自诉讼的职务履行令案件。在每一案例中，底层模式均十分相似：申请人试图直接向地区法院提交材料，但这些提交材料未按正常流程登记入卷，从而剥夺了申请人将地区法院作为可以正式提交动议并获得裁判的审判场所之途径。\n\n案号：26-361，2026年6月15日，案卷记录编号：34.1，第 3 页，共 26 页\n然而，一旦上诉法院启动职务履行令程序，地区法院就会屡次将这些上诉职务履行令文书的副本放置到 Southern District of New York（纽约南区，SDNY）的案卷记录中。这造成了严重的程序扭曲。没有任何规则要求地区法院将上诉职务履行令申请作为登记地区法院底层提交材料的替代手段。职务履行令文书随后出现在 SDNY 案卷中，也无法补救此前未能以实际具有可裁判性的形式将原始文件登记入卷的过错。充其量，这种做法只是使实质内容可见，同时回避了对提交文件本身的常规地区法院处理程序。在实际效果上，这构成了一种程序性屏蔽。\n\n这种做法还造成了具体的隐私损害。鉴于本案的敏感性，SDNY 的案卷受到多方利益相关者的密切监视。在 Ryan Bai 的首份职务履行令文件被作为 Dkt. 765 放置于 SDNY 案卷之后，他的全名、家庭住址、电话号码和电子邮件地址均被曝光。近期，关于 SDNY Dkt. 845，一名显然不熟悉相关程序和隐私规则的中国大陆投资者，其高度敏感的身份识别信息在公开案卷上遭到泄露，其中包括中国身份证件信息。这些信息泄露对于涉及中国大陆投资者的案件尤为严重，其中许多投资者曾指控受到 PRC（中华人民共和国）当局的审讯、强迫、逮捕或起诉。\n\nRyan Bai 已明确主张，地区法院以这种方式将其职务履行令材料放置于 SDNY 案卷上的决定是一项报复性举动，导致其个人信息被公开曝光。Ryan Bai 随后提交了第二巡回法院 Dkt. 30，以扩大 Case No. 25-2726 中的职务履行令救济请求，请求包括依据 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) 申请回避，理由是地区法院对这些事项的处理产生了偏见和利益冲突的外观。不论该请求最终是否成立，地区法院对职务履行令相关文件的处理方式本身已引发关于偏见、隐私损害和上诉诉讼的进一步指控，这一事实凸显了该问题的严重性。\n\n因此，法院应当审查其目前的做法——即拒绝将亲自诉讼的提交文件正常登记入卷，而在事后将上诉职务履行令\n\n案号：26-361，2026年6月15日，案卷记录编号：34.1，第 4 页，共 26 页\n文书放置于 SDNY 案卷上——是否剥夺了我获得有意义的地区法院审理途径的权利，扭曲了正常的审判程序，并使敏感人士面临本可避免的伤害。\n\nIV. 地区法院此前的延期并未解决问题，且随着宣判临近，不作为的情形愈发严重\n地区法院此前为期两个月的延期并未解决根本问题。截至目前，距目前定于2026年6月29日的宣判日期已不足三周，且距离第二巡回法院2026年5月15日的裁定已过去四周有余，该裁定指出：“鉴于地区法院收到大量提交文件，我们相信该法院将迅速予以处理”，同时驳回了与登记入卷相关的职务履行令救济，但不影响若地区法院未在合理时间内将提交文件登记入卷时重新提出申请。然而，迄今为止，地区法院仍未实质性地解决数名被害人在其暂缓动议中指出的直接关系到量刑的核心问题（见其他申请人的暂缓动议：25-2726、26-77、26-441）。这些问题并未仅仅因为量刑程序被延期而消失。相反，随着时间的推移，它们变得更加严重，因为地区法院既未提供解决这些问题的程序路径，也未声明在量刑时将不采纳这些存在争议的事项。在这些情况下，不能认为此前的延期已经治愈了该问题；相反，它暴露了持续未能正视直接影响量刑程序可靠性与完整性之问题的事实。\n\nV. Cheney（切尼）标准：\n1：我缺乏任何其他获得救济的充分手段。\n这并非上诉法院首次对地区法院及时处理本案中亲自诉讼的提交文件表达期待。除了2026年5月1日的合并审理裁定外，第二巡回法院在 Ryan Bai 早期的职务履行令案件中就已指出，“鉴于地区法院收到大量提交文件，我们相信该法院将迅速予以处理”，\n\n案号：26-361，2026年6月15日，案卷记录编号：34.1，第 5 页，共 26 页\n救济予以驳回，但不影响若地区法院未在合理时间内采取行动时重新提出申请的权利。参见 SDNY Dkt. 767（载有2025年11月26日的裁定）。尽管有先前的上诉警告，相同的登记入卷与途径受阻问题仍在持续。\n\n地区法院自身对被害人权利提交文件的处理方式，进一步证明了缺乏任何有效的地区法院救济手段。在2026年1月20日的案件进展会议（status conference）上，法院将 CVRA 动议称为“complaints（投诉/申诉）”。通过完全不提及 CVRA 并以此种方式定性被害人权利提交文件，法院实际上将这些文件降格至一个无法保证登记入卷、裁判或获得作为法定被害人权利动议之程序承认的类别。\n\n法院随后为期两个月的延期并未解决这些问题。如今，距离2026年6月29日的宣判日期已不足三周，地区法院仍未开启证据听证会，未提供具有实质意义的救济框架，亦未根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及 CVRA 将多份第三方提交文件登记入卷。法院亦未解决数名被害人在其暂缓动议中指出的直接关系到量刑的问题。这些问题并未随时间消逝；相反，它们进一步加深。在这些情况下，持续未能将这些事项登记入卷、听审或以其他方式处理，目前反映出一种程序瘫痪状态，使申请人除通过职务履行令外，没有任何充分的手段来获得救济。\n\n2. 我获得救济的权利明确且无可争议。\n我获得救济的权利明确且无可争议。首先，在法院已于 SDNY Dkt. 528 中明确承认 § 853(n) 及 CVRA 为非当事人仅有的法定途径的情况下，地区法院不得实质上拒绝基本的案卷登记途径，亦不得通过不予登记入卷或程序降格使这些途径沦为泡影。登记入卷是一项事务性/随附性职责（ministerial function），且事后在地区法院案卷中出现职务履行令材料并不能将底层提交文件转化为适度登记入卷且具可裁判性的地区法院动议。因此，对于正当呈交至地区法院的提交文件，我有明确的权利要求获得正常的案卷登记对待。\n\n其次，若干项未决的提交文件指出了直接关系到\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 6 页，共 26 页\n在量刑方面，包括受害者身份、所有权、追查追踪、没收范围、记录污染，以及政府所主张的损失框架的可靠性。正如我在暂缓动议（26-361 Dkt 18）中所阐述的那样，政府拟议的损失计算中所包含的资金来源结构在庭审中从未得到过有实质意义的发展。我的中国法院材料，连同后来为保全记录目的而在 Dkt. 29 中提交的联盟账本材料，反映出一种高度混杂的资金结构，其中中国大陆投资者通过多层中介机制进入与美国相关的资金池，包括通过中介（黄牛）进行的人民币结算。在此种态势下，政府的损失模型在实质上仍未得到核实。它似乎并未明确检验在相互竞争的解释框架下，相同的资金是否可以依据《美国量刑指南》（U.S.S.G.）§ 2B1.1 一致归类为“实际损失”，亦未解决汇总流入资金中的某些部分是否应当改作为非损失、有争议或法律上性质模糊的资金来处理。\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure）第 32(i)(3)(B) 条，在损失框架关系到量刑的限度内，地区法院不得仅仅依据未经检验且存在实质争议的损失框架行事。在底层来源资金池仍未解决、高度混同且受制于相互竞争的法律定性的情况下，法院必须要么通过充分的程序解决这些争议，要么明确裁定其在量刑时不会依赖于存在争议的损失事项。\n\n3. 在此情况下，签发执行令是适当的。\n在此情况下，签发执行令（Mandamus）是适当的。上诉法院已不止一次提醒地区法院，本案中的大量意见书应当得到迅速处理。然而，在目前定于 2026 年 6 月 29 日的量刑日期仅剩不到三周之际，地区法院仍未恢复任何有实质意义的程序路径。它尚未开启证据听证会，尚未提供可行的救济框架，甚至未能确保对多名独立代理（pro se）受害者和第三方提交材料进行常规案件排期登记（docketing）。在实际效果上，受影响的受害者和权利主张人仍被剥夺了进入地区法院这一让其法定动议得以提交、审理和\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 7 页，共 26 页\n裁决的法庭的最基本形式。\n\n这种未能作为尤为严重，因为地区法院自身已在 Dkt. 528 中明确承认非当事人可以通过《犯罪受害者权利法案》（Crime Victims’ Rights Act，简称 CVRA）项下的动议寻求救济。法院在承认 CVRA 作为一条法定途径的可用性之后，便不能在实践中剥夺受害者进入法院、对其提交材料进行排期登记并为其权利寻求裁决的任何实质能力。这样做不仅仅是行政拖延；它实际上剥夺了 CVRA 途径的实际效力，并剥夺了该法规本应提供给受害者的程序性保护。\n\n情况也是非同寻常的，因为涉案的提交材料并不涉及边缘或附随事项。在我自己提交的文件中，我提交了直接关系到中华人民共和国（People’s Republic of China）境内 G 系列（G-Series）投资者待遇的中国指控和法院材料，包括显示这些投资者在当地面临的政治和主权风险的证据。那一证据维度在庭审中并未呈现。直到我提交执行令申请之后，该问题才以具体形式显现：即同一笔底层资金在中国可能被视为与“资助危害国家安全犯罪活动罪”相关联，而在美国却被视为属于普通欺诈受害者的资金。这绝非微不足道的争议。它直接关系到本案的事实架构、受害者身份和损失的定性，以及目前呈递在地区法院面前的量刑和没收记录的可靠性。\n\n在此等情况下，寻求执行令并非作为常规复审的替代品，而是因为常规程序已经崩溃。在地区法院屡次未能对直接关系到量刑和案件本身事实完整性的提交材料予以排期登记、审理或以其他方式处理的情况下，签发令状是适当的。\n\nVI. 寻求的救济\n我最初的执行令申请主要仅聚焦于 CVRA，是因为地区法院在 2026 年 1 月 20 日的案件进展会议上曾表示，与 § 853 相关的事务将通过特别主事官（special-master）程序予以处理。然而，该\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 8 页，共 26 页\n程序并未实现。尚未任命特别主事官，尚未设定时间表，且尚未确定用于裁决这些财产利益问题的替代机制。在此等情况下，地区法院现在至少有必要确认收到我之前提交的、于 2026 年 5 月 19 日在案号 1:23-cr-00118 中寄送的与 § 853 相关的动议，标题为“1:23-cr-00118 – Tony – 根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提起的请愿书（公开版本）”，我亦在最初呈递给本法院但被本法院予以封存的执行令申请的附件 E 中附上了送达证明。\n\n1. 命令地区法院对我随附在附件 A 中的经遮蔽处理的 CVRA 动议进行案件排期登记。\n2. 针对附件 A“救济 4”中所反映的我的请求，登入一项经排期登记的程序性处置，其唯一目的在于保全上诉记录并澄清我的提交材料在地区法院记录中的地位，包括确认收到我的 CVRA 动议和我的 § 853(n) 财产利益动议，而不指示任何实质性结果。\n\n谨此提交，\nTony\n2026 年 6 月 7 日\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 9 页，共 26 页\n附件\nA\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 10 页，共 26 页\n美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区（Southern District of New York，简称 SDNY）\n美利坚合众国，\n原告，\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 MILES GUO，等人，\n被告。\n案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n受害者关于补救结构性程序崩溃及请求依法院固有权力依职权采取纠正行动的动议\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）\n美国联邦地区法官\n纽约南区\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan 美国法院大楼\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n我，作为 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下的受害者，谨此以独立代理（pro se）身份提交本动议，请求法院补救结构性程序崩溃\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 11 页，共 26 页\n并请求依法院固有权力依职权采取纠正行动\nI. 背景\n我已向 SDNY 提交了多份独立代理动议，试图将我合法的 G 相关投资从没收程序中排除。我的提交记录如下：\n2025 年 9 月 19 日，我通过电子邮件向 SDNY 独立代理接收处提交了我的第一份 853(n) 第三方请愿书。\n2025 年 9 月 20 日，我提交了我的第一份 CVRA 犯罪受害者动议。\n几天后，我发现这些版本缺少手写签名。我立即予以更正。2025 年 9 月 25 日，我通过电子邮件重新提交了经签署的 853(n) 请愿书和经签署的 CVRA 动议，并且还将纸质材料邮寄给了法院和美国联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney’s Office）。美国邮政署（USPS）记录证实，两个机构均已收到并签收了邮寄的提交文件。\n尽管采取了这些步骤，这些提交文件均未被排期登记。\n2025 年 10 月 22 日，我提交了我的第二份 CVRA 动议，并且在该提交文件中，我附上了 USPS 送达证明，显示我早前的纸质文件确已被送达但从未被排期登记。\n总共，我提交了三份动议（一份 853(n) 请愿书和两份 CVRA 动议），每份均通过电子方式和实体纸质形式发送。\n这些送达证明记录包含在 Appendix_A_Proof_of_Delivery_to_SDNY_and_USA_Nov3_2025.pdf 中。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 12 页，共 26 页\n尽管进行了这些多次尝试，我的任何文件均未被上传到案卷目录中，而这种长达数周的未能处理构成了对我 CVRA 权利的明显侵犯：\n1. 获得合理陈述意见的权利（§ 3771(a)(4)）；\n2. 受到公平和尊重对待的权利（§ 3771(a)(8)）；\n3. 获得免受不合理拖延的程序的权利（§ 3771(a)(7)）；\n4. 受到保护免受进一步伤害的权利（§ 3771(a)(1)）；\n5. 在“犯罪受害者”的法定定义下获得对受害者身份进行充分和真实考量的权利。\nII. 程序不合规\n正如我之前在 2025 年 9 月 20 日提交的被压制的动议中所述：\n我是 G 相关项目的合法投资者，从未参与欺诈、不法行为或政治激进活动。然而，我却成为中国共产党（CCP）当局的目标，被贴上“危害国家安全”的标签，并仅仅因为该投资以及与之相关的个人和平台的身份而遭受报复性起诉。我被迫出逃，失去了家园、生计、社区和安全，此后一直处于流亡状态。这些事实已得到法院记录的核实、证明和佐证，包括平行案件，例如对投资者 Wu 的起诉和监禁，\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 13 页，共 26 页\nWu 在被指控因发表阅读量极微的网上琐碎帖子而“颠覆国家政权”后至今仍被关押。对 Wu 和请愿人等投资者的迫害表明，危险是真实的、持续的，并且与本案直接相关。\n如果一名受害者在其母国被归类为“危害国家安全”并遭受政治迫害，而托雷斯法官仍然压制受害者的提交文件，这就构成了严重的程序违法：\n1. 违反《犯罪受害者权利法案》（CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771）\n● 未能确认请愿人的犯罪受害者身份。\n● 剥夺获得合理陈述意见的权利（§ 3771(a)(4)）。\n● 剥夺获得公平对待的权利（§ 3771(a)(8)）。\n● 未能保护请愿人免受进一步伤害（§ 3771(a)(1)）。\n● 忽视法定期限并造成程序拖延（§ 3771(a)(7)）。\n● 尽管面临来自外国迫害的危及生命的风险，仍允许个人身份信息（PII）保持暴露状态。\n2. 违反第五修正案正当程序\n● 法院明知却增加了请愿人面临的风险（国家制造危险理论，State-Created Danger Doctrine）。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, 第 14 页，共 26 页\n● 剥夺了有实质意义地参与影响财产、权利和受害者认定的程序的权利。\n3. 违反平等保护条款\n● 对遭受外国行为体（CCP）迫害的受害者，与详见于 Dkt. 733 中的毫无根据的债权人登记人给予差别对待。\n● 使合法受害者噤声，同时抬高未经核实或非法的权利主张人。\n● 未能向处于极其脆弱地位的群体提供更高程度的程序保护。\n4. 违反法院保护面临外国迫害的诉讼当事人的固有权力\n● 忽视了来自外国政府迫害的有据可查、持续存在的危及生命的风险。\n5. 在明知受害者身份和证据存在污染的情况下仍继续进行诉讼程序\n● 破产案（22-50073）Doc. 2083 承认债权人和受害者群体存在重叠且具主观性。\n● 刑事诉讼程序在未解决身份冲突的情况下继续进行，听任毫无根据的权利主张人主导话语叙事。\n6. 忽视外部影响和外国干预风险\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 15 of 26\n● 未能将中共（CCP）对 G 系列投资者的针对性迫害视为程序裁定中的实质性因素。\n● 允许陈述与证据记录反映与外国迫害行为人相一致的利益。\n● 忽视该因素构成了需要采取纠正措施的结构性及宪法性侵权。\n7. 结构性程序崩溃\n受害者与作恶者身份冲突及结构性程序崩溃，外国对受害者分类的影响\n7.1 法律地位的冲突\n三重身份冲突：\n在中国：\n同样的投资被归类为对国家安全的威胁；在政治安全框架下，我被当作作恶者对待。随后，我遭受了中国当局的政治迫害，实际上使我成为国家报复的受害者。\n在美国：\n完全相同的投资被定性为 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）所实施欺诈计划的一部分；根据《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA）及联邦刑事欺诈法规，我被当作受害者对待。\n直接矛盾：\n我同时被认为是：\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 16 of 26\n● 中国当局眼中的作恶者；\n● 同一中国当局政治迫害的受害者；\n● 美国法律下的欺诈受害者。\n额外冲突——Wu 的案例：\n另一名投资者 Wu，因完全相同的、被美国政府定性为投资者欺诈的投资计划，在中国被刑事定罪。尽管根据美国法律 Wu 显然具备欺诈受害者的资格，但 Wu 却被完全排除在 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的受害者认定程序之外。\n系统性影响：\n这些冲突表明，身份矛盾并非孤立存在，而是系统性的，影响了美国诉讼程序中的整个受害者框架。\n7.2 对法律程序的影响\n美国法院关于受害者地位、资产没收、赔偿以及 CVRA 参与资格的裁定，均依赖于投资者是真正欺诈受害者的假设。\n然而：\n● 如果同一个体在法律上被另一个主权机关视为作恶者；\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 17 of 26\n● 如果像 Wu 这样的其他投资者因同一投资在国外受到刑事处罚；\n● 如果这些个体被排除在美国受害者名单之外，\n● ……那么美国诉讼程序的证据基础便会瓦解。\n这构成了对受害者的系统性错误分类，因为：\n● 处于相似境况的个体被作出了不一致的分类；\n● 关于谁有资格成为“受害者”的核心事实仍未解决；\n● 证据记录变得内部自相矛盾。\n结果导致了结构性程序崩溃：美国法院的裁决所依赖的事实前提无法同时为真。\n7.3 对法院行动的后果\n对受害者/作恶者地位的错误认定和系统性错误分类导致：\n● 在刑事和没收程序中不当地纳入或排除个体；\n● 依赖受污染、不完整或自相矛盾的证据；\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 18 of 26\n● 潜在侵犯正当程序、平等保护以及法定 CVRA 保护；\n● 程序合法性瓦解，因为当本案的基本身份和事实框架仍处于矛盾状态时，法院无法合法地推进程序。\n简而言之：\n当同一笔投资在中国产生“作恶者”、在美国产生“受害者”，并且像 Wu 这样的关键人物被排除在外时，整个受害者框架就变得内部不一致，需要采取结构性纠正应对措施以恢复公平和合法参与。\n当两个主权国家将同一个体既归类为国家安全作恶者又归类为欺诈受害者时，美国法院在未首先解决该冲突的情况下，不能依赖未经核实的受害者名单。在未解决此矛盾的情况下推进程序，会使没收框架在法律上不可靠，在宪法上不健全。\n此外，本案中受害者的错误分类因外国影响而进一步加剧。包括 CCP 对 Wu 和我本人的投资者迫害在内的证据表明，外部行为人已直接或间接地塑造了关于谁符合“受害者”资格的叙述。当美国法院在未经独立核实的情况下依赖这些分类时，诉讼程序就有被外国政治利益污染的风险，从而进一步破坏正当程序、公平性以及没收框架的完整性。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 19 of 26\n8. 美国法院不能采纳与迫害政权相一致的叙述\n在宪法层面上，美国刑事诉讼程序不能采纳在哪怕是无意中与迫害受害者的同一外国政权的利益相一致的受害者认定叙述。这样做会破坏司法程序的公正性，并违反基本正当程序原则。\n9. 忽视司法不当行为并在已知存在污染的情况下强行推进程序\n在 Dkt. 733 中，Ryan Bai 指出了检方与受托人 Luc 可能存在的不当行为，该行为已构成对法院的欺诈。\n然而，法院：\n● 数月内未对这些指控采取行动，忽视了对合法受害者可能造成的损害，并允许基于已知受损的记录继续进行与没收相关的程序。\n● 在提交 Dkt. 733 之后，尽管所提出的问题直接破坏了基础受害者认定和资产没收裁定的可靠性与合法性，法院仍继续推进没收程序。\n法律后果：\n● 侵犯正当程序：在已知记录受到污染的情况下继续进行程序，侵犯了请愿人的第五修正案权利。处于相似境况的受害者被剥夺了获得公平听讯的机会。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 20 of 26\n● 违反 CVRA：《犯罪受害者权利法》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）保障受害者有权参与涉及资产和诉讼程序的事务。忽视 Dkt. 733 中的警示阻止了合法受害者行使此项权利。\n● 结构性程序崩溃：通过在收到记录受污染通知的情况下仍强行推进程序，法院加剧了受害者和债权人的错误分类，造成了内部自相矛盾的证据框架，破坏了整个没收程序的完整性。\n● 滥用裁量权/未能予以纠正：法院在面对程序污染的明确警告时未采取行动，构成了面对结构性错误时的司法不作为，应予以纠正性干预。\n10. 与 Dkt. 765 相关的潜在程序和法律违规行为\n压制受害者要求法官回避的合法动议\n○ 地区法院未能考虑请愿人寻求法官回避的动议或据此采取行动，直接压制了行使《犯罪受害者权利法》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）所保障的权利，并剥夺了请愿人获得公平听讯的机会。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 21 of 26\n○ 这种压制破坏了正当程序并可能侵犯平等保护，因为其他处于相似境况的当事人可能已被允许寻求程序救济。\n上诉记录的污染\n○ 地区法院在请愿人与回避相关的动议仍在审理期间提交 Dkt. 765，通过在法院就基础动议作出裁决之前引入可能影响上诉考量的内容，可能损害了第二巡回法院的上诉审查。\n○ 此行为造成了结构性程序冲突，因为上诉记录现在包含了反映地区法院压制合法受害者动议的材料，从而污染了上诉审查所依赖的证据和程序记录。\n结构性程序崩溃\n● 压制动议继而将其公开暴露的结合，表明了结构性程序失败：\n● 受害者参与和陈述的权利被剥夺（CVRA § 3771(a)(4), (a)(8)）；\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 22 of 26\n● 旨在保护受害者的核心程序机制遭到破坏；\n● 记录的完整性受到损害，因为法院忽视了关于其自身公正性（回避）的未决动议。\n这不仅仅是一个“技术性错误”；它冲击了正当程序的基石，因为程序体系未能允许受害者主张其权利，同时又将其暴露于潜在的报复之下。\nIII — 救济请求\n基于上述事实，包括我遭受 CCP 的迫害、合法受害者被错误分类和噤声，以及由此导致的本案结构性程序崩溃，我谨请求本法院依职权（sua sponte）行使其固有权力，准予以下救济：\n1. 将我的投资排除在没收程序之外，以此作为更正记录的切入点\n因遭受针对性的政治迫害，我被迫逃离中国，失去了所有财务资源和谋生手段。我与 G 系列相关的投资总额约为 [XXX] 美元，此前已有记录，但从未被正当地记入诉讼记录。我谨请求法院将这些投资排除在任何正在进行或未来的没收程序之外，这不仅是为了保护我的财产，更是作为更正支持刑事没收及相关程序之受污染证据和受害者认定记录的必要第一步。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 23 of 26\n2. 结构性纠正措施与依职权固有权力\n所指出的结构性程序错误——包括错误认定受害者、对受害者/作恶者地位的自相矛盾分类、压制动议以及依赖受污染证据——已经腐蚀了所有相关裁定和判定的基础。\n因此，我请求法院行使其固有权力以：\n○ 纠正对包括我本人在内的合法受害者的错误分类和排除；\n○ 更正证据记录和任何受污染的判定；以及\n○ 恢复本案的程序和宪法完整性。\n3. 撤销或重新审议因程序崩溃而受污染的所有裁定\n作为本案结构性瓦解的后果，我请求法院依职权审查、撤销或重新审议所有依赖于受污染记录的裁定和判决，包括但不限于：\n○ 与 G 系列相关投资有关的刑事定罪；\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24 of 26\n○ 没收或资产查封裁定；以及\n○ 任何受错误认定的受害者、检察官不当行为或被压制动议影响的保释或审前释放判定及定罪。\n4. 保护上诉记录\nDkt. 765 的发布揭示了 Ryan Bai 先前被压制的受害者动议被排除在外，这带来了污染上诉记录的风险。我请求法院在进行任何上诉考量之前依职权采取行动，更正并澄清记录。\n5. 法院认为正当且适当的任何进一步救济\n我谨请求法院准予任何必要的额外救济，以恢复公平，保护我作为受害者的权利，并确保本案所有诉讼程序的合法性和完整性。\n6. 将本动议的删节版本作为 Victim’s motion redacted.pdf 上传至公开案卷，移除个人身份识别信息（如地址、电话号码和账号），同时在书记官案卷中将未删节版本予以封存，以供法院全面考量。\n谨呈\n2025年11月23日\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 25 of 26\n送达证明\n事由：Tony（托尼），请愿人\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n案号：26-361\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案：United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n我，Tony，特此证明如下：\n2026年6月10日，我邮寄了以下文件的真实且正确的副本：\n重新提交的执行令请愿书\n证物 A\n已送达至以下当事方：\n1: Nathan Rehn（内森·雷恩）\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n2: Micah F. Fergenson（米迦·F·弗根森）\n美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室\n26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278\n签署于2026年6月10日。\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 26 of 26\n谨此呈递，\nTony","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5145,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:30:31"}