{"id":"court_2cir_26-441_dkt_1_1","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-441_dkt_1_1","summary_zh":"强制令请愿书——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)案第二巡回上诉法院 26-441 号案 ECF/DktEntry 1.1(信函落款2026年2月20日,法院收讫戳2026年2月24日,共46页)。Pro se 请愿人 Carolyn Sun 依据《全令状法》(28 U.S.C. § 1651)、CVRA(18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3))及联邦上诉规则21条申请强制令,要求 SDNY 地区法院立案审理其2026年1月28日提交的 CVRA 动议(内含 Curcio 式利益冲突审查请求)及2025年9–10月提交但一直未获立案的多份 pro se 动议,援引联邦刑事诉讼规则49(d)'书记员不得拒收文件'及 United States v. Curcio 判例,主张法院对潜在利益冲突负有独立审查义务;随附600美元申请费及多份送达证明。","summary_en":"Petition for writ of mandamus — filed in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-441, ECF/DktEntry 1.1 (cover letter dated Feb. 20, 2026; received/stamped by the court Feb. 24, 2026; 46 pages). Pro se petitioner Carolyn Sun seeks mandamus under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651), the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)), and FRAP 21, asking the Second Circuit to order the SDNY district court to docket her Jan. 28, 2026 CVRA motion (raising a Curcio-type conflict-of-interest concern) along with several Sept.–Oct. 2025 pro se motions that were never docketed, invoking Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(d) ('the clerk must not refuse to file a paper') and United States v. Curcio to argue the district court has an independent duty to inquire into potential conflicts; the filing includes a $600 fee and proof-of-service exhibits.","body_en":"Case: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 1 of 46\n\n---\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n[*Address redacted*]\n\nFeb 20, 2026\n\nClerk of Court\nUnited States Court of Appeals\nfor the Second Circuit\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n**RECEIVED — Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit — FEB 24 2026**\n\nRe: Petition for Writ of Mandamus\nIn Re: Carolyn Sun, Pro Se Petitioner\nRelated to: United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al., No. 23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nDear Clerk of the Court:\n\nEnclosed please find a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by pro se Petitioner Carolyn Sun, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.\n\nThis Petition seeks an order directing the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to docket Petitioner's properly submitted motions and to permit judicial review, including review of the Curcio-type conflict-of-interest issues raised therein.\n\nEnclosed please find:\n\n1. Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus\n2. Three copies of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus\n3. One redacted copy of the cover letter for public filing\n4. Appendix A — January 28, 2026 CVRA Motion\n5. Appendix B — Proof of Delivery (Email and UPS Confirmation)\n6. Appendix C — Email Correspondence with Pro Se Intake\n7. Appendix D — September and October 2025 motions\n8. Appendix E — Proof of Delivery (Email and UPS Confirmation)\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 2 of 46\n\n9. Appendix F - Returned Prior Mandamus Submission\n10. Filing fee of $600.00 (check enclosed)\n11. Certificate of Service\n\nPlease contact me if any additional information is required.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n[*Signature redacted*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\nPetitioner, Pro Se\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 3 of 46\n\n## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n\n**In re Carolyn Sun,**\n\nPetitioner, Pro Se\n\nRelated to:\n\nUnited States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.\n\nNo. 23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.)\n\n**RECEIVED — 2026 FEB 24 PM 1:41 — U.S. COURT OF APPEALS**\n\n## PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), and Fed. R. App. P. 21\n\n### I. INTRODUCTION\n\nPetitioner, Carolyn Sun, respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to perform its non-discretionary duty to docket properly submitted motions and to permit judicial review.\n\nSpecifically, Petitioner seeks an order directing the district court to:\n\n1. Docket Petitioner's January 28, 2026 CVRA motion and Petitioner's previously submitted pro se motions that were not docketed; and\n\n2. Thereafter review and address the Curcio-type conflict-of-interest issues raised therein.\n\n### II. JURISDICTION\n\nThis Court has jurisdiction under:\n\n- 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (All Writs Act);\n- 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).\n\nMandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with mandatory judicial duties and to preserve this Court's appellate jurisdiction.\n\nMandamus is also appropriate where a district court fails to perform a ministerial duty necessary to permit appellate review. See *Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.*, 437 U.S. 655, 661–62 (1978).\n\n### III. STATEMENT OF FACTS\n\n#### A. January 28, 2026 CVRA Motion Was Properly Submitted but Has Not Been Docketed\n\nOn January 28, 2026, Petitioner submitted a pro se CVRA motion to the Southern District of New York Pro Se Intake Office via email (Appendix A).\n\nTo ensure proper receipt, Petitioner also mailed a paper copy of the motion on February 4, 2026, via UPS. The motion was delivered to the Court on February 6, 2026, as confirmed by UPS delivery tracking (Appendix B).\n\nDespite both electronic and physical submission, the motion has not been docketed.\n\nOn February 11, 2026, Petitioner emailed the Pro Se Intake Office requesting confirmation of receipt and docketing status (Appendix C).\n\nNo response was received.\n\nNo docket entry exists, no judicial action has occurred, and no appealable order has been issued.\n\nAccordingly, the nondocketing of the motion is not attributable to any failure of submission or delivery, but reflects the absence of docketing despite proper receipt by the Court.\n\n#### B. Procedural History Demonstrating Absence of Reviewable Orders and Necessity of Mandamus\n\nPetitioner filed a petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) in September 2025, which was accepted and docketed as ECF 735.\n\nFollowing that filing, Petitioner submitted two additional pro se motions in September and October 2025 (Appendix D), raising procedural concerns, including one submitted in direct response to accusations contained in a filing entered on the docket as ECF No. 739. Although the underlying filing was docketed, Petitioner's responsive submission, along with her other pro se motions, was not docketed and did not receive any judicial disposition. These submissions remain undocketed to this day despite being properly submitted (Appendix E) and have not resulted in any reviewable order.\n\nIn November 2025, Petitioner attempted to seek mandamus relief in this Court regarding the nondocketing of those submissions. That submission was returned and not accepted for filing, with the explanation that Petitioner had not filed a CVRA motion in the district court (Appendix F).\n\nPetitioner understood this response to indicate that filing a CVRA motion in the district court was a prerequisite for mandamus relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).\n\nIn direct response to that instruction, Petitioner submitted a CVRA motion to the Southern District of New York on January 28, 2026, raising procedural concerns, including the need for a Curcio-type conflict-of-interest inquiry and the ongoing nondocketing of her prior submissions.\n\nDespite proper submission and confirmed delivery, that CVRA motion likewise has not been docketed and has not received any judicial disposition.\n\nBecause the district court has not docketed Petitioner's CVRA motion, no ruling has been issued, and Petitioner remains unable to obtain judicial review through ordinary channels.\n\nPetitioner has therefore complied with the prerequisite identified by this Court and now seeks mandamus relief to compel docketing and permit judicial consideration of the issues presented.\n\n### IV. ARGUMENT\n\n#### A. Mandamus Is Necessary Because Nondocketing Eliminates Judicial Review\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(d) provides:\n\n\"The clerk must not refuse to file a paper.\"\n\nThis duty is mandatory.\n\nRule 49(d) imposes a ministerial, non-discretionary duty. The clerk may not decline to file a submission based on its perceived merit, standing, or procedural posture; those determinations are reserved to the Court after filing.\n\nThis ministerial duty applies regardless of the identity of the filer, including pro se litigants.\n\nFailure to docket eliminates judicial review and appellate jurisdiction.\n\n#### B. Docketing Is Necessary to Permit the District Court to Address Curcio Conflict-of-Interest Issues\n\nPetitioner's January 28, 2026 CVRA motion raised substantial concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest arising from overlapping legal representation involving third-party petitioners and a criminal defendant (Section VII of Appendix A).\n\nUnder controlling Second Circuit precedent, when a district court becomes aware of facts suggesting a potential conflict of interest affecting the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings, the court has an affirmative and independent duty to conduct an inquiry to determine the nature and scope of the conflict.\n\nThe district court cannot meaningfully exercise its Curcio duty unless the submission raising the conflict is docketed and presented for judicial review.\n\nIn *United States v. Curcio*, 680 F.2d 881, 888–90 (2d Cir. 1982), this Court held that when a potential conflict is identified, the district court must conduct an on-the-record inquiry sufficient to:\n\n- investigate the nature of the conflict;\n- determine whether the conflict is actual or potential; and\n- ensure that affected participants understand the implications.\n\nIn *United States v. Levy*, 25 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir. 1994), the Court reaffirmed that:\n\n\"When a district court is apprised of a possible conflict of interest, it has an independent duty to investigate and ensure that the conflict does not undermine the fairness of the proceedings.\"\n\nThe Supreme Court likewise confirmed in *Wheat v. United States*, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988), that federal courts possess an independent institutional obligation to preserve the integrity of proceedings.\n\nBecause Petitioner's motion has not been docketed, the district court has not been able to review it or determine whether a Curcio inquiry is necessary.\n\nDocketing is therefore required to permit the district court to perform its Curcio obligations.\n\n#### C. Second Circuit Precedent Confirms Mandamus Is the Proper Vehicle\n\nThe Second Circuit has accepted mandamus petitions raising procedural and docketing concerns in matters including Nos. 25-2726, 25-3046, 26-77, 26-361, and 26-364.\n\nIn *In re Ranyue Bai* (25-2726), this Court held that mandamus relief may be renewed where submissions are not docketed within a reasonable time.\n\nPetitioner's motion has not been docketed within a reasonable time.\n\nMandamus relief is therefore required.\n\n#### D. Cheney Requirements Are Satisfied\n\nUnder *Cheney v. U.S. District Court*, 542 U.S. 367 (2004):\n\n**1. No Other Adequate Means**\n\nNo docket entry exists, and no appeal is possible.\n\nBecause the CVRA motion has not been docketed, Petitioner cannot obtain judicial review through ordinary channels.\n\n**2. Clear and Indisputable Right**\n\nRule 49(d) mandates filing.\n\nPetitioner's right to have her properly submitted motions docketed is clear and indisputable.\n\n**3. Mandamus Is Appropriate**\n\nMandamus is necessary to preserve appellate jurisdiction and to permit judicial review.\n\n### V. REDACTION REQUEST\n\nPetitioner respectfully requests permission to redact personal identifying information pursuant to Rule 49.1.\n\n### VI. RELIEF REQUESTED\n\nPetitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to:\n\n1. Docket Petitioner's January 28, 2026 CVRA motion and Petitioner's previously submitted pro se motions that were not docketed; and\n\n2. Thereafter review and address the Curcio-type conflict-of-interest issues raised in Petitioner's January 28, 2026 motion;\n\nand grant such further relief as appropriate.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n[*Signature*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\nPetitioner, Pro Se\n\nFeb 20, 2026\n\n---\n\n## Appendix A\n\nJanuary 28, 2026 CVRA Motion\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 13 of 46\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nHo Wan Kwok a/k/a Miles Guo, et al.,\nDefendants.\n\nCase No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n### MOTION TO ENFORCE RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT (CVRA) 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) & (d) FOR NOTICE, DOCKETING, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FORFEITURE-RELATED PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES\n\n#### I. Jurisdiction and Statutory Basis\n\nThis motion is brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) and § 3771(d)(1)–(3), to enforce procedural rights subject to direct appellate review by the Second Circuit under § 3771(d)(3).\n\nTo the extent prior, nondocketed submissions referenced the CVRA in the alternative, those references were made solely to preserve procedural access where 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) did not apply and did not constitute an assertion of crime-victim status or a request for substantive relief. Because those submissions were not docketed or ruled upon, this motion is Petitioner's first opportunity to clarify her procedural posture on the public record.\n\n#### II. Express Limitation of Scope\n\nPetitioner invokes the CVRA solely for procedural protections, including notice, the right to be reasonably heard, freedom from unreasonable delay, and transparency. Petitioner does not seek restitution, participation in sentencing, forfeiture priority, or any determination of ownership or loss. All property-based claims, if any, are asserted separately and exclusively under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Nothing herein concedes that any funds were stolen or constitute criminal proceeds.\n\nConsistent with the reservation stated in ECF No. 735, the CVRA is invoked only where § 853(n) does not provide a procedural vehicle for raising non-ownership, record-integrity, or process-based concerns. Any prior reference to the CVRA was procedural in nature only and did not reflect an assertion or concession of crime-victim status.\n\nFor purposes of this motion only, Petitioner seeks enforcement of CVRA procedural guarantees without prejudice to any later determination regarding statutory victim classification.\n\n#### III. Procedural Irregularities Necessitating CVRA Enforcement\n\nCVRA relief is warranted due to systemic procedural failures, including:\n\n- nondocketing or administrative suppression of pro se filings asserting statutory rights;\n- diversion of judicial motions into administrative remission channels, eliminating open-court review; and\n- absence of a judicial forum to raise concerns regarding conflicted representation, organized or proxy claims, and trustee–government coordination affecting forfeiture.\n\nThese failures impair the right \"to be reasonably heard\" under § 3771(a)(4).\n\n#### IV. January 20, 2026 Status Conference\n\nOn January 20, 2026, the Court explained the distinct paths of (i) remission (administrative) and (ii) § 853(n) (judicial), emphasized that they are not interchangeable, and noted that submissions not invoking § 853(n) had been treated as remission and not docketed.\n\nThe Court did not rule on CVRA rights or hold that administrative routing displaces statutory procedural protections.\n\nThe practical effect, however, has been the channeling away of statutory and procedural motions—particularly from pro se participants—into non-adversarial administrative processes lacking docketing, findings, and appellate review. CVRA enforcement is therefore necessary to prevent nullification by routing.\n\n#### V. Record-Integrity Concerns Raised by ECF Nos. 733 and 733-1\n\nPetitioner references ECF Nos. 733 and 733-1 solely for procedural purposes. Those filings allege, inter alia, potential Brady-type disclosure issues, fraud-upon-the-court-type misconduct involving the prosecutor and the trustee, reliance on unverified or conflicted claimant lists, and record inconsistencies affecting bail, forfeiture, and asset control.\n\nPetitioner does not adopt, prove, or seek adjudication of those allegations. Rather, Petitioner submits that final forfeiture should not be entered without judicial determination of whether such allegations are true or unfounded, because, if substantiated, the alleged defects would undermine the integrity and legality of the forfeiture process itself. Accordingly, Petitioner requests verification and judicial assurance that the forfeiture record and process are complete, accurate, and untainted, consistent with the CVRA's guarantees of fairness, transparency, and orderly procedure.\n\nIn addition, proceeding to final forfeiture on a record that may be incomplete, conflicted, or unverified risks prejudicing the Defendants' due-process and disclosure rights, including their ability to challenge the provenance, independence, and characterization of purported claims and claimants. Judicial verification at this stage serves not only to protect third-party procedural rights, but also to ensure that the forfeiture determination does not rest on a record that could later be shown to have omitted material information relevant to the Defendants' rights under Brady and related doctrines.\n\n#### VI. Role of the Himalaya Alliance and Farm Leaders in Organized Claim Activity\n\nPublic filings (including ECF Nos. 729 and 734, among others) describe a coordinated, top-down structure through which the Himalaya Alliance and Farm Leaders—identified in the indictment and related court filings (ECF Nos. 388, 382, 395) as alleged co-conspirators—exerted influence over claim formation, claimant behavior, and participation in these proceedings. Taken together, these allegations reflect an organized pattern of intervention bearing on the independence and transparency of third-party claims.\n\nAs reflected in the record, many ordinary investors and supporters did not interact directly with the Defendants, but instead relied on the Himalaya Alliance and Farm Leaders as their primary—and often exclusive—source of information regarding investments, legal developments, and participation in proceedings. This intermediary role was particularly significant for supporters who do not speak English or lack familiarity with U.S. legal processes.\n\nFollowing Defendant Miles Guo's arrest, reliance on Alliance- and Farm-led communications intensified, with supporters depending on these channels for updates, interpretation of court events, and direction on claim submission and engagement of counsel. Through sustained, grassroots-level interaction, the Alliance and Farm Leaders were positioned to shape perceptions, coordinate messaging, and organize collective action across a geographically dispersed supporter base.\n\nAccordingly, the intermediary role of the Himalaya Alliance and Farm Leaders is procedurally relevant to understanding how large-scale, coordinated claim activity emerged. Such information bears on whether representations made to the Court regarding victims, claimants, and asset attribution reflect independent conduct or coordinated activity by co-conspirators, a distinction that may materially affect both forfeiture integrity and the Defendants' ability to contest forfeiture scope, claimant characterization, or related determinations.\n\nExamples include:\n\n**1. Coordinated Claim Framing and Procedural Shifts**\n\nAs described in ECF No. 729, supporters were initially recruited under the premise of a prospective civil action to recover frozen exchange funds. That effort later shifted to filings invoking CVRA victim language and subsequently to § 853(n) submissions in the criminal forfeiture proceeding—often without individualized tracing or independent factual development. Attorney Geyer's representation is one example of how this organized structure translated recruitment into court submissions, illustrating the procedural confusion created by centrally managed posture changes.\n\n**2. Centralized Global Mobilization**\n\nThe record reflects that thousands of geographically dispersed supporters were mobilized through centralized channels associated with the Himalaya Alliance, the Farm Leaders, and Himalaya Exchange. Absent such organization and intermediary trust, the scale and timing of mass claim submissions—including filings associated with multiple counsel and coordinated submissions within compressed timeframes and potentially some victim statements—would be difficult to explain.\n\nSome leaders publicly claimed communications with the Defendant, including alleged calls or visits. Petitioner does not assert the truth of these claims and notes that it is equally plausible the Defendant's name was invoked by third parties, without actual contact, to lend authority or urgency to organized claim activity.\n\nIn either case, unresolved assertions of Defendant-directed encouragement present procedural risk: if true, they raise questions regarding the independence and voluntariness of § 853(n) submissions; if untrue, they risk distorting the forfeiture record through misattribution and manufactured authority. Where such representations have been relied upon, limited verification of whether such communications occurred may be warranted to preserve the integrity of the forfeiture process.\n\n**3. Steering and Suppression of Independent Participation**\n\nSupporters were allegedly discouraged from attending court proceedings except through Alliance-organized activities, discouraged from filing pro se submissions, and steered toward specific counsel (including Attorney Geyer and others, such as Attorney Gavenman). Given the trust placed in Alliance and Farm Leaders as primary information sources, such steering carried particular weight and materially impaired independent participation and unmediated access to the Court. Community members who pursued independent filings were reportedly disparaged and attacked, further deterring individualized engagement. Such coordinated suppression of independent participation may be relevant to the completeness and accuracy of information presented in the criminal proceeding.\n\n**4. Ancillary Promotions Using the Defendant's Name**\n\nThe same leadership figures allegedly used the Defendant's name to promote an ancillary meme-coin project (TDCCP), resulting in financial losses to supporters. These facts are referenced not to adjudicate liability, but to underscore the broader context of trust, influence, and dependence that characterized the relationship between supporters and Alliance/Farm leadership, and that may bear on the reliability and provenance of organized claim activity.\n\nThese matters are raised solely for procedural purposes in support of CVRA enforcement—specifically, to ensure proper docketing, notice, and a forum in which the Court can assess claims individually and transparently, rather than through administratively aggregated or leader-directed submissions—and to permit judicial awareness of information potentially relevant to record integrity, disclosure obligations, and the fair administration of the forfeiture process.\n\n#### VII. Failure to Conduct Conflict Review (Curcio-Type Inquiry)\n\nPublic filings reflect overlapping and sequential representations by Attorney Jeffrey Gavenman that raise non-frivolous conflict-of-interest concerns requiring judicial scrutiny. As reflected in filings such as ECF Nos. 672, 673, and 674, Attorney Gavenman has appeared on behalf of more than one hundred third-party petitioners under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), including Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton Investment Management, Ltd., Himalaya Exchange–related entities, and affiliated clearing and reserve entities, all of which assert ownership interests adverse to the Government's forfeiture position and implicate alleged co-conspirator entities.\n\nSubsequent filings indicate that Attorney Gavenman later sought to represent Defendant William Je, a named but unarraigned defendant in this matter. This sequence creates an apparent overlap between (i) representation of third-party petitioners asserting property interests in assets the Government attributes to the charged conspiracy and (ii) representation of a criminal defendant whose interests may be adverse to, or strategically intertwined with, those same third-party claims.\n\nPetitioner does not assert or litigate Defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. However, under *Wheat v. United States*, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), the Court retains an independent, institutional obligation to inquire into and address potential conflicts of interest where overlapping representation may undermine the integrity of the proceedings, even absent a formal objection by a defendant. This duty applies with particular force where forfeiture, asset attribution, and the characterization of entities as victims, owners, or co-conspirators are central to the case.\n\nThe absence of any on-the-record Curcio-type inquiry addressing Attorney Gavenman's overlapping representations creates procedural risk not only to the integrity of the forfeiture process and the orderly adjudication of third-party rights, but also to Petitioner specifically, insofar as unresolved conflicts may result in the aggregation, mischaracterization, or diminished credibility of independent pro se filings, or in the Court's reliance on tainted or conflicted submissions when assessing claimant reliability, scope, or posture. An on-the-record inquiry would permit the Court to determine whether adequate disclosures were made, whether informed waivers were obtained where required, and whether continued representation poses a risk of taint, divided loyalties, or compromised advocacy affecting forfeiture, asset control, or related proceedings.\n\n#### VIII. Public Allegations of Defendant-Directed Claim Coordination\n\nPetitioner notes a January 23, 2026 public GETTR post by Forrest Zhou—who publicly identifies as the current leader of NFSC and was present at Defendant Yvette Wang's related sentencing making \"victim\" statement—asserting that he received a call from Defendant Miles Guo encouraging supporters to file petitions under 21 U.S.C. § 853. If such a communication occurred, it raises serious procedural concerns regarding the independence and voluntariness of subsequent § 853(n) submissions, including the risk that claimant filings may be coordinated, influenced, or strategically motivated in a manner that undermines individualized adjudication and contaminates the forfeiture record. If, on the other hand, the asserted communication did not occur, the public representation itself poses a different but equally significant risk: it may falsely confer perceived authority or endorsement, induce filings based on misinformation, and distort the Court's assessment of claimant credibility, provenance, and motive. In either scenario, unresolved claims of defendant-directed encouragement threaten to pollute future § 853(n) submissions and to prejudice unrelated petitioners by associating independent filings with organized or defendant-linked activity. Petitioner raises this issue solely to provide timely notice so that the Court may take appropriate prophylactic measures to preserve the integrity of the forfeiture process and to ensure that Petitioner's own submissions are not mischaracterized, aggregated, or tainted by allegations of coordination or influence beyond Petitioner's control.\n\n#### IX. Relief Requested\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) and (d), Petitioner respectfully requests the Court grant the following procedural relief:\n\n1. **Docketing and Judicial Consideration**\n   Direct that this Motion and Petitioner's prior submissions invoking statutory procedural rights not be diverted to administrative remission channels, but instead be docketed and considered by the Court, so that Petitioner may be afforded the CVRA right \"to be reasonably heard\" in a judicial forum.\n\n2. **Clarification of Procedural Posture**\n   Clarify that invocation of the CVRA for limited procedural purposes—particularly where § 853(n) does not apply—does not require concession of victim status, does not mandate administrative routing, and does not displace statutory rights to notice, transparency, and timely judicial review.\n\n3. **Preservation of Judicial Review**\n   Confirm that procedural motions raising record-integrity, docketing, conflict, or process-based concerns will not be nullified through administrative routing, and that such motions remain subject to judicial findings and appellate review, as contemplated by § 3771(d)(3).\n\n4. **Record-Integrity Assurance Prior to Final Forfeiture**\n   Provide judicial assurance that forfeiture will not proceed to final disposition without the Court first determining whether the forfeiture record and process are complete, accurate, and untainted, including consideration of the procedural concerns identified in connection with ECF Nos. 733 and 733-1, to the extent relevant to record integrity and disclosure obligations.\n\n5. **Disclosure or Verification as Warranted**\n   To the extent representations regarding claimant coordination, authority, or defendant communications have been relied upon or may be relied upon in the forfeiture process, direct such limited disclosure or verification as the Court deems appropriate to ensure the reliability and independence of submissions considered in connection with forfeiture.\n\n6. **Conflict Review (Curcio-Type Inquiry)**\n   Conduct, or direct an appropriate on-the-record inquiry, consistent with *Wheat v. United States*, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), to determine whether overlapping representations identified in the record present conflicts requiring disclosure, waiver, limitation, or other prophylactic measures necessary to protect the integrity of the forfeiture process and the fair adjudication of third-party rights.\n\n7. **Protection of Independent Filings**\n   Ensure that Petitioner's submissions are not aggregated, mischaracterized, discounted, or prejudiced by association with organized, proxy, or defendant-linked claim activity alleged in the record, and that Petitioner's filings are assessed independently based on their own procedural posture and content.\n\n8. **Such Other Procedural Relief as May Be Appropriate**\n   Grant such other and further procedural relief as the Court deems necessary to enforce the CVRA's guarantees of fairness, transparency, and meaningful participation, without adjudicating ownership, victim status, restitution, or sentencing issues.\n\n#### X. Preservation for Appellate Review\n\nFiled to preserve rights under **§ 3771(d)** and ensure review of any denial, delay, or refusal to act.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n[*Signature*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\nMovant Pro Se\nJan 28, 2026\n\n---\n\n## Appendix B\n\nProof of Submission of January 28 Motion\n\n- Email Receipt Confirmation from Pro Se Intake\n- UPS tracking\n\n[*Page 22: UPS Delivery Notification — Package delivered Friday, 02/06/2026, 10:34 AM. Ship To: PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, 500 PEARL STREET, ROOM 205, NEW YORK, NY 10007. Service: UPS Ground. Package Weight: 0.3 LBS.*]\n\n[*Page 23: Gmail — \"IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\" from Pro Se Filing <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>, Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 4:13 PM. Confirming email received by Pro Se Intake Unit of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.*]\n\n---\n\n## Appendix C\n\nEmail to Pro Se office inquiring about the status of the January 28, 2026 motion\n\n(No Response from the Pro Se office)\n\n[*Page 25: Gmail — \"Status Inquiry – CVRA Motion in case 23-cr-118\" from Carolyn Sun to proseintake@nysd.uscourts.gov, Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:03 PM.*\n\n*\"Dear Pro Se Intake Office,*\n\n*I write to formally request confirmation regarding a CVRA motion I submitted in the case 23-cr-118. The motion was transmitted to the Court by email on January 28, and a paper copy was sent via UPS on February 4 (tracking reflects delivery and receipt on February 6).*\n\n*I respectfully request confirmation of the following:*\n\n*Whether the Court has received the specific motion referenced above (both the January 28 email submission and the February 4 paper submission);*\n\n*Whether the motion has been forwarded to the assigned Judge and/or panel;*\n\n*The current status of the submission (e.g., docketed, pending privacy review, rejected, or other administrative status); and*\n\n*Whether the motion may be filed on the public docket in redacted form, if applicable.*\n\n*This inquiry is intended solely to clarify the administrative status of the submission. I would appreciate written confirmation at your earliest convenience.*\n\n*Thank you for your assistance.*\n\n*Respectfully, Carolyn Sun.\"*]\n\n---\n\n## Appendix D\n\nThe two undocketed motions submitted in September and October 2025\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 27 of 46\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nMiles Guo, et al.,\nDefendants.\n\nCase No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n### PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO DOC 739/742 AND CLARIFICATION ABOUT DOC 735\n\n#### I. Response to Proxy Allegation\n\nPetitioner, Carolyn Sun, respectfully denies the speculative assertion in Doc 739/742 that Petitioner is acting as a proxy for the Defendant. Petitioner affirms that she is not acting as a legal proxy, agent, or representative of the Defendant, and that her petition is filed to assert her own independent rights under 18 U.S.C. § 853(n), or alternatively the CVRA, if § 853(n) does not apply. To Petitioner's knowledge, the government has not alleged that Petitioner is acting as a proxy. Unsupported speculation from other parties should not prejudice consideration of Petitioner's filing on its merits.\n\n#### II. Clarification Regarding Previous Filing (Doc 735) on Organized Claims\n\nPetitioner clarifies that her prior opposition to claims organized or promoted by Himalayan alliance and farm leaders was directed only at the organized nature of those claims, not at individual claimants. The alliance and farm leaders were recognized by the court as possible co-conspirators of the Defendant and were alleged to play an instrumental role in the fraudulent scheme. For this reason, they should not be permitted to organize or promote claims on behalf of others, as their involvement could compromise the fairness of the process.\n\nAfter the Defendant's arrest, many ordinary investors and followers of the Defendant continue to trust the alliance and farm leaders as their only source of guidance. These leaders even claimed to have ongoing communication with the Defendant, including phone calls and visits at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Petitioner cannot verify whether such claims are true, but notes that they may strongly influence investors and followers. This influence creates an additional risk that the claims process could be swayed in ways that interfere with the fair distribution of funds.\n\nPetitioner raises this concern to protect the rights of individual investors and to ensure that claims are presented independently, without the influence of parties connected to the Defendant or the scheme.\n\nExecuted on 09/14/2025\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n[*Signature redacted*]\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 29 of 46\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n---\n\nUnited States of America,\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\n**Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Guo), et al.,**\nDefendants.\n\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n---\n\n### SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3771\n\n*(For Judicial Verification of Record Accuracy, Forfeiture Integrity, and Procedural Transparency)*\n\n---\n\n#### I. Introduction and Purpose\n\nPetitioner, Carolyn Sun, respectfully submits this supplemental motion in further support of her pending Petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and, in the alternative, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (ECF No. 735). This filing does not raise new claims but supplements the record with independent observations and publicly filed materials suggesting that the forfeiture process may have been compromised by irregularities or incomplete disclosures.\n\nPetitioner submits this motion on her own behalf to protest her own statutory rights and to request that the court independently verify the accuracy of the record, including matters raised in filings by others such as ECF No. 733.\n\nPetitioner also respectfully requests clarification from the Court regarding the recent nondocketing of pro se submissions, which has prevented third-party petitioners and victims from having their filings formally entered or acknowledged on the docket.\n\nThis motion seeks only to preserve Petitioner's statutory rights as a bona fide purchaser for value and, alternatively, as a crime victim entitled to proceedings free from fraud, delay, and opacity.\n\n---\n\n#### II. Record Materials Incorporated\n\nPetitioner incorporates by reference:\n\n- ECF No. 724 (Defense Preservation Motion);\n- ECF No. 750 (Government Opposition);\n- ECF No. 751 (Trustee Response);\n- ECF No. 754 (Defense Reply); and\n- ECF No. 733 (Victim Motion alleging fraud upon the court with Exhibit A, which Petitioner references only for the limited purpose of requesting that the Court verify whether the allegations therein are accurate).\n\nAll cited materials are already part of the record and are incorporated by reference to avoid duplication and to facilitate judicial review. Petitioner does not adopt or endorse the statements, theories, or positions of any other party.\n\n---\n\n#### III. Summary of Procedural Issues and Matters Alleged in ECF No. 733\n\nThe following issues are drawn from ECF No. 733. Petitioner does not assert these matters as proven facts but respectfully requests that the court review the record and verify whether any such issues occurred.\n\n1. **Brady and Disclosure Failures.** The Government allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence concerning the Trustee's acceptance of fraudulent creditors and the defendant's January 2023 videos, which contradicted certain obstruction allegations.\n\n2. **Collaborative Misconduct.** Despite awareness of billions in unverified creditor claims, neither the prosecution nor the Trustee corrected the record before this Court or the Bankruptcy Court, while supporting forfeiture actions dependent on those same claims.\n\n3. **Misleading Submissions.** Prosecutorial filings relied on incomplete video excerpts and unapproved bankruptcy motions, misrepresenting the factual basis for bail and forfeiture decisions.\n\n4. **Systemic Impact.** The same misstatements influenced bail rulings (ECF Nos. 7, 26, 192, 216) and forfeiture orders (ECF 720), threatening the integrity of the ancillary forfeiture stage intended to protect innocent parties.\n\nPetitioner does not affirm these allegations but seeks judicial verification of their accuracy, given their potential relevance to forfeiture integrity.\n\n---\n\n#### IV. Impact on Petitioner and Similarly Situated Victims\n\nPetitioner paid $20,500 in G-Club membership fees as a bona fide purchaser for value, without knowledge of any illegality. Her ability to recover or seek restitution depends on a forfeiture process untainted by fraud or asset dissipation. If the Court's orders rest on incomplete or misleading records—as may be suggested by filings such as ECF No. 733—legitimate victims, including Petitioner, could suffer irreparable loss.\n\n---\n\n#### V. Legal Grounds and Procedural Authorities\n\n1. **Rule 32.2(b)(3) – Preservation Authority.**\n   As recognized by the defense counsel in ECF No. 754, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(3), this Court may enter orders to preserve the value of forfeitable property pending appeal or ancillary adjudication. Petitioner independently requests that the court exercise such preservation authority to protect assets from erosion by bankruptcy expenses or conflicting control of the Trustee.\n\n2. **Standing Under § 853(n) or § 3771.**\n   Petitioner is not initiating forfeiture but exercising rights granted by Congress to third parties or victims. Section 853(n) confers standing on \"any person other than the defendant\" with a legal interest in property, while § 3771 guarantees victims the right to be heard at forfeiture proceedings. Her participation is therefore lawful and necessary to prevent irreparable harm.\n\n3. **No Waiver by Defendant Affects Third Parties.**\n   The Government's waiver argument (ECF 750) concerns only the defendant; such waiver cannot extinguish statutory rights belonging to non-defendants. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1).\n\n4. **Conflict of Interest of Trustee Despins.**\n   By invoking the automatic stay (ECF 751) to oppose judicial review of assets subject to forfeiture, the Trustee has placed his bankruptcy duties in conflict with victims' and third parties' rights under criminal forfeiture law. This warrants independent oversight through a neutral receiver to ensure that forfeitable assets are not dissipated.\n\n5. **Fraud Upon the Court Allegations and Supervisory Authority.**\n   A court has inherent power to vacate orders procured by fraud, if the allegations in ECF No. 733 are proven true (*Hazel-Atlas*, supra). Where misconduct impacts forfeiture integrity, judicial inquiry is mandatory to preserve public confidence.\n\n6. **Victim Rights to Notice and Participation.**\n   Under § 3771(a)(2), victims are entitled to reasonable notice of public proceedings affecting their interests. Petitioner therefore requests notice of any forfeiture-related motions or stipulations between the Government and Trustee that could alter asset valuation or distribution.\n\n---\n\n#### VI. Requested Relief\n\nPetitioner respectfully requests that the Court:\n\n1. Enter a Preservation Order under Rule 32.2(b)(3) directing that no property identified in the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (ECF 720) be sold, transferred, or used to pay bankruptcy professional fees pending adjudication of third-party claims;\n\n2. Take Judicial Notice of the record evidence in ECF Nos. 724, 750, 751, 754, and 733 for the purpose of verifying whether any inaccuracies or misconduct have affected forfeiture integrity;\n\n3. Order an Evidentiary Hearing or Appoint a Neutral Receiver to examine communications between the Government and Trustee concerning creditor verification, forfeiture coordination, and asset control;\n\n4. Stay Final Disposition of Forfeiture Property until the Court confirms that no fraud or conflict has tainted the record;\n\n5. Preserve Petitioner's Investment Funds ($20,500) from inclusion in any tainted forfeiture pool pending review;\n\n6. Ensure Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard under § 3771 for all future forfeiture and restitution proceedings; and\n\n7. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just to protect bona fide purchasers and victims.\n\n---\n\n#### VII. Disclaimer and Conclusion\n\nPetitioner expresses no view on the guilt or innocence of the Defendant and does not endorse the prosecution's theory of the case. This submission is limited to protecting Petitioner's statutory rights and assisting the Court in maintaining a fair, transparent, and lawful forfeiture process.\n\n---\n\n#### VIII. Procedural Notice and Request for Docketing Transparency\n\nPetitioner respectfully notes that, upon information and belief, the Clerk's Office and Pro Se Intake Unit have ceased docketing pro se filings in this matter, citing \"privacy concerns.\" While Petitioner fully supports redaction of sensitive information under Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and SDNY Standing Order 19-MC-005, the complete nondocketing of filings asserting rights under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and 18 U.S.C. § 3771 risks depriving petitioners and victims of (1) their right to be heard, (2) their right to a judicial record, and (3) transparency into the administration of seized assets.\n\nPetitioner therefore respectfully requests that the Court:\n\n1. Direct the Clerk to docket this and all pending pro se submissions either publicly with appropriate redactions, or under seal if necessary;\n\n2. Clarify the procedural basis—if any—for withholding pro se filings from the docket and identify whether such review is temporary or permanent;\n\n3. Confirm that all pro se filings transmitted via the Pro Se Intake email or mail are preserved, received by chambers, and available for judicial review even if not yet posted on ECF; and\n\n4. Reaffirm the Court's commitment to transparency so that victims and bona fide claimants may meaningfully exercise their statutory rights under § 853(n) and § 3771.\n\nThis request is made solely to protect due process, public confidence, and the integrity of the record, not to challenge any good-faith privacy measures the Court deems necessary.\n\n---\n\n#### IX. Request for Extension of Filing Deadlines under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and 18 U.S.C. § 3771\n\nPetitioner further requests that the Court extend the filing window for all petitions and motions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Multiple pro se victims and third-party claimants, including Petitioner, timely submitted motions by email to the Pro Se Intake Unit, but these filings were not docketed or made public due to ongoing privacy-review procedures.\n\nBecause these administrative delays have obscured the true record of victim participation and risk prejudice to timely petitioners, an equitable extension is warranted to preserve statutory rights and due process. See *United States v. Reckmeyer*, 836 F.2d 200 (4th Cir. 1987); *United States v. Estevez*, 845 F. Supp. 2d 403 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).\n\nPetitioner therefore respectfully requests that the Court extend the § 853(n) and CVRA filing deadlines for all pro se petitioners by at least 45 days from the date of any order granting this request.\n\nThis request is made to protect Petitioner's own rights and, in fairness, those of other similarly situated individuals.\n\n---\n\n#### X. Request for Redaction of Personally Identifiable Information\n\nPetitioner respectfully requests that the Court direct the Clerk of Court to redact from public view Petitioner's personal contact information—including home address, phone number, email address, and handwritten signature—from any prior or future filings in this matter.\n\nThis request is made pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(a) and SDNY Standing Order 19-MC-005, which require redaction of personally identifiable information to protect privacy and security interests of pro se litigants.\n\nPetitioner seeks only to maintain the confidentiality of identifying information, not to seal the substance of her filings. Petitioner respectfully requests that:\n\n1. The Clerk redact Petitioner's signature, home address, phone number, and email address from public copies of ECF No. 735, and any related filings;\n\n2. The unredacted versions remain available to the Court and the Government for purposes of service and verification; and\n\n3. Future filings by Petitioner be docketed with these redactions applied automatically, consistent with Rule 49.1 and privacy protection policies.\n\nThis request is made in good faith to ensure Petitioner's personal safety and privacy, without limiting public access to the substance of judicial proceedings.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n[*Signature redacted*]\n\n**Carolyn Sun**\nPetitioner Pro Se\n\n[*Signature redacted*]\n\n---\n\n## Appendix E\n\nProof of submission of the September and October 2025 motions:\n\n- Email Receipt Confirmation from Pro Se Intake\n- UPS tracking\n\n[*Page 37: Gmail — \"IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\" from Pro Se Filing <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>, Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:47 PM. Confirming email received by Pro Se Intake Unit.*]\n\n[*Page 38: Gmail — \"Acknowledgment of Receipt\" from Pro Se Filing <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>, Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 11:59 AM. Confirming email received by Pro Se Intake Unit.*]\n\n[*Page 39: UPS Proof of Delivery — Service: UPS 2nd Day Air. Shipped/Billed On: 21/10/2025. Delivered On: 23/10/2025 12:48. Delivered To: NEW YORK, NY, US. Received By: OLIVIA. Left At: Inside Delivery.*]\n\n[*Page 40: UPS Proof of Delivery — Service: UPS 2nd Day Air. Shipped/Billed On: 10/15/2025. Additional Information: Signature Required. Delivered On: 10/17/2025 1:35 PM. Delivered To: NEW YORK, NY, US. Received By: USMS. Left At: Front Desk.*]\n\n[*Page 41: UPS Proof of Delivery — Service: UPS 2nd Day Air. Shipped/Billed On: 21/10/2025. Delivered On: 24/10/2025 12:45. Delivered To: NEW YORK, NY, US. Received By: DAVID. Left At: Mail room.*]\n\n---\n\n## Appendix F\n\nSecond Circuit returned mandamus letter\n\n[*Page 43: Letter from United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.*\n\n*DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, CHIEF JUDGE — CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK OF COURT*\n\n*Date: November 17, 2025*\n*To: Carolyn Sun*\n\n*Short Title: USA v. Ho Wan Kwok et al.*\n*Docket#: ----*\n*Dist Ct. 23-cr-118*\n\n*NOTICE OF MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $600.00...*\n\n*The attached Motion for Writ of Mandamus and check in the amount of $600.00 was received in our Court on November 14, 2025.*\n\n*A review of the district court docket in United States of America v. Kwok 23-cr-118, indicates you have not filed a motion for relief under the CVRA statute in the district court.*\n\n*The papers are being returned to you in the belief that you intended to file the papers as a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in USA v. Kwok 23-cr-118.*\n\n*If the district court denies you relief you request, then you can file a petition for a writ of mandamus at the court of appeals.*\n\n*In view of the foregoing please be advised that no further action will be taken by this office with respect to your recent filing until you can demonstrate that you have a valid appeal or proceeding before this Court.*\n\n*Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8500.*]\n\n---\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on Feb 20, 2026, I served a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Appendix on the following parties via USPS First-Class Mail:\n\nHon. Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nUnited States Attorney's Office\nSouthern District of New York\nAttn: Ryan Finkel, Assistant United States Attorney\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n**RECEIVED — 2026 FEB 24 PM 1:42 — U.S. COURT OF APPEALS**\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on: Feb 20, 2026\n\n[*Signature*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\nPetitioner, Pro Se\n\n---\n\n[*Pages 45-46: USPS Priority Mail shipping envelope from Carolyn Sun to Clerk of Court, U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007. US Postage Paid $13.30, Origin: 28278, 02/20/26. Expected Delivery Day: 02/23/26.*]","body_zh":"Case: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 1 of 46\n\n---\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n[*地址已隐去*]\n\nFeb 20, 2026\n\nClerk of Court（法院书记官）\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRECEIVED — Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit — FEB 24 2026\n\n事由：Petition for Writ of Mandamus（执行令状请愿书）\n案由：Carolyn Sun，Pro Se（自辩）请愿人\n关联案件：United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 郭文贵等），No. 23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. / 纽约南区联邦地区法院)\n\n尊敬的法院书记官：\n\n随函附上由自辩请愿人 Carolyn Sun 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1651、18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) 及 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21（《联邦上诉程序规则》第 21 条）提交的 Petition for Writ of Mandamus。\n\n本请愿书请求发出命令，指示 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）对请愿人合规提交的动议予以立案录入（docket），并允许进行司法审查，包括对其中提出的 Curcio 型利益冲突问题进行审查。\n\n随函附上：\n\n1. Petition for Writ of Mandamus 原件\n2. Petition for Writ of Mandamus 副本三份\n3. 供公开归档的求职信/附信（cover letter）隐去个人信息副本一份\n4. 附录 A — January 28, 2026 CVRA Motion（《犯罪被害人权利法》动议）\n5. 附录 B — 送达证明（电子邮件及 UPS 确认单）\n6. 附录 C — 与 Pro Se Intake（自辩案件立案室）的电子邮件往来\n7. 附录 D — 2025年9月及10月的各项动议\n8. 附录 E — 送达证明（电子邮件及 UPS 确认单）\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 2 of 46\n\n9. 附录 F — 退回的前次执行令状提交材料\n10. 600.00 美元的立案归档规费（附支票）\n11. 送达证书（Certificate of Service）\n\n如需任何补充信息，请与我联系。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n[*签名已隐去*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\n请愿人，自辩\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 3 of 46\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\nIn re Carolyn Sun,\n\n请愿人，自辩\n\n关联案件：\n\nUnited States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.\n\nNo. 23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nRECEIVED — 2026 FEB 24 PM 1:41 — U.S. COURT OF APPEALS\nPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS（执行令状请愿书）\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. § 1651、18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) 及 Fed. R. App. P. 21\nI. 引言\n\n请愿人 Carolyn Sun 谨向本院提出执行令状请愿，请求指示 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）履行其对合规提交的动议予以立案录入并允许司法审查的非裁量性职责。\n\n具体而言，请愿人请求发出命令指示地区法院：\n\n1. 将请愿人于 January 28, 2026 提交的 CVRA 动议以及请愿人此前提交但未予立案录入的各项自辩动议予以立案录入；以及\n\n2. 此后审查并处理其中提出的 Curcio 型利益冲突问题。\nII. 管辖权\n\n本院管辖权依据如下：\n\n- 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)（《通用令状法》/ All Writs Act）；\n- 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)。\n\n执行令状是强制履行法定司法职责以及维护本院上诉管辖权的适格救济途径。\n\n当地区法院未能履行允许上诉审查所必需的事务性职责时，执行令状亦属适格救济。参见 Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661–62 (1978)。\nIII. 事实陈述\nA. January 28, 2026 的 CVRA 动议已合规提交但未获立案录入\n\nJanuary 28, 2026，请愿人通过电子邮件向 Southern District of New York Pro Se Intake Office（纽约南区自辩案件立案室）提交了一份自辩 CVRA 动议（附录 A）。\n\n为确保妥善送达，请愿人还于 February 4, 2026 通过 UPS 邮寄了该动议的纸质副本。如 UPS 物流追踪所证实（附录 B），该动议已于 February 6, 2026 送达法院。\n\n尽管进行了电子与实体双重提交，该动议仍未被立案录入。\n\nFebruary 11, 2026，请愿人向自辩案件立案室发送电子邮件，请求确认接收情况及立案录入状态（附录 C）。\n\n未收到任何答复。\n\n卷宗中不存在任何录入条目，未发生任何司法行动，亦未作出任何可上诉的裁定/命令。\n\n因此，该动议未予录入并非由于任何提交或送达失败所致，而是反映了法院在妥善接收后仍未予立案录入的情形。\nB. 证明缺乏可审查裁定及执行令状必要性的程序历史\n\n请愿人于 2025年9月 依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提交了一份请愿书，该请愿书已被接收并作为 ECF 735 录入卷宗。\n\n在该次提交之后，请愿人于 2025年9月 和 10月 提交了两份追加的自辩动议（附录 D），提出程序性问题，其中包括一份直接针对卷宗中录入为 ECF No. 739 的文件中所含指控而提交的动议。尽管基础文件已被录入，但请愿人的回应性提交材料连同其其他自辩动议均未被立案录入，亦未获得任何司法处置。尽管已合规提交（附录 E），这些材料至今仍未录入卷宗，且未产生任何可审查的裁定。\n\n2025年11月，请愿人试图就上述材料未予录入一事向本院寻求执行令状救济。该次提交被退回且未予受理归档，解释的原因为请愿人尚未在地区法院提交 CVRA 动议（附录 F）。\n\n请愿人将该答复理解为：在地区法院提交 CVRA 动议是依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) 寻求执行令状救济的前提条件。\n\n作为对该指示的直接响应，请愿人于 January 28, 2026 向 Southern District of New York 提交了一份 CVRA 动议，提出程序性问题，包括进行 Curcio 型利益冲突调查的必要性以及对其先前提交材料持续不予录入的问题。\n\n尽管已妥善提交并确认送达，该 CVRA 动议同样未被录入卷宗，且未获得任何司法处置。\n\n由于地区法院未对请愿人的 CVRA 动议进行立案录入，因而未作出任何裁决，请愿人仍无法通过常规途径获得司法审查。\n\n因此，请愿人已履行了本院指明的前提条件，现寻求执行令状救济，以强制进行立案录入并允许对所提出的问题进行司法审议。\nIV. 论证\nA. 执行令状具有必要性，因为不予立案录入消除了司法审查\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(d)（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49(d) 条）规定：\n\n“书记官不得拒绝归档文件。”\n\n该项职责属于强制性职责。\n\n第 49(d) 条施加的是一项事务性、非裁量性的职责。书记官不得基于对其所认为的实体价值、诉讼资格或程序状态的判断而拒绝归档文件；这些裁定应留待归档后由法院作出。\n\n无论提交者的身份如何（包括自辩当事人），该事务性职责均同样适用。\n\n未能立案录入消除了司法审查和上诉管辖权。\nB. 立案录入具有必要性，以允许地区法院处理 Curcio 利益冲突问题\n\n请愿人于 January 28, 2026 提交的 CVRA 动议对涉及第三方请愿人与刑事被告人的重叠法律代理所引发的潜在利益冲突提出了重大关切（附录 A 第 VII 节）。\n\n根据具有约束力的第二巡回法院先例，当地区法院获悉表明存在影响司法程序公正性或完整性的潜在利益冲突的事实时，法院负有进行调查以确定冲突性质和范围的积极且独立的职责。\n\n除非提出冲突的提交材料被立案录入并呈递供司法审查，否则地区法院无法切实履行其 Curcio 职责。\n\n在 United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881, 888–90 (2d Cir. 1982) 案中，本院裁定，当发现潜在冲突时，地区法院必须进行充分的庭审记录调查，以便：\n\n- 调查冲突的性质；\n- 确定冲突是现实发生的还是潜在的；以及\n- 确保受影响的参与者理解其影响。\n\n在 United States v. Levy, 25 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir. 1994) 案中，法院重申：\n\n“当地区法院获悉可能存在利益冲突时，其负有独立的职责进行调查，并确保该冲突不会损害诉讼程序的公正性。”\n\nSupreme Court（联邦最高法院）同样在 Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988) 案中确认，联邦法院负有维护诉讼程序完整性的独立机构职责。\n\n由于请愿人的动议未获立案录入，地区法院一直无法对其进行审查，亦无法确定是否有必要进行 Curcio 调查。\n\n因此，必须进行立案录入，以允许地区法院履行其 Curcio 义务。\nC. 第二巡回法院先例确认执行令状是恰当途径\n\n第二巡回法院已在包括案件编号 Nos. 25-2726、25-3046、26-77、26-361 及 26-364 在内的多起案件中受理了提出程序及立案录入关切的执行令状请愿书。\n\n在 In re Ranyue Bai（25-2726）案中，本院裁定，在提交材料未在合理时间内予以立案录入的情况下，可以重新申请执行令状救济。\n\n请愿人的动议未在合理时间内予以立案录入。\n\n因此，执行令状救济具有必要性。\nD. 符合 Cheney 案要件\n\n根据 Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 案：\n\n1. 无其他充分救济途径\n\n卷宗中无任何录入条目，且无法进行上诉。\n\n由于 CVRA 动议未获立案录入，请愿人无法通过常规途径获得司法审查。\n\n2. 明确且不容置疑的权利\n\n第 49(d) 条强制要求予以归档。\n\n请愿人合规提交的动议获得立案录入的权利是明确且不容置疑的。\n\n3. 执行令状具有适格性\n\n为维护上诉管辖权并允许司法审查，执行令状具有必要性。\nV. 隐去个人信息申请\n\n请愿人依据 Rule 49.1（《规则》第 49.1 条）敬请准许隐去个人身份信息。\nVI. 请求的救济\n\n请愿人谨请求本院发出执行令状，指示地区法院：\n\n1. 将请愿人于 January 28, 2026 提交的 CVRA 动议以及请愿人此前提交但未予立案录入的各项自辩动议予以立案录入；以及\n\n2. 此后审查并处理请愿人在 January 28, 2026 动议中提出的 Curcio 型利益冲突问题；\n\n并给予其他适当救济。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n[*签名*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n请愿人，自辩\n\nFeb 20, 2026\n\n---\n附录 A\n\nJanuary 28, 2026 CVRA 动议\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-441, 02/26/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 13 of 46\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUnited States of America,\n原告,\n\nv.\n\nHo Wan Kwok a/k/a Miles Guo, et al.,\n被告.\n\nCase No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)\n依据《犯罪被害人权利法》（CVRA）18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) 及 (d) 强制执行知情权、立案录入权以及对与没收相关的程序不规范行为进行司法审查之权利的动议\nI. 管辖权与法定依据\n\n本动议系依据 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪被害人权利法》/“CVRA”）、18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) 及 § 3771(d)(1)–(3) 提出，旨在强制执行受第二巡回法院依据 § 3771(d)(3) 直接进行上诉审查的程序性权利。\n\n在先前的、未予立案录入的提交材料备位援引 CVRA 的范围内，该等援引纯粹是为了在 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 不适用的情况下保留程序性救济途径，并不构成对犯罪被害人身份的主张或对实体救济的请求。由于该等提交材料未获立案录入亦未获裁定，本动议是请愿人在公开记录中阐明其程序状态的首次机会。\nII. 适用范围的明确限制\n\n请愿人援引《犯罪被害人权利法》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，简称 CVRA）仅用于寻求程序性保护，包括获得通知、合理陈述意见的权利、免遭不合理拖延以及透明度。请愿人不寻求赔偿、不参与量刑、不主张没收优先权，亦不寻求对所有权或损失作出任何认定。所有基于财产权的主张（如有）均依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 单独且排他性地提出。本文所载任何内容均不承认任何资金系被盗或构成犯罪所得。\n\n与 ECF No. 735 中所述的保留意见一致，CVRA 仅在 § 853(n) 未能提供程序工具以提出非所有权、记录完整性或基于正当程序之关切的情况下方被援引。此前对 CVRA 的任何提及仅具有程序性质，并不反映对犯罪被害人身份的主张或让步。\n\n仅出于本动议之目的，请愿人寻求执行 CVRA 的程序性保障，且不影响日后关于法定被害人认定的任何决定。\n\nIII. 亟需执行 CVRA 的程序不规范问题\n\n鉴于存在系统性的程序缺陷，有必要给予 CVRA 救济，这些缺陷包括：\n\n- 主张法定权利的自辩（pro se）当事人提交的文件未予入卷（nondocketing）或遭到行政性压制；\n- 将司法动议分流至行政特免（remission）渠道，从而消除了公开法庭审查；以及\n- 缺乏司法平台以提出有关存在利益冲突的代理、有组织的或代理性质的主张，以及影响没收的受托人与政府之间协调配合的关切。\n\n这些缺陷损害了 § 3771(a)(4) 项下“合理陈述意见”的权利。\n\nIV. 2026年1月20日案情通报会\n\n2026年1月20日，法院阐明了 (i) 特免（行政）与 (ii) § 853(n)（司法）这两种截然不同的路径，强调二者不可相互替代，并指出未援引 § 853(n) 的呈递材料已被视为特免申请而未予入卷。\n\n法院未就 CVRA 权利作出裁决，亦未认定行政分流通路可取代法定程序保护。\n\n然而，实际效果是将法定和程序性动议——尤其是来自自辩当事人的动议——分流转移至缺乏入卷、事实认定和上诉审查的非对抗性行政程序中。因此，为防止因分流而导致权利被架空，执行 CVRA 确有必要。\n\nV. ECF Nos. 733 及 733-1 引发的记录完整性关切\n\n请愿人提及 ECF Nos. 733 和 733-1 纯粹出于程序目的。该等提交材料指控了（其中包括）潜在的类 Brady 证据披露问题、涉及检察官与受托人的类欺诈法院（fraud-upon-the-court）不当行为、依赖未经核实或存在利益冲突的主张人名单，以及影响保释、没收和资产控制的记录不一致问题。\n\n请愿人并不采纳、证明或寻求对上述指控作出实体裁决。相反，请愿人主张，在法院就此类指控系属实抑或缺乏依据作出司法认定之前，不应作出终审没收判决，因为所指控的缺陷一旦被证实，将动摇没收程序本身的完整性与合法性。因此，请愿人请求核实并获得司法保证，确保没收记录和程序完整、准确且未受污染，以符合 CVRA 对公平、透明和有序程序的保障。\n\n此外，在可能不完整、存在利益冲突或未经核实的记录基础上推进至最终没收，存在损害被告正当程序权利和证据披露权利的风险，包括损害其对所称主张及主张人的来源、独立性和性质认定提出质疑的能力。在现阶段进行司法核实，不仅有助于保护第三方的程序性权利，还能确保没收认定不至于建立在日后可能被证明遗漏了与被告在 Brady 及相关法理下权利实质相关信息的记录之上。\n\nVI. 喜马拉雅联盟与农场负责人在有组织索赔活动中的角色\n\n公开提交的文件（包括但不限于 ECF Nos. 729 及 734）描述了一种自上而下的协调架构，通过该架构，在起诉书及相关法院文件中被指认为涉嫌同谋者的 Himalaya Alliance（喜马拉雅联盟）与 Farm Leaders（农场负责人）（ECF Nos. 388、382、395）对主张的形成、主张人的行为以及对本案诉讼的参与施加了影响。综合来看，这些指控反映出一种有组织的干预模式，对第三方主张的独立性和透明度产生了影响。\n\n正如案卷记录所反映，许多普通投资者和支持者并未直接与被告接触，而是依赖喜马拉雅联盟和农场负责人作为他们获取有关投资、法律进展以及诉讼参与信息的主要——且往往是唯一的——来源。对于不谙英语或不熟悉美国法律程序的支持者而言，这种中介角色尤为显著。\n\n在被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）被捕后，对联盟和农场主导的信息沟通的依赖进一步加剧，支持者依靠这些渠道获取最新动态、对法庭事件的解读，以及关于提交主张和聘请律师的指导。通过持续的基层互动，联盟和农场负责人得以引导认知、协调口径，并组织分布在不同地域的支持者群体采取集体行动。\n\n因此，喜马拉雅联盟和农场负责人的中介角色在程序上与理解大规模、协调一致的主张活动是如何形成的具有关联性。此类信息关系到向法院作出的关于被害人、主张人和资产归属的陈述究竟反映的是独立行为还是同谋者的协同活动，这一区别可能会对没收的完整性以及被告质疑没收范围、主张人性质定性或相关认定的能力产生实质性影响。\n\n相关示例包括：\n\n1. 协调一致的主张构陷与程序立场的转变\n\n如 ECF No. 729 所述，支持者最初是以拟提起民事诉讼以追回被冻结的交易所资金为由被招募的。该努力随后转变为援引 CVRA 被害人措辞的文件，继而转变为刑事没收程序中的 § 853(n) 呈递材料——通常缺乏个性化的资金流向追踪或独立的事实调查。Geyer 律师的代理行为就是该组织架构如何将人员招募转化为法庭提交材料的一个例证，说明了集中管理的立场转变所造成的程序混乱。\n\n2. 集中化的全球动员\n\n案卷记录显示，成千上万分布在各地的支持者通过与喜马拉雅联盟、农场负责人和 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）相关的集中渠道被动员起来。若缺乏此类组织架构和中介信任，大规模主张呈交的规模和时间节点——包括涉及多名律师的提交文件、在紧迫时间内协调一致的提交材料，以及可能存在的某些被害人陈述——将难以解释。\n\n部分负责人公开声称与被告有联系，包括所称的通话或探视。请愿人并不主张这些说法的真实性，并指出同样合理的情况是，第三方在未实际接触的情况下借用了被告的名义，为有组织的主张活动增添权威性或紧迫感。\n\n无论是哪种情况，未决的关于被告指使与鼓励的说法均会带来程序性风险：若属实，它们引发了对 § 853(n) 提交材料之独立性和自愿性的质疑；若不属实，则存在通过错误归因和虚构权威来扭曲没收记录的风险。在已有采信此类陈述的情况下，对该等联络是否确曾发生进行有限核实可能是必要的，以维护没收程序的完整性。\n\n3. 引导并压制独立参与\n\n据称，支持者被劝阻不得参加非联盟组织的法庭活动，被劝阻不得自行提交自辩材料，并被引导求助于特定律师（包括 Geyer 律师及其他律师，如 Gavenman 律师）。鉴于支持者对作为主要信息来源的联盟和农场负责人的信任，此类引导具有特别的影响力，并实质性地损害了独立参与以及直接诉诸法院的途径。据报道，寻求独立提交文件的社群成员遭到了贬损和攻击，进一步阻碍了个体化参与。这种协调一致压制独立参与的行为，可能与刑事诉讼中所呈现信息的完整性和准确性相关。\n\n4. 利用被告名义进行的附属推广\n\n据称，同样的领导层人物曾利用被告的名义推广一个附属模因币（meme-coin）项目（TDCCP），导致支持者遭受经济损失。提及这些事实并非为了裁定法律责任，而是为了强调支持者与联盟/农场领导层之间信任、影响和依赖关系的更广泛背景，这种关系可能关系到有组织主张活动的可信度与来源。\n\n提出上述事项纯粹是出于支持执行 CVRA 的程序性目的——具体而言，是为了确保妥善入卷、获得通知，并提供一个平台使法院能够个别且透明地评估各项主张，而非通过行政合并或由负责人主导的提交材料来进行审视——并使法院知悉可能与记录完整性、证据披露义务及没收程序的公正实施相关的信息。\n\nVII. 未开展利益冲突审查（类 Curcio 调查）\n\n公开提交的文件反映出 Jeffrey Gavenman 律师存在重叠且前后相继的代理情况，引发了需要司法审查的非轻率的利益冲突关切。正如 ECF Nos. 672、673 和 674 等提交文件所反映，Gavenman 律师已代表一百多名依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提出主张的第三方请愿人出庭，包括 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton Investment Management, Ltd.、喜马拉雅交易所相关实体以及附属的清算和储备实体，所有这些实体均主张与政府没收立场相对立的所有权权益，并牵涉涉嫌同谋的实体。\n\n后续提交的文件表明，Gavenman 律师此后又试图代理被告 William Je（余建明），后者是本案中被列名但尚未被提审的被告。这一连串行为造成了明显的重叠：即 (i) 代理对政府指控为涉案共谋的资产主张财产权利益的第三方请愿人，与 (ii) 代理一名刑事被告（其利益可能与上述第三方主张相对立，或在策略上相互交织）之间的重叠。\n\n请愿人并不主张或就各被告的第六修正案权利进行诉讼。然而，根据 Wheat v. United States（霍特诉合众国案）, 486 U.S. 153 (1988)，当重叠代理可能损害诉讼程序的完整性时，即便被告未正式提出异议，法院仍负有调查并解决潜在利益冲突的独立的、制度性的义务。在没收、资产归属以及将实体定性为被害人、所有权人或同谋者属于本案核心问题的情况下，该项职责尤为适用。\n\n没有就 Attorney Gavenman（加文曼律师）的重叠代理行为进行任何记录在案的 Curcio 式询问，这不仅对没收程序的完整性以及第三方权利的有序审理构成了程序性风险，而且对请愿人本人也构成了具体风险，因为未解决的利益冲突可能导致独立的自行代理提交材料被归并、被错误定性或公信力下降，或者导致法院在评估权利主张人的可靠性、范围或立场时依赖了受污损或存在冲突的呈递材料。一项记录在案的询问将使法院能够确定是否进行了充分的披露、在需要时是否获得了知情放弃，以及继续代理是否会带来受污损、忠诚分裂或受损的辩护等影响没收、资产控制或相关程序的风险。\n\n八、关于被告指示协调权利主张的公开指控\n\n请愿人注意到 Forrest Zhou（周峰锁）于 2026年1月23日 在 GETTR（盖特）上发布的一条公开帖子——周公开表明自己是 NFSC（新中国联邦）的现任领导人，并出席了被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的相关量刑听证会作“受害者”陈述——声称他收到了被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的电话，鼓励支持者根据 21 U.S.C. § 853 提交请愿书。如果确实发生了此类沟通，将对后续 § 853(n) 提交材料的独立性和自愿性引发严重的程序性担忧，包括权利主张人的提交材料可能被协调、受到影响或具有策略性动机，从而破坏个别化审理并污染没收案卷记录的风险。另一方面，如果所声称的沟通并未发生，该公开陈述本身构成了不同但同样重大的风险：它可能会虚假地赋予被感知到的权威或背书，引诱基于错误信息的提交行为，并扭曲法院对权利主张人公信力、来源和动机的评估。无论哪种情况，关于被告指示鼓励的未决主张都有可能污染未来的 § 853(n) 提交材料，并通过将独立提交的材料与有组织的或与被告相关的活动联系起来，从而损害不相关的请愿人的利益。请愿人提出此问题仅仅是为了提供及时的通知，以便法院采取适当的预防措施来维护没收程序的完整性，并确保请愿人自己的提交材料不会因超出请愿人控制范围的协调或影响指控而被错误定性、归并或污损。\n\n九、请求的救济\n\n基于前述理由，并依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) 及 (d)，请愿人谨请法院准予以下程序性救济：\n\n1. 登记入卷与司法考量\n指示本动议及请愿人此前援引法定程序性权利的提交材料不得被分流至行政减免渠道，而是由法院登记入卷并予以审酌，以使请愿人能够在司法论坛中获得 CVRA（《犯罪受害者权利法》）所赋予的“被合理听取意见”的权利。\n\n2. 程序立场的澄清\n澄清出于有限的程序目的援引 CVRA——特别是在 § 853(n) 不适用的情况下——并不要求承认受害者身份，不强制进行行政分流，也不剥夺知情权、透明度以及及时获得司法审查的法定权利。\n\n3. 司法审查的保留\n确认提出记录完整性、登记入卷、利益冲突或基于正当程序关切的程序性动议不会通过行政分流而被废止，且此类动议仍受制于司法认定和上诉审查，正如 § 3771(d)(3) 所设想的那样。\n\n4. 最终没收前的记录完整性保证\n提供司法保证，即在法院首先确定没收记录和程序是否完整、准确且未受污损之前，没收程序不会推进至最终处置阶段，包括在与记录完整性和披露义务相关的范围内，审酌与 ECF Nos. 733 及 733-1 相关的程序性关切。\n\n5. 依必要性进行披露或核实\n在有关权利主张人协调、授权或被告沟通的陈述已被或可能被没收程序所依赖的范围内，指示进行法院认为适当的有限披露或核实，以确保在没收相关程序中所审酌的提交材料的可靠性和独立性。\n\n6. 利益冲突审查（Curcio 式询问）\n依据 Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988)，进行或指示进行适当的记录在案的询问，以确定记录中指出的重叠代理是否构成了需要进行披露、放弃、限制或采取其他必要预防措施的利益冲突，以保护没收程序的完整性和第三方权利的公正审理。\n\n7. 独立提交材料的保护\n确保请愿人的提交材料不因与记录中所指控的有组织的、代理人的或与被告相关的权利主张活动相关联而被归并、错误定性、贬损或受到不利影响，并确保请愿人的提交材料根据其自身的程序立场和内容受到独立评估。\n\n8. 可能适当的其他此类程序性救济\n准予法院认为为执行 CVRA 关于公平、透明度和有意义参与的保证所必需的其他及进一步的程序性救济，而无需对所有权、受害者身份、赔偿或量刑问题作出裁判。\n\n十、为上诉审查之保留\n\n提交本件以保留 § 3771(d) 项下的权利，并确保对任何拒绝、拖延或拒绝作为的行为进行审查。\n\n谨此呈递，\n\n[签名]\n\nCarolyn Sun（孙卡罗琳）\n自行代理动议人\n2026年1月28日\n\n附录 B\n\n1月28日动议提交证明\n\n- 来自自行代理接收处的电子邮件接收确认\n- UPS 物流追踪\n\n[第 22 页：UPS 送达通知——包裹已于 2026年2月6日 星期五 上午 10:34 送达。收件人：PRO SE INTAKE UNIT（自行代理接收处）, 500 PEARL STREET, ROOM 205, NEW YORK, NY 10007。服务类型：UPS Ground。包裹重量：0.3 磅。]\n\n[第 23 页：Gmail——“重要信息，请查阅”，发件人：Pro Se Filing <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>，2026年1月28日 星期三 下午 4:13。确认电子邮件已由 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）自行代理接收处接收。]\n\n附录 C\n\n向自行代理办公室询问 2026年1月28日 动议状态的电子邮件\n\n（自行代理办公室未予答复）\n\n[第 25 页：Gmail——“状态询问 – 案件 23-cr-118 中的 CVRA 动议”，发件人：Carolyn Sun，收件人：proseintake@nysd.uscourts.gov，2026年2月11日 星期三 下午 3:03。\n\n“尊敬的自行代理接收办公室：\n\n我写信正式请求确认我在案件 23-cr-118 中提交的一项 CVRA 动议。该动议于 1月28日 通过电子邮件发送给法院，纸质副本于 2月4日 通过 UPS 寄出（物流追踪显示已于 2月6日 送达并接收）。\n\n我谨请求确认以下事项：\n\n法院是否已收到上述特定动议（包括 1月28日 的电子邮件提交和 2月4日 的纸质提交）；\n\n动议是否已转交至指定法官和/或合议庭；\n\n该提交材料的当前状态（例如：已登记入卷、待隐私审查、已驳回或其他行政状态）；以及\n\n该动议是否可以以涂黑遮盖形式在公开案卷上归档（如适用）。\n\n本次询问仅旨在澄清该提交材料的行政状态。如蒙早日书面确认，不胜感激。\n\n感谢您的协助。\n\n谨启，Carolyn Sun。”]\n\n附录 D\n\n2025年9月 和 10月 提交的两份未登记入卷的动议\n\n案件：26-441，02/26/2026，案卷分录：1.1，第 27 页，共 46 页\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUnited States of America（美利坚合众国），\n原告，\n\nv.\n\nMiles Guo（郭文贵）等，\n被告。\n\n案号：23-cr-00118 (AT)\n请愿人对文件 739/742 的回应及对文件 735 的澄清\n\n一、对代理人指控的回应\n\n请愿人 Carolyn Sun 谨此否认文件 739/742 中关于请愿人作为被告代理人的推测性断言。请愿人确认，她并非作为被告的法定代理人、中介或代表行事，其提交请愿书是为了依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，或在 § 853(n) 不适用的情况下备选依据 CVRA 主张其自身的独立权利。据请愿人所知，政府并未指控请愿人作为代理人行事。来自其他各方无依据的推测不应损害对请愿人提交材料实质内容的考量。\n\n二、关于此前就组织化主张提交的文件（文件 735）的澄清\n\n请愿人澄清，她此前对喜马拉雅联盟和农场领导人组织或推动的权利主张的反对，仅针对这些权利主张的组织化性质，而非针对个别主张人。联盟和农场领导人被法院认定为被告可能存在的共谋者，并被指控在欺诈计划中发挥了重要作用。基于此原因，不应允许他们代表他人组织或推动权利主张，因为他们的参与可能会损害程序的公正性。\n\n在被告被捕后，许多普通投资者和被告的追随者继续信任联盟和农场领导人，将其作为唯一的指导来源。这些领导人甚至声称与被告保持着持续的沟通，包括在 Metropolitan Detention Center（大都会拘留所）通电话和进行探视。请愿人无法核实此类说法是否属实，但指出这可能会对投资者和追随者产生强烈影响。这种影响带来了额外的风险，即权利主张程序可能会受到左右，从而干扰资金的公平分配。\n\n请愿人提出这一关切是为了保护个别投资者的权利，并确保权利主张能够独立提出，不受与被告或该计划有关联的各方的影响。\n\n签署于 09/14/2025\n\n谨此呈递，\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n[签名已涂黑遮盖]\n\n案件：26-441，02/26/2026，案卷分录：1.1，第 29 页，共 46 页\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUnited States of America（美利坚合众国），\n原告，\n\nv.\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵，又名 Miles Guo）等，\n被告。\n\n案号：1:23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n支持依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 以及备选依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771 提出请愿的补充动议\n\n（用于司法核实记录准确性、没收完整性及程序透明度）\n\n一、引言与目的\n\n请愿人 Carolyn Sun 谨提交本补充动议，以进一步支持其未决的依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 以及备选依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771 提出的请愿书（ECF No. 735）。本文件不提出新的主张，而是以独立的观察和公开提交的材料补充案卷记录，表明没收程序可能已受到不当行为或不完整披露的损害。\n\n请愿人代表其自身提交本动议，以主张其自身的法定权利，并请求法院独立核实案卷记录的准确性，包括其他方提交的文件（如 ECF No. 733）中提出的事项。\n\n请愿人亦谨请求法院对近期未将自行代理提交材料登记入卷的情况予以澄清，该情况导致第三方请愿人和受害者无法使其提交材料在案卷上正式录入或获得确认。\n\n本动议仅旨在保留请愿人作为支付了对价的善意购买人的法定权利，以及备选作为有权享有免受欺诈、拖延和不透明影响的程序之犯罪受害者的法定权利。\n\n二、纳入的记录材料\n\n请愿人通过援引纳入：\n\n- ECF No. 724（辩方保全动议）；\n- ECF No. 750（政府方反对意见）；\n- ECF No. 751（受托人答复）；\n- ECF No. 754（辩方回复）；以及\n- ECF No. 733（指控法庭欺诈的受害者动议及附件 A，请愿人引用该文件仅用于请求法庭核实其中指控是否属实的有限目的）。\n\n所有被引用的材料均已构成案卷记录的一部分，并以引用方式并入本文件，以避免重复并便利司法审查。请愿人不采纳或认可任何其他当事方的陈述、理论或立场。\n\n---\nIII. 程序性问题及 ECF No. 733 所指控事项摘要\n\n以下问题摘自 ECF No. 733。请愿人并未将这些事项作为已证实的事实提出，而是恳请法庭审查案卷记录并核实是否发生过任何此类问题。\n\n1. 布雷迪规则（Brady）及披露失败。据称政府方隐瞒了关于受托人接受虚假债权人以及被告 2023 年 1 月视频的开脱罪责证据，而这些视频与某些妨碍司法的指控相矛盾。\n\n2. 协同不当行为。尽管知晓存在数十亿美元未经核实的债权人主张，检方和受托人均未向本法庭或破产法院更正案卷记录，同时却支持依赖于这些相同主张的没收行动。\n\n3. 误导性提交材料。检方提交的文件依赖于不完整的视频片段和未经批准的破产动议，对保释和没收决定的事实依据作出了失实陈述。\n\n4. 系统性影响。相同的失实陈述影响了保释裁定（ECF Nos. 7, 26, 192, 216）和没收命令（ECF 720），威胁到了旨在保护无辜当事方的附随没收阶段的公正性。\n\n请愿人不对这些指控予以确认，但鉴于其可能与没收程序的公正性相关，寻求司法层面对其准确性进行核实。\n\n---\nIV. 对请愿人及类似境况受害者的影响\n\n请愿人作为善意有偿取得人支付了 20,500 美元的 G-Club 会员费，对任何非法行为均不知情。其追回款项或寻求赔偿的能力取决于一个未受欺诈或资产侵吞污染的没收程序。如果法庭的命令建立在不完整或误导性的案卷记录之上——正如 ECF No. 733 等提交文件可能表明的那样——合法受害者（包括请愿人）可能会遭受不可挽回的损失。\n\n---\nV. 法律依据与程序管辖权\n\n1. 《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Crim. P.）第 32.2(b)(3) 条——保全职权。\n正如辩护律师在 ECF No. 754 中所确认的，根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(3)，在等待上诉或附随裁判期间，本法庭可以作出命令以保全可没收财产的价值。请愿人独立请求法庭行使此类保全职权，以保护资产免受破产费用或受托人的冲突性控制所侵蚀。\n\n2. 根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 或 18 U.S.C. § 3771 的主体资格。\n请愿人并非发起没收程序，而是在行使国会赋予第三方或受害者的权利。第 853(n) 条授予对财产具有合法权益的“除被告以外的任何人”主体资格，而第 3771 条则保障受害者在没收程序中发表意见的权利。因此，其参与是合法的，并且是防止不可挽回损害所必需的。\n\n3. 被告的放弃行为不影响第三方。\n政府方的放弃抗辩理由（ECF 750）仅涉及被告；此类放弃不能消灭属于非被告方的法定权利。参见 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2)；18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1)。\n\n4. 受托人 Despins 的利益冲突。\n通过援引自动中止（ECF 751）来反对对受没收约束的资产进行司法审查，受托人使其破产职责与刑事没收法项下受害者及第三方的权利产生了冲突。这需要通过中立接管人进行独立监督，以确保可没收资产不被侵吞。\n\n5. 法庭欺诈指控与监督权。\n如果 ECF No. 733 中的指控被证实属实，法庭拥有撤销通过欺诈手段获取之命令的固有权力（Hazel-Atlas 案，见前文）。在不当行为影响没收公正性的情况下，司法调查对于维护公众信任是强制性的。\n\n6. 受害者获得通知和参与的权利。\n根据第 3771(a)(2) 条，受害者有权获得影响其利益的公开程序的合理通知。因此，请愿人请求获取政府方与受托人之间任何可能改变资产估值或分配的与没收相关的动议或协议的通知。\n\n---\nVI. 诉求救济\n\n请愿人谨请求法庭：\n\n1. 根据第 32.2(b)(3) 条发布一项保全命令，指示在第三方权利主张裁决之前，不得出售、转移或使用初步没收命令（ECF 720）中确定的任何财产来支付破产专业费用；\n\n2. 对 ECF Nos. 724, 750, 751, 754 及 733 中的案卷证据进行司法认知，以核实是否存在任何影响没收公正性的不准确之处或不当行为；\n\n3. 下令举行证据听证会或指定一名中立接管人，以审查政府方与受托人之间关于债权人核实、没收协调和资产控制的沟通；\n\n4. 中止对没收财产的最终处置，直至法庭确认案卷记录未受到欺诈或冲突的污染；\n\n5. 在审查期间，保全请愿人的投资资金（20,500 美元），避免将其纳入任何受污染的没收资金池；\n\n6. 确保根据第 3771 条为所有未来的没收和赔偿程序提供通知和陈述意见的机会；以及\n\n7. 给予法庭认为公正的其他救济，以保护善意取得人和受害者。\n\n---\nVII. 免责声明与结论\n\n请愿人对被告的有罪或无罪不发表意见，也不认可检方对本案的理论。本提交文件仅限于保护请愿人的法定权利，并协助法庭维持公平、透明和合法的没收程序。\n\n---\nVIII. 程序通知与案卷公开透明请求\n\n请愿人谨提请注意，据其所知并确信，书记官办公室和亲自诉讼接案处已以“隐私考量”为由，停止对本案中亲自诉讼的提交文件进行案件编目登记（docketing）。虽然请愿人完全支持根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 以及纽约南区（Southern District of New York，SDNY）常规命令 19-MC-005 对敏感信息进行隐名遮蔽处理，但对主张 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 和 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下权利的提交文件完全不予登记入卷，可能会剥夺请愿人和受害者的以下权利：(1) 发表意见的权利，(2) 获得司法记录的权利，以及 (3) 扣押资产管理透明度的权利。\n\n因此，请愿人谨请求法庭：\n\n1. 指示书记官对本文件及所有未决的亲自诉讼提交材料进行登记入卷，予以公开并附适当遮蔽，或在必要时予以封存；\n\n2. 澄清从案件案卷中扣留亲自诉讼文件的程序依据（如有），并明确此类审查是暂时的还是永久的；\n\n3. 确认通过亲自诉讼接案处电子邮件或邮寄方式送达的所有亲自诉讼文件均已妥善保存、由法官办公室接收，并可供司法审查，即使尚未发布在 ECF 系统上；以及\n\n4. 重申法庭对透明度的承诺，以便受害者和善意索赔人能够切实有效地行使其在第 853(n) 条和第 3771 条项下的法定权利。\n\n本请求的提出完全是为了保护正当程序、公众信任和案卷记录的公正性，并非质疑法庭认为必要的任何善意隐私措施。\n\n---\nIX. 延长 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下提交期限的请求\n\n请愿人进一步请求法庭延长 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 和 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下所有请愿书和动议的提交期限。包括请愿人在内的多名亲自诉讼受害者和第三方索赔人已通过电子邮件向亲自诉讼接案处及时提交了动议，但由于正在进行的隐私审查程序，这些提交文件未被登记入卷或予以公开。\n\n由于这些行政延误掩盖了受害者参与的真实案卷记录，并可能对及时提交申请的请愿人造成损害，因此给予合理的衡平法延期是正当且必要的，以维护法定权利和正当程序。参见 United States v. Reckmeyer, 836 F.2d 200 (4th Cir. 1987)；United States v. Estevez, 845 F. Supp. 2d 403 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)。\n\n因此，请愿人谨请求法庭将所有亲自诉讼请愿人的第 853(n) 条和《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA）提交截止日期，从准予本请求的任何命令发布之日起至少延长 45 天。\n\n提出此项请求是为了保护请愿人自身的权利，并且出于公平考量，也是为了保护其他处于类似境况个人的权利。\n\n---\nX. 隐名遮蔽个人身份信息的请求\n\n请愿人谨请求法庭指示法院书记官从公开视图中遮蔽请愿人的个人联系信息——包括家庭地址、电话号码、电子邮件地址和手写签名——使其不出现在本案任何既往或未来的提交文件中。\n\n本请求是根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(a) 和 SDNY 常规命令 19-MC-005 提出的，上述规定要求对个人身份信息进行遮蔽，以保护亲自诉讼当事人的隐私和安全利益。\n\n请愿人仅寻求对其身份识别信息的保密，无意封存其提交文件的实体内容。请愿人谨请求：\n\n1. 书记官从 ECF No. 735 的公开副本及任何相关提交文件中遮蔽请愿人的签名、家庭地址、电话号码和电子邮件地址；\n\n2. 未遮蔽版本仍保留供法庭和政府方查阅，以用于送达和核实目的；以及\n\n3. 依据第 49.1 条及隐私保护政策，在对请愿人未来提交的文件登记入卷时自动适用这些遮蔽处理。\n\n本请求系善意提出，旨在确保请愿人的个人安全和隐私，同时不限制公众对司法程序实质内容的查阅。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n[签名已遮蔽]\n\nCarolyn Sun\n亲自诉讼请愿人\n\n[签名已遮蔽]\n\n---\n附录 E\n\n2025 年 9 月和 10 月动议的提交证明：\n\n- 亲自诉讼接案处的电子邮件接收确认\n- UPS 追踪信息\n\n[第 37 页：Gmail —— 来自亲自诉讼文件接收处 <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov> 的“重要信息，请查阅”，2025 年 10 月 22 日星期三下午 4:47。确认电子邮件已由亲自诉讼接案处接收。]\n\n[第 38 页：Gmail —— 来自亲自诉讼文件接收处 <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov> 的“接收确认”，2025 年 9 月 8 日星期一上午 11:59。确认电子邮件已由亲自诉讼接案处接收。]\n\n[第 39 页：UPS 递送证明 —— 服务类型：UPS 2nd Day Air。发货/账单日期：21/10/2025。递送日期：23/10/2025 12:48。递送至：NEW YORK, NY, US。签收人：OLIVIA。交付方式：室内递送。]\n\n[第 40 页：UPS 递送证明 —— 服务类型：UPS 2nd Day Air。发货/账单日期：10/15/2025。附加信息：需要签名。递送日期：10/17/2025 1:35 PM。递送至：NEW YORK, NY, US。签收人：USMS。交付方式：前台。]\n\n[第 41 页：UPS 递送证明 —— 服务类型：UPS 2nd Day Air。发货/账单日期：21/10/2025。递送日期：24/10/2025 12:45。递送至：NEW YORK, NY, US。签收人：DAVID。交付方式：收发室。]\n\n---\n附录 F\n\n第二巡回法院退回的人身保护令/职务执行令（mandamus）信函\n\n[第 43 页：来自美国第二巡回联邦上诉法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit，Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007）的信函。\n\nDEBRA A. LIVINGSTON，首席法官 —— CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE，法院书记官\n\n日期：2025 年 11 月 17 日\n收件人：Carolyn Sun\n\n案名简称：USA v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等\n案号：----\n地方法院案号：23-cr-118\n\n关于申请职务执行令动议的通知及金额为 600.00 美元的支票……]\n\n*所附的《调卷令动议》（Motion for Writ of Mandamus）及金额为 $600.00 的支票已于 2025年11月14日 送达本法院。*\n\n*经查阅 United States of America v. Kwok（美利坚合众国诉郭文贵案，案号：23-cr-118）的地方法院案卷目录，显示您尚未在地区法院依据《犯罪受害者权利法案》（CVRA, Crime Victims' Rights Act）法规提出救济动议。*\n\n*退回该等文件是基于以下认定：您原意是将这些文件作为动议提交至 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的 USA v. Kwok（美国诉郭案，案号：23-cr-118）。*\n\n*如果地区法院驳回您所请求的救济，届时您可向联邦上诉法院提交《调卷令申请书》（Petition for a Writ of Mandamus）。*\n\n*鉴于上述情况，特此通知：在您能够证明在本法院拥有合法有效的上诉或诉讼程序之前，本办公室不会就您最近提交的文件采取进一步行动。*\n\n*关于本案的咨询可致电 212-857-8500。*]\n\n---\n送达证明（CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE）\n\n我谨此证明，本人于 2026年2月20日 通过美国邮政署（USPS, United States Postal Service）第一类邮件（First-Class Mail）向下列各方送达了《调卷令申请书》及附录的副本：\n\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nUnited States Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n收件人：Ryan Finkel, Assistant United States Attorney（助理联邦检察官）\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n收到日期 — 2026 FEB 24 PM 1:42 — 美国联邦上诉法院（U.S. COURT OF APPEALS）\n\n我声明以上内容属实且正确，如有不实愿受伪证罪之处罚。\n\n签署日期：2026年2月20日\n\n[*签名*]\n\nCarolyn Sun\n申请人，本人亲自诉讼（Pro Se）\n\n---\n\n[*第 45-46 页：Carolyn Sun 寄往 Clerk of Court, U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院书记官处）的 USPS Priority Mail 邮寄信封。美国已付邮资 $13.30，始发地邮编：28278，日期：02/20/26。预计送达日期：02/23/26。*]","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":7179,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:31:27"}