{"id":"court_ctb_451_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":451,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2022-06-01","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 1 of 83\n\n## IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\nIn re. Ho Wan Kwok Debtor\n\nChapter 11 File No. 22-50073 Proof of Claims and Motion for Sanctions\n\n## CREDITORS' PROOF OF CLAIMS AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS\\*\n\nCome now, three undersigned creditors, pro se, Ning Ye, Yan Zhao and Baosheng Guo, to respectfully submit to this Honorable Court, the following proof their claims (Copies thereof, Exhibit 1) jointly and respectively, and humbly move to this Honorable Court to impose sanctions against the Petitioner Ho Wan Kwok, aka, Wengui Guo, for his bankruptcy frauds metastasizing through out this Honorable Court, at such a magnitude of madness without any restraint.\n\nAdditionally, Debtor Kwok's mischief defrauding this Court and any courts of this nation he aggressively invaded and abused, vividly showcased an unprecedented corruptive pattern of behavior, with distinctive characteristics of Chinese totalitarian political subculture corroding the mainstream American legal culture. The entire U.S. judicial system has confronted with an unprecedented challenge of such poisonous alien spice culture invasion by such metastasizing Guo Wengui cells, which tend to corrode the integrity of this nation's judicial institution if not properly curbed. Therefore, these pro se creditors pray to this Honorable Court to refer this habitual liar to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution in addition to civil penalty for the sake of mere survival of the integrity of this nation's judicial culture.\n\nThese three creditors were included in the name list of unsecured creditors is based upon an apparently frivolous civil action brough by Mr. Kwok with New York\n\nSupreme Court, namely, Wengui Guo (aka: Hao Wan Kwok) v. Gaosheng Guo, et al,(File #: 151251/2019) involving six(6) counts:(1) Extortion and attempted extortion (2)\n\n\\* Most exhibits by paper submission are selected excerpts for paper reduction purpose. Complete court papers and 06/04/2019 Deposition used as exhibits as the database for citation, together with text-searchable PDF format of this Motion was reduced into a tope C D memory stick which may help the Court to transfer it into ECF docketing.\n\nMr. Kwok's commission of such torts as of Defamation, Defamation per se, and RICO offenses against the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs (Please refer to Exhibits 4 and 5). These Counterclaims raised by these three counter plaintiffs, being supported with overwhelming evidence, are now pending the New York Supreme Court for disposition.\n\n## Three Named Creditor Are Praying for this Honorable Court to Punish Debtor Hao Wan Kwok for His Wildly Infected Epidemic of Frauds in Wilful Concealment of His Assets Obviously in Bad Faith, and Let Him to Face Civil and Criminal Consequence for His Habitual Patterns to Defraud the Court on Billion Dollar Level\n\nThese three undersigned creditors are respectfully praying for this Honorable Court to impose sanction against Debtor Hao Wan Kwok for his wildly infected epidemic of frauds in wilful concealment of his assets obviously in bad faith, and let him to face civil and criminal consequence for his habitual patterns to defraud the court on billion dollar level.\n\n## A. Mr. Kwok May Have Fraudulently Concealed \\$3 Million Before This Court\n\nAmong other likely willful concealments of Debtor's hidden or visible assets, Mr. Hao Wan Kwok at least fraudulently concealed US\\$3,000,000.00 in bad faith before this Honorable Court:\n\nIn the triggering cause contained in his verified Complaint filed with the New York Supreme Court, Debtor stated:\n\nParagraph 36: \"In reliance upon the Agreement and in good faith, Plaintiff set aside and did not otherwise invest \\$3million based on Defendants' false representation that they couold perform under this Agreement\"; (Case 151251/2019, Doc 1, Exhibit 6, p6, with relevant page displayed by highlight in yellow for the relevant portion as Exhibit 7 )\n\nDebtor Kwok has never made any penny payment for the \"Agreement\" to these three alleged counterpart of the contract, his \"set-aside\" \\$3million, which, according to his own party admission, never spent in any business investment. Record shows that this multiple dealer having kept swinging back and forth from self-boasted \"multibillionaire\" into \"penniless poor man\" from time to time even within a single day, has fraudulently\n\n3\n\nconcealed his \"\\$3,000,000.00\" cash reserve while filing his \"poor man\" bankruptcy petition with this Court;\n\n## B. Mr. Kwok May Have Fraudulently Concealed US\\$12-13 Billion Cash Assets and/or Their Hiding Place Before This Court\n\nRecord shows that Mr. Hao Wan Kwok has been living in extravagant life style, once owning and possessing two jumble private jets and one or two luxury yacht(s) in addition to his mansions. Additionally, he has paid tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of U.S. Dollars to engage in all Satanic evil operations, from buying hit men, spy firms to spy on top level Chinese communist defectors, messing up U.S. democratic election process. Corrupting active or retired U.S. and UK top politicians and their deputies, in highly likely violation of 18 U.S. Code § 201, as of multiple counts of felony offenses, to mobilizing, by throwing tens of millions of dollars again, to launch frivolous, and mostly losing for frivolity, civil actions targeting several dozens of political dissidents, by abusing the U.S. judicial systems from coast to coast. All his covert operations in the United States are just for delivering his life-long loyalty to Chinese Communist Party(CCP), to the CCP's maximum dictator Xi Jinping, and his occupational duties owed to the CCP's intelligentsia apparatus, through his publicly read manifesto as the CCP's systematically trained career spy on strategic level. The prominent feature is that his dirty money of apparent legal in nature appears limitless, apparently being funneled from the CCP's National Treasury for its omnipotent secret police budget with no ceiling, through super-huge international money laundering:\n\nWhile being faced with consequences of all his wrongdoings of such magnitude of wildness, this man immediately becomes a \"poor man of pennilessness\". The largest asset this Debtor may highly likely fraudulently concealed may have reached such a skyrocketed level: US\\$12-13Billions. This amount of fraudulent concealment in bad faith may have been unprecedented throughout the history of this Honorable Court:\n\nOn June 5th, 2019, Mr. Hao Wan Kwok, testified under oath, i.e., under the pain of penalty of perjury of the law, in case of Guo v. Xia, as follows:\n\n- a. He had amassed U.S. \\$12-13 billion from personal loans during the two-year period from 2017 through 2019 (to finance his life style and his camouflaged operations of multitudes to change the world added);\n- b. Part of sources of these loans were his so-called \"family trust funds\";\n- c. Some of these loans, totaling \\$12-13Billion, were raised by verbal agreement(1) without written loan agreement, with no collaterals as pledge;\n- d. Some was pledged with such of his Manson in Midtown, Manhattan (he admitted that his allegedly \"shadow corporation\" owned New York property was the collateral to pledge his \"personal loan\" totaling \\$12-13billion. (See Deposition Transcript, as Exhibit 8)\n\nThe following is the questions and answers during the deposition session between Harry Danis III, Esq., (\"Q\") and Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (\"A\"):\n\nQ. How do you pay for any bills that you incur? A. I borrow the money to pay all of them. Q. And from where do you borrow it? A. I borrow from my friend. From relative…From family, family fund, family foundation. (Ho Wan Kwok's Deposition Testimony, 06/04/2019, p11, Exhibit 8) Q. Now, do you people give you loans just based on who you are, or do you promise them collateral? You do understand what collateral is, correct? A. Some I do, some I don't. Q. Okay. So how much would you say is collateralized? In other words, how much of your loans are based on collateral? (Ho Wan Kwok's Deposition Testimony, 6/04/2019, p12, Exhibit 8) Q.How much of your loans are collateralized? MR. MORRISSY: Are you seeking a dollar amount? MR. DENNIS: I'm seeking a dollar amount. A. Twelve billion to thirteen billion. O. Is that RMB or US dollars? A. Dollars. 8 Q. And what are the assets that you use to collateralize that? A. Some of them is our real estate, our family real estate in China, and some of them are my personal guarantee. Q. Okay. The physical assets, where are those located? A. Except for this one that I currently reside in New York, most of them are in China. (Ho Wan Kwok's Deposition Testimony, 6/04/2019, p13, Exhibit 8)\n\nQ. Okay. So the people who loaned you the money, Q: how do they get you the money? A. Most of them are based on the contract. Most of them are given to the loan account Based on the stipulation on the loan agreement. The loan will be provided to the account dated on the contract.\n\nQ. Okay. When you don't have a contract, how does the money get transferred? A. Those that have no contract, we will just orally agree. (Ho Wan Kwok's Deposition Testimony, 6/04/2019, p14, Exhibit 8) Q. Right. But how do they know where to send the money? A. Based on our oral agreement and instruction that they would just follow. Q. And how do you pay these loans back? A. It's based on my reputation, my personal reputation and the future. Based on our verbal agreement, the conditions agree upon our verbal agreement. And also based on their trust on my future capability of making the repayment, and also based on the collateral pledged. Q. Okay. And these are friends who loan you the money. Is that correct? A. They are organizations. Q. Okay. What organizations are they? A. Personal investor. Private funds and investment funds. Q. Okay. And how long have you been using that as a source of income? A. Two years. (Ho Wan Kwok's Deposition Testimony, 6/04/2019, p14, Exhibit 8)\n\nWhat is the picture of US\\$12-13billions? It is as sizable as many small countries' annual budgets. For instance, the National Defense Budget for Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC), a population of 23millions, was approximately US\\$ 10.7 billions for the year of 2018.\n\nWhere are these US\\$12-13Billion? Are there any balance of those \\$12-13Billion? What are the interests deriving from those \\$12-13Billiuon? Are the cash reserve from the interests rate of these \\$12-13Billion, say, \\$1.7-1.8Billion, may be good enough to pay back all this trouble makers debts plus fees and costs owing to all these creditors and committee members? Petitioner/Debtor Mr. Ho Wan Kwok should have long story to disclose regarding his \"\\$12-13Billion\" cash, principal plus interests from his \"family fund\", or from Investment Funds.\n\nRaising a personal loan of US\\$12-13billion for the period ranging from 2017 through 2019, the ultimate source of such a cash amassment, was either from his own alter ego funding under the shell entity, or outsourced from the CCP's secret police funding. Mr. Debtor's apparently co-mingled \"fund of family\" of which he is the predominant, controlling member, is his own asset, up to \\$12-13 billion. Mr. Kwok was under\n\n6\n\ninescapable legal obligation to honestly disclose the presence and whereabouts his \\$12-13Billion to this Honorable Court and the Trustees when he filed with this Court for Chapter 11, bankruptcy protection.\n\nMore seriously, if Mr. Kwok raised such \\$12-13Billion loans from his \"family funds\" or other institutional funds, why didn't he name and disclose these multibillion dollar creditors in his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection Petition?\n\nWhile Debtor Ho Wan Kwok, according to his own testimony under oath, viciously and fraudulently concealed such huge amount of personal assets/cash reserve up to US\\$13.03Billions to this Honorable Court, he appears to have committed aggravated felony in defrauding the U.S. Government according to relevant laws and regulations being discussed infra.\n\n## DISCUSSION:\n\nThe concealment of property can be charged under either 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) or § 152(7). One of the important differences between these two paragraphs is that under Subsection (1) the property which was concealed must be property of the bankruptcy estate.\n\nSubsection (1) of Section 152 provides that:\n\nA person who . . . knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under title 11, from creditors or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;. . . shall be fined. . . , imprisoned. . . , or both.\n\nThe elements of the offense of concealment under 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) that the government must prove are: The bankruptcy proceeding was in existence; the defendant fraudulently concealed the property from the custodian; and the property belonged to the bankruptcy estate. See United States v. Guiliano, 644 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1981); United States v. Beery, 678 F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066 (1985) See also Devitt, Blackmar & O'Malley: \"Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 24.03 (4th ed. 1990)\".\n\nAlthough § 152, itself, does not provide a definition, the phrase \"property belonging to the estate of the debtor\" has been construed broadly to include \"any legal, equitable, or beneficial interest of the debtor in property on the date the bankruptcy\n\npetition was filed or that [the debtor] may have acquired after the commencement of the case other than earnings from personal services or loan proceeds.\" United States v. Moody, 923 F.2d 341, 348 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 821 (1991) (approving instruction with quoted language); United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 677 (reh'g denied)(10th Cir. 1989)(11 U.S.C. § 541 is to be broadly construed to include all property interests wherever located and by whomever held). This all-encompassing definition requires the debtor to disclose information about all property that might be part of the bankruptcy estate. \\$12-13.03Billion is by no means of small sum for which this crooked \"penniless\" multi-billionaire of communist renaissance mission back ground could have absent-mindedly ignored.\n\nIt is a reasonable reading of 18 U.S.C. § 152 to conclude that the statute requires a bankrupt to disclose the existence of assets whose immediate status is even uncertain. Even if the asset is not ultimately determined to be property of the estate under the technical rules of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, Section 152 properly imposes sanctions on those who pre-empt a court's determination by failing to report the asset. United States v. Cherek, 734 F.2d 1248, 1254 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985) emphasis added.\n\nA defendant may not conceal equitable interests in property of the bankruptcy estate. The fact that legal title to an asset is not held by the bankruptcy estate does not relieve a defendant of the duty to disclose the estate's equitable interest in such an asset. United States v. Weinstein, 834 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1987), post conviction relief denied, 931 F.2d 899 (1991); United States v. Moynagh, 566 F.2d 799, 803 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 917 (1978); United States v. Schireson, 116 F.2d 881, 883 (3d Cir. 1941). Even property which is ultimately determined not to be the property of a bankruptcy estate can be considered concealed for purposes of prosecution. United States v. Martin, 408 F.2d 949, 953 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 824 (1969).\n\nIt remains a question of fact for the jury to determine whether assets are property of the debtor and belong to the bankruptcy estate. United States v. Weinstein, 834 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1987), post conviction relief denied, 931 F.2d 899 (1991); United States v. Robbins, 997 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 391 (1993).\n\n8\n\nWhere the law is uncertain as to whether the debtor really would be receiving the property, such uncertainty may be relevant in determining whether the defendant had a knowing and fraudulent intent in not disclosing the potential asset. United States v. Collins, 424 F. Supp. 465 (E.D.Ky. 1977)(suspended member of police department did not disclose that he could receive back wages if he was reinstated; evidence held insufficient to show fraudulent intent since law was uncertain as to whether defendant could receive such back wages for the period he was suspended).\n\nHere, to convict, physical efforts to hide away the bankruptcy estate assets are not required. \"Conceal\" here does not mean merely to secrete or hide away. In fact the bankruptcy fraud defendant does not have to physically hide the property at all. \"Conceal\" also means to prevent the discovery of the asset or to withhold knowledge of the asset because the bankruptcy petitioner is imposed with affirmative obligation to disclose bankruptcy estate to this Honorable Court in good faith. See United States v. Schireson, 116 F.2d 881, 884 (3d Cir. 1941); Burchinal v. United States, 342 F.2d 982, 985 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843 (1965).\n\nTherefore, since the debtor has an affirmative obligation to list all estate property in the debtor's schedules, failure to list an asset on the bankruptcy schedules can constitute concealment under the statute. Coghlan v. United States, 147 F.2d 233 (8th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 888 (1945); United States v. Grant, 971 F.2d 799, 807 (en banc)(1st Cir. 1992).\n\nAdditionally, Mr. Kwok's deceiving plot may also be subject to the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996),. FSAA made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. Normally, Defendants being charged for aggravated frauds may tend to invoke subsection 2(b) to argue that petitioners and their counsels are not subject to penalty of frauds because of the qualified immunity which was designed not to discourage legal advocacy.\n\n18 U.S.C. § 1001, 2 (b) provides:\n\n9\n\n- 2. Mr. Kwok be ordered to surrender his fraudulently concealed \\$12.03-13.03 billions into the Court designated account of the Bankruptcy Estate, or nay other appropriate forms of resulting trust to first curb their continuing, ceaseless harms against the United States and its citizens, by the Court appointed Trustees/Receivers, under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Justice;\n- 3. The fraudulent Debtor be order to compensate all the creditors, members of the Committees, for the latter's billable hours, as part of incidental damages, for his filing of such a frivolous, clueless, and fraudulent Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection Petition;\n- 4. These undersigned Creditors understand that laws regarding criminal prosecution for bankruptcy fraud and felony frauds in willful concealment of bankruptcy estate are not self-executing and hence cannot initiated by private parties, however, we respectfully pray to this honorable Court to refer this likely offender of this unprecedented magnitude to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation and prosecution.\n- 5. Injunctive Relief to ban the Petitioner/Debtor from committing further frauds in concealment of his Bankruptcy Estate, in any way under the stern warning of contempt of the court;\n- 6. Petitioner's Motion for Withdrawal of his Bankruptcy Petition be denied.\n- 7. Declaratory Relief:\n\nUndersigned creditors prays that this Court declares that all assets under the name of the Debtor's such alter ego immediate family members, or institutions with whom he has kept comingling, are the assets belonging to Mr. Ho Wan Kwok.\n\n8. Such other reliefs as this Honorable Court finds them appropriate and necessary.\n\nRespectfully submitted by.\n\n/s/Ning Ye, pro se\n\n/s/Yan Zhao, pro se\n\n/s/Baosheng Guo, pro se\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nThese undersigned hereby certify that on this 26th day of May, 2022, they caused to be served upon Petitioner/Debtor H9o Wan Kwok, through his counsels as the following addressees, a copy of the captioned Motion and of all supporting evidence, in a sealed envelope, by priority mail, postage prepaid, via USPS:\n\nDylan P. Kletter, Esq. 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 And\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga, Esq. 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\ns/Ning Ye:\n\n| United States Bankruptcy Court for the: District of Connecticut | ) | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|---|---------------------|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | EJ 289 245 054 US 1 | |\n\n# Proof of Claim\n\n Read the instructions before filling out this form is for making a claim for payment in a bankruptcy case. Do not use this form to make a request for payment of an administrative expense. Make such a request according to 11 U.S.C. § 503.\n\n04/22\n\nFilers must leave out or redact information that is entitled to privacy on this form or on any attached documents. Attach redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as purchase orders, invoices, itenized statements of unring recourts, cudgments, judgments, morgages, and security agreements. Do not send original documents; they may be destroyed after scanning for any are not available explain in an attachment.\n\nA person who files a fraudulent claim could be fined up to \\$500,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571.\n\nFill in all the information about the case was filed. That date is on the notice of bankruptcy (Form 309) that you received.\n\n| Identify the Claim
ali a Ba | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------|\n| 1. Who is the current
creditor? | Name of the current creditor (the person or entity to be paid for this claim)
Other names the creditor used with the debtor | | | |\n| 2. Has this claim been
acquired from
someone else? | D No
Yes. From whom? | | | |\n| 3. Where should notices
and payments to the
creditor be sent?
Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure
(FRBP) 2002(g) | Where should notices to the creditor be sent?
114
Name
38th Ave
3
Number
Street
ushing
ZIP Code
State
718 308 6626
Contact phone
Contact email Vening USA a gimail. Com
Uniform claim identifier for electronic payments in chapter 13 (if you use one): | Where should payments to the creditor be sent? (if
different)
Ning
Name
Number
Street
City
Contact phone
Contact email | 12
State | ZIP Code |\n| 4. Does this claim amend
one already filed? | A No
Yes. Claim number on court claims registry (if known) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | Filed on
MM / DD | : ҮҮҮҮҮ |\n| 5. Do you know if anyone
else has filed a proof
of claim for this claim? | 2 No
J Yes. Who made the earlier filing? | | | |\n\n| Do you have any number
debtor? | LINO
you use to identify the | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| . How much is the claim? | s 12,000,000,000 | Does this amount include interest or other charges?
No
ا Yes. Attach statement itemizing interest, fees, expenses, or other | | | |\n| | | charges required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A). | | | |\n| claim? | | 8 What is the basis of the Examples: Goods sold, money loaned, lease, services performed, personal injury or wrongful death, or credit card.
Attach redacted copies of any documents supporting the claim required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c). | | | |\n| | | Limit disclosing information that is entitled to privacy, such as health care information. | | | |\n| | Lifiquation/count | | | | |\n| 9. Is all or part of the claim
secured? | Mo
Yes. The claim is secured by a lien on property.
Nature of property:
Motor vehicle
Other. Describe: | L Real estate. If the claim is secured by the debtor's principal residence, file a Mortgage Proof of Claim
Attachment (Official Form 410-A) with this Proof of Claim. | | | |\n| | Basis for perfection:
been filed or recorded.) | Attach redacted copies of documents, if any, that show evidence of perfection of a security interest (for
example, a mortgage, lien, certificate of title, financing statement, or other document that shows the lien has | | | |\n| | Value of property: | S | | | |\n| | Amount of the claim that is secured: | | | | |\n| | | Amount of the claim that is unsecured: \\$___________________(The sum of the secured and unsecured
amounts should match the amount in line 7.) | | | |\n| | | Amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition: | | | |\n| | Fixed
Variable | Annual Interest Rate (when case was filed)____________% | | | |\n| 0. Is this claim based on a
lease? | A No | | | | |\n| | | ا Yes. Amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition. | | | |\n| 1. Is this claim subject to a | A No | | | | |\n| right of setoff? | | | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 451\\_ Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22\\_12:26:26 Page 16 of 83\n\n| 12. Is all or part of the claim | A No | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|--|\n| entitled to priority under
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)? | 1 Yes. Check one: | Amount entitled to priority | | |\n| A claim may be partly
priority and partly
nonpriority. For example,
in some categories, the
law limits the amount
entitled to priority. | L Domestic support obligations (including alimony and child support) under
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B). | ਰੋ | | |\n| | ل Up to \\$3,350* of deposits toward purchase, lease, or rental of property or services for
personal, family, or household use. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). | S | | |\n| | ك Wages, salaries, or commissions (up to \\$15,150*) earned within 180 days before the
bankruptcy petition is filed or the debtor's business ends, whichever is earlier.
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4). | 8 | | |\n| | Taxes or penalties owed to governmental units. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8). | 5 | | |\n| | Contributions to an employee benefit plan. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). | S | | |\n| | Other. Specify subsection of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(__ ) that applies. | ಳಿ | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | * Amounts are subject to adjustment on 4/01/25 and every 3 years after that for cases begun on or after the date of adjustment. | | | |\n| Part 3:
Sign Below | | | | |\n| The person completing | Check the appropriate box: | | | |\n| this proof of claim must
sign and date it. | I am the creditor | | | |\n| FRBP 9011(b). | I am the creditor's attorney or authorized agent. | | | |\n| If you file this claim
electronically, FRBP
5005(a)(2) authorizes courts
to establish local rules | I am the trustee, or the debtor, or their authorized agent. Bankruptcy Rule 3004. | | | |\n| | I am a guarantor, surety, endorser, or other codebtor. Bankruptcy Rule 3005. | | | |\n| specifying what a signature
IS. | f understand that an authorized signature on this Proof of Claim serves as an acknowledgment that when calculating the | | | |\n| amount of the claim, the creditor gave the debtor credit for any payments received toward the debt.
A person who files a
fraudulent claim could be
I have examined the information in this Proof of Claim and have a reasonable belief that the information is true
fined up to \\$500,000.
and correct.
imprisoned for up to 5 | | | | |\n\nyears, or both.\n18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nyears, or both.\n\n3571.\n\nExecuted on date 05 (2012022\n\nSignature\n\nPrint the name of the person who is completing and signing this claim:\n\n| Name | | → | | |\n|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------|----------------|\n| | First name | Middle name | | Last name |\n| Title | | | | |\n| Company | Identify the corporate servicer as the comparily if the authorized agent is a servicer. | 1800 | 520 | |\n| Address | 3 - | 50-01 | | |\n| | Number
Street | | | |\n| | | | | 1354 |\n| | City | | State | ZIP Code |\n| Contact phone | 718308 662 | | Email | Uningusaa/gmai |\n\n\n\n# Official Form 410\n\n# Proof of Claim\n\n04/22\n\nRead the instructions before filling out this form is for making a claim for payment in a bankruptcy case. Do not use this form to make a request for payment of an administrative expense. Make such a request according to 11 U.S.C. § 503.\n\nFilers must leave out or redact information that is entitled to privacy on this form or on any attached documents. Attach redacted opies of any documents that support the claim, such as promase orders, invoices, itemized statements of running accounts, contracts, judgments, mortgages, and security agreements. Do not send original documents; they may be destroyed after scanning. If the documents arn not available, explain in an attachment.\n\nA person who files a fraudulent claim could be fined up to \\$500,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571.\n\nFill in all the information about the case was filed. That date is on the notice of bankruptcy (Form 309) that you received.\n\n| Claim Identify the Claim | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Who is the current
creditor? | Crub
Taosheng
Name of the current creditor (the person or entity to be paid for this claim)
Other names the creditor used with the debtor ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | |\n| Has this claim been
acquired from
someone else? | টি
No
Yes. From whom? | | |\n| Where should notices
and payments to the
creditor be sent?
Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure
(FRBP) 2002(g) | Where should notices to the creditor be sent?
Baosheng GMC of o
Name
35-11
38th
Stree
Number
UChina
State
IP Code
Contact phone 7183086220
Contact email YEDING USA a giventi , Corve
Uniform claim identifier for electronic payments in chapter 13 (if you use one): | Where should payments to the creditor be sent? (if
different)
Name
Number
Street
City
Contact phone
Contact email | State
ZIP Code |\n| Does this claim amend
one already filed? | No
L Yes. Claim number on court claims registry (if known) _ | Filed on | MM
IDD
/ ҮҮҮҮҮҮ |\n| 5. Do you know if anyone
else has filed a proof
of claim for this claim? | No
Yes. Who made the earlier filing? | | |\n\n| 6. Do you have any number [ No
debtor? | you use to identify the a f a digits of the debtor's account or any number you use to identify the debtor. 22 = 500 7 \\ | | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| How much is the claim? | s 12,000,000.00 UU . U
2 No | | | | | |\n| | | Yes. Attach statement itemizing interest, fees, expenses, or other
charges required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A). | | | | |\n| claim? | | What is the basis of the Examples: Goods sold, money loaned, lease, services performed, personal injury or wrongful death, or credit card.
Attach redacted copies of any documents supporting the claim required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c). | | | | |\n| | | Limit disclosing information that is entitled to privacy, such as health care information. | | | | |\n| | ation w/ coun | | | | | |\n| Is all or part of the claim 2 No
secured? | Yes. The claim is secured by a lien on property. | | | | | |\n| | Nature of property: | | | | | |\n| | | L Real estate. If the claim is secured by the debtor's principal residence, file a Mortgage Proof of Claim
Attachment (Official Form 410-A) with this Proof of Claim. | | | | |\n| | Motor vehicle
Other. Describe: | | | | | |\n| | Basis for perfection: | | | | | |\n| | been tiled or recorded.) | Attach redacted copies of documents, if any, that show evidence of perfection of a security interest (for
example, a mortgage, lien, certificate of title, financing statement, or other document that shows the lien has | | | | |\n| | Value of property: | સ્ત્ર | | | | |\n| | Amount of the claim that is secured: | ਰੰ | | | | |\n| | | Amount of the claim that is unsecured: \\$___________________(The sum of the secured and unsecured
amounts should match the amount in line 7.) | | | | |\n| | | Amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition: \\$ | | | | |\n| | Fixed
Variable | Annual Interest Rate (when case was filed) | | | | |\n| 10. Is this claim based on a
lease? | No | | | | | |\n| | | ال Yes. Amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition.
ക | | | | |\n| 11. Is this claim subject to a | A No | | | | | |\n| right of setoff? | Yes. Identify the property: | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22\\_12:26:26 Page 19 of 83\n\n| 12. Is all or part of the claim
entitled to priority under | 2 No | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|--|\n| 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)? | Yes. Check one: | Amount entitled to priority | | |\n| A claim may be partly
priority and partly
nonpriority. For example, | لا Domestic support obligations (including alimony and child support) under
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B). | | | |\n| in some categories, the
law limits the amount
entitled to priority. | ل Up to \\$3,350* of deposits toward purchase, lease, or rental of property or services for
personal, family, or household use. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). | | | |\n| | Wages, salaries, or commissions (up to \\$15,150*) earned within 180 days before the
bankruptcy petition is filed or the debtor's business ends, whichever is earlier.
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4). | | | |\n| | J Taxes or penalties owed to governmental units. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8). | | | |\n| | Contributions to an employee benefit plan. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). | | | |\n| | Other. Specify subsection of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(__) that applies. | | | |\n| | Amounts are subject to adjustment on 4/01/25 and every 3 years after that for cases begun on or after the date of adjustment. | | | |\n\n#### Part 3: Sign Below\n\nthis proof of claim must sign and date it. FRBP 9011(b).\n\nThe person completing\n\nIf you file this claim electronically, FRBP to establish local rules specifying what a signature is.\n\nA person who files a fraudulent claim could be fined up to \\$500,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571.\n\nCheck the appropriate box:\n\nI am the creditor.\n\n- I am the creditor's attorney or authorized agent.\n- I am the trustee, or the debtor, or their authorized agent. Bankruptcy Rule 3004.\n- 5005(a)(2) authorizes courts 1 am a guarantor, surety, endorser, or other codebtor. Bankruptcy Rule 3005.\n\nl understand that an authorized signature on this Proof of Claim serves as an acknowledgment that when calculating the amount of the claim, the creditor gave the debtor credit for any payments received toward the debt.\n\nI have examined the information in this Proof of Claim and have a reasonable belief that the information is true and correct.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on date (J)\n\nSignature\n\nPrint the name of the person who is completing and signing this claim:\n\nAddress\n\n| Name | NO | | | | | |\n|---------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| | First name | Middle name | | Last name | | |\n| Title | | | | | | |\n| Company | 1-614 | C
Ch
Identify the corporate servicer as the company if the authorized agent is a servicer. | | | | |\n| Address | 35-1
Number
Street | | . Not | | | |\n| | 5-1
City | | State | ကို
ZIP Code | | |\n| Contact nhone | 308
718
662 | 17 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | JO MUGUSO . Garril Come | | |\n\nFmail\n\nyeningusa wamail. Com\n\nContact phone\n\n| | in this information to identify the case: |\n|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Debtor 1 | Ho Wan Kwok |\n| Debtor 2
(Spouse, if filing) | |\n| | United States Bankruptcy Court for the: District of Connecticut |\n| | Case number 22-50073 (JAM) |\n\n# Official Form 410\n\n# Proof of Claim\n\n04/22\n\nRead the instructions before filling out this form. This form is for making a claim for payment in a bankruptcy case. Do not use this form to make a request for payment of an administrative expense. Make such a request according to 11 U.C.S. § 503.\n\nFilers must leave out or redact information that is entiled to privacy on this form or on any attached documents. Attach redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as purchase or the ran of archited statements of running accounts, contracts, inchread, inching accounts, contracts, indication mortgages, and security agreements. Do not send of the may be destroyed after scanning I f the documents are not available, explain in an attachment.\n\nA person who files a fraudulent claim could be fined up to \\$500,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571.\n\nFill in all the information about the case was filed. That date is on the notice of bankrupty (Form 309) that you received.\n\n| Identify the Claim | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| 1. Who is the current
creditor? | an | Name of the current creditor (the person or entity to be paid for this claim) | | | |\n| Has this claim been
2.
acquired from
someone else? | No
Yes. From whom? | Other names the creditor used with the debtor | | | |\n| 3.
Where should notices
and payments to the
creditor be sent?
Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure
(FRBP) 2002(g) | an ZHAO do Ning
Name
135-
Number
Street
UShing
City
Contact email | Where should notices to the creditor be sent?
38th Ave. #
11354
State
ZIP Code
Contact phone 718308 6626
Veningusan amail. Com
Uniform claim identifier for electronic payments in chapter 13 (if you use one): | different)
Name
Number
Street
City
Contact phone
Contact email | Where should payments to the creditor be sent? (if
State | ZIP Code |\n| Does this claim amend
one already filed? | J No | - Yes. Claim number on court claims registry (if known) - | | Filed on
MM / DD | ! ҮҮҮҮҮ |\n| 5. Do you know if anyone
else has filed a proof
of claim for this claim? | No
Yes. Who made the earlier filing? | | | | |\n\n| | 6. Do you have any number
you use to identify the Tres. Last 4 digits of the debtor's account or any number you use to identify the debtor: 2 2 - 500 7 3 |\n|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 7. How much is the claim? | s 12, 00 0, 000, 000, 000, DU_. Does this amount include interest or other charges?
No |\n| | L Yes. Attach statement itemizing interest, fees, expenses, or other
charges required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A). |\n| | What is the basis of the Examples: Goods sold, money loaned, lease, services performed, personal injury or wrongful death, or credit card. |\n| | Attach redacted copies of any documents supporting the claim required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c). |\n| | Limit disclosing information that is entitled to privacy, such as health care information. |\n| | |\n| Is all or part of the claim
secured? | No
T Yes. The claim is secured by a lien on property. |\n| | Nature of property: |\n| | ال Real estate. If the claim is secured by the debtor's principal residence, file a Mortgage Proof of Claim |\n| | Attachment (Official Form 410-A) with this Proof of Claim.
Motor vehicle
Other. Describe: |\n| | Basis for perfection: |\n| | Attach redacted copies of documents, if any, that show evidence of perfection of a security interest (for
example, a mortgage, lien, certificate of title, financing statement, or other document that shows the lien has
been filed or recorded.) |\n| | Value of property:
ని |\n| | Amount of the claim that is secured:
S |\n| | Amount of the claim that is unsecured: \\$_____________________________________________________ (The sum of the secured
amounts should match the amount in line 7.) |\n| | Amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition: \\$ |\n| | Annual Interest Rate (when case was filed)____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fixed
Variable |\n| | |\n| | A No |\n| 10. Is this claim based on a
lease? | |\n| | ل Yes. Amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition. S |\n| 1. Is this claim subject to a | A No |\n\n| entitled to priority under
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)?
A claim may be partly
priority and partly
nonpriority. For example,
in some categories, the
law limits the amount
entitled to priority. | ڪ Domestic support obligations (including alimony and child support) under
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B).
ال Up to \\$3,350* of deposits toward purchase, lease, or rental of property or services for
personal, family, or household use. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7).
Wages, salaries, or commissions (up to \\$15,150*) earned within 180 days before the
bankruptcy petition is filed or the debtor's business ends, whichever is earlier.
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4).
Taxes or penalties owed to governmental units. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8).
Contributions to an employee benefit plan. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5).
Other. Specify subsection of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a){__ ) that applies. | Amount entitled to priority
S
S
S
S
ક
ક |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| Part 3:
Sign Below | * Amounts are subject to adjustment on 4/01/25 and every 3 years after that for cases begun on or after the date of adjustment. | |\n| The person completing
this proof of claim must
sign and date it.
FRBP 9011(b).
If you file this claim
electronically, FRBP
5005(a)(2) authorizes courts
to establish local rules
specifying what a signature
IS. | Check the appropriate box:
am the creditor
I am the creditor's attorney or authorized agent.
I am the trustee, or the debtor, or their authorized agent. Bankruptcy Rule 3004.
I am a guarantor, surety, endorser, or other codebtor. Bankruptcy Rule 3005.
I understand that an authorized signature on this Proof of Claim serves as an acknowledgment that when calculating the
amount of the claim, the creditor gave the debtor credit for any payments received toward the debt. | |\n\nA person who files a fined up to \\$500,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both. 3571.\n\nfraudulent claim could be and correct.\n\ny cars, or both.\n18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and\n\nExecuted on date 05/20/201200\n\nSignature\n\nPrint the name of the person who is completing and signing this claim:\n\n| Name | | | | |\n|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------|--|\n| | First name
Middle name | | Last name | |\n| Title | top ne | | | |\n| Company | Uttick of
વાય | 4
i n | P
ECG | |\n| | identify the corporate servicer as the company if the authorized agent is a servicer. | | | |\n| Address | 38th
35
AVY . | | | |\n| | Number
Street | | | |\n| | - Inshing | | 11554 | |\n| | City | State | ZIP Code | |\n| Contact phone | 7183086626 | Email | yening its Aagmail. Co | |\n\n| SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| HON. DAVID BENJAMIN COHEN
PRESENT: | PART
IAS MOTION SBEEN | 1
10 |\n| | Justice
ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘ | |\n| SUO WENGUI | INDEX NO
1512512019 | ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘ |\n| Flamatt, | 01/27/2020
MOTION DATE
MOTION SEG NO.
(15 | |\n| 10 11 10 | | |\n| GUO BAOSHENG, YAN ZHAO, NING YE | DECISION + ORDER ON
MOTION | |\n| Defendant | | |\n| | | 0 |\n| The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Mobon 006) 55, 80. 62
were read on this motion toifor | DISMISS | 1 |\n| Upon the foregoing documents, it is | | |\n| The motion to distriuss is granted in part and demed in part. The Complaint lists six | | |\n| causes of action: (1) extortion and altempted extortion: (2) conspiracy to commit fraud. | | H |\n| (4) breach of contract (5) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) tortious | | ાં તે |\n| interference with business relationships. Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to CPI.R | | |\n| 3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause of action. | | |\n| When deciding a monon to dismiss pursuant to CPLR \\$3211, the court should give the | | |\n| pleading a \"liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and afford | | C |\n| the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference\" (Landon v. Kroll Laboratory | | |\n| | | ਸ
। |\n| Specialists, Inc., 22 NY3d 1, 5-6 (2013); Faison v. Lewis, 25 NY3d 220 (2015). However, if a | | |\n| complaint fails within its four corners to allege the necessary elements of a cause of action, the | | |\n| | claim must be dismissed (Andre Strishak & Associates, P.C. v. Hewlent Packard & Co., 300 | |\n\n\n\n# FILED: NEWEYORK OOK 2008 T\n\n# NY SCEE FREDOCT VEND N.Y65C E.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n\nHoldings Corp., 127 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2015] [\"The court properly dismissed the fraud claim as duplicative of the breach of contract claim, as plaintiffs\" were alleging only that 11MS misrepresented its intent to perform the contractual obligations at the time they were made.\"] Arnon Ltd v Belervalier, 125 AD3d 453 | Ist Dept 2015 | Jetendams, frauduleni inducement counterclaim was dismissed as duplicative of their breach of contract counterclaim, as plaintill's alleged misrepresentation - that it had the capability and intent to immediately pay deleadant -was only an \"insincere promise of future performunce\"]; Forty Central Park South, Inc. v Anza, 117 AD3d 523 [1st Dept. 2014] Pthe complaint fails to state of action for fraudulem inducement, since it essentially alleges that defendant did not intend to perform under the contract when he made the promissory statements, which gives rise only a breach of contract claim.\"]), \"Here, the Complaint alleges that defendants made false representations about their ability to provide research on plainitif's enemies, in order to deceive them into entering into the service agreement. As plaintiff's fraud claim is really a claim that defendants never intended to perform under the service agreement, it is merely a breach of contract claim, is doplicative, and must be dismissed.\n\nFurther, although fraudulent includement claim will not be dismissed as duplicative of a breach of contract claim if pleads \"a breach of duty distinct from, or in addition to, the breach of contract\" (GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, \\$1 AD3d 77, 81 [1st Dept 2010]), here, no separate dury was pled. In GoSmile the Court wrote: \"[T]his Court, as well as the Court of Appeals, has held that a misrepresentation of present fact, unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform under the contract, is collateral to the contract, even though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign it, and therefore involves a separate breach of duty\" (id. ut 81, cuting Decellald\n\nO I\n\n16126172019 WENGLI, GUO vs. BAOSHENG. GUO Motion No. Oue\n\n# NEW YORK COUNTY OF CEF 1 DORE Corp. v Chesebrough Portos, Inc. of NY Seps Fi 1986). Includers a lat. 2 C extent that a fraud in the inducement claim does not involve a separate duty and essentially alleges that defendant did not intend to perform under the contract when he made the promissory statements, such complaint may be diamissed under 3211(a)(7) as it only gives rise to a breach of contract cluins (Forty Central Park South, Inc. v Anza, 117 AD3d 523 [Ist Dept 2014]. The key question is whether there was a misrepresentation of a future intent to perform or a misrepresentation of present fact that induced plaintiff to enter into the contract (First Bark of Americas v Motor Car Funding, Inc., 257 AD2d 287 (1st Dent 1999)) If the former, the claim should be dismissed as redundant (id ). However, if a plaintiff alleges that it was induced to enter into a transaction because of misrepresented material current facts, the piaintiff has stated a claim even though the same circumstances would also give rise to a breach of contract claim (id.). Here, (aside from the Complaint and motion mapers calling the claim regular fraud, and not fraudulent inducement) the Complaint does not allege any separate duty, does not allege any misrepresentation of present fact, and does it allege that defendants did anything other than make a misrepresentation of performance. As the breach of contract claim and frand claim both arise out of the failed performance under the contract (as discussed below), the fraud claim is dismissed as duplicative.\n\nThe motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim is denied. Plaintiff has alleged that the parties entered into an agreement for services, that included a flat fee and a confidentiality provision. Although it is not clear whether plaintiff ever paid for the services, plaintiff has, at minimum, alleged that defendants breached the confidentiality portion of the agreement (see Minnell, at 339 fthe court correctly determined that the complaint sizies a cause of action for breach of contract hased on defendant's alleged violation of this agreement not to make such\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, QUO vs BAOSHENG, GUO Motion No. 008\n\nPase 4 01 7\n\nof\n\n# NEW YORK CONTRY-\n\nNY SCEE . DOCRENDING the fiscis alleged in the Complaint as trie and afforting\n\nplaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the breach of contract cause of action is properly stated.\n\nThe fifth cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is also dismissed as duplicative. The Complaint alleges that the implied covenant was breached by the disclosure of the services agreement and by the failure to provide the research. These are the exact same premises that the breach of contract claim stands on and are thus, duplicative (Art Capital Group, LLC v Carlyle Inv. Mgt. LIC, 151 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2017][the court also properly dismissed the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim as duplicative. The allegations in the complaint were premised on the same conduct as the breach of contract claim and were \"intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract\"}}, Further, the covenam is the implied obligation of each promisor to exercise good faith are \"any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included\" (Rowe v. Great Ati. & Pac. Tea Co., 46 NY2d 62 (1978), anoting 5 Williston, Contracts § 1293, at 3682 [rev ed 1937]). This means that \"neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract\" (Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., 87 NY 2d 384, 389 [1995]). Here, there are no allegations that defendants took any actions that were not allegedly contemplated by the contract. Nor are there any allegations that defendant did anything to destroy plaintiff's ability to receive the fruits of the performed contract. Rather, the only claim is that defendants did not fulfill its obligations under the contract.\n\nThe tortious interference with business relations cause of action is also dismissed Tortious interference with contract and business relations \"requires the existence of a valid\n\nのに\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, GUO vs. BAOSHENG, GUO Motion No. DDG\n\nPase 5 of 7\n\n# FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY / CLE\n\n# NYSCEF DORECHOVE and a third party delendants knowledge of that contract 7/\n\ndefendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification, actual breach of the contract, and damages resulting therefrom\" (Lama Holding Co v Smith Barney Inc., 88 NY2d 413, 424 (1996)). Here, the entirety of the facts presented relating to this claim are that \"prior to entering into the Agreement plaintiff had a business relationship with a third-party,\" that defendants knew about, and that after defendants spread rumors about plaintiff and made public the existence of the services agreement \"plaintiff's business relationship was injured by preciuding plaintiff from entering into other profitable business ventures.\" Other than a vague, conolusory and unspecific allegation relating to other parties, plaintiff has not stated any facts relating to this cause of action. Plaintiff has not provided any detail about the contract or opportunity it lost, it has not identified any third-party, and does not even state that it had entered into an actual agreement with a third-party. I hos, plaintiff has failed to state the first element of this cause of action.\n\nFinally, the cause of action for conspiracy to commit fraud is dismissed. New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for conspiracy to commit fraud (Hoeffner v Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ILP, 85 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2011]). \"While a plaintiff may allege, in a claim of fraud or other tort, that parties conspired, the conspiracy to commit a fraud or tort is not, of itself, a cause of action\" (see MBF Clearing Corp. v.Shine, 212 AD2d 478, 479 [1995], citing Brackett v Griswold, 112 NY 454 (1889). Given that civil conspiracy is not an independent tort, it cannot have its own independent measure of damages, any damages attributable to plaintiff's conspiracy claim exists only within those damages that may be assessed for fraud\" (id ) Rather, the \"allegations in the complaint herein charging conspiracy are deemed part of the remaining causes of action to which they are relevant\" (Errant Gene Therapearies,\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, GUO vs. BAOSHENG, GUO Motion No. Boo\n\n# FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLE\n\nNY 22 Colletton Kords Siste Jot 2012 2012 11 2 12 13 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 0 2 0\n\nas no tort causes of action remain, and this action is a business/contract matter, the cause of\n\naction for civil conspiracy must full. Accordingly, it is hereby\n\nORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that the first, second, third,\n\nfifth and sixth causes of action are dismissed and is otherwise denied.\n\n\n\nof\n\n7\n\n1\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, GUO V6. BAOSHENG, GUO Motion No. 006\n\nPage 7 of T\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 31 of 83\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2020\n\n#### THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok | |\n|---------------------|----------------------------|\n| Plaintiff | )Index Number: 151251/2019 |\n| V. | ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO |\n| Baosheng GUO, et al | ) DISMISS |\n| Defendants | |\n\nDEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS\n\nTo Plaintiff Ho Wan Kwok via\n\nAaron A. Mitchell, Esq.\n\nPLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affirmation by Defendants, duly affirmed the 21st day of January, 2020, with the annexed Memorandum of Law, and all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at the Courtroom 130, 60 Centre Street, New York 10007, on the 7th day of February, 2020 (Friday) at 9:30 in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can he heard for an Order for Dispositive Judgment dismissing the Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and CPLR 3013.\n\nPLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering papers if any must be served on the undersigned no later than seven (7) days before the Motion s noticed to be heard.\n\nDated: New York, New York, New York.\n\nJanuary 21, 2020\n\nRespectfully submitted by;\n\n/s/Defendants, Esq. Counsel for the Defendants 135-11 38th Avenue, Rm. 1A Flushing, NY 11354 Tel.: 7183086626; Fax: 7182285816 Email.ynyale@aolcom To: Plaintiff via Aaron Mitchell, Esq. by ECF Broadcasting System\n\n1\n\n---- X\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 55\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2020\n\n| THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--|--|--|\n| COUNTY OF NEW YORK | | | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | | |\n| Plaintiff | )Index Number: 151251/2019 | | | |\n| V. | ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO | | | |\n| Baosheng GUO, et al | I DISMISS | | | |\n| Defendants | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n### DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW THEREOF\\*\n\nAll Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, Ning Ye, Esq., respectfully prays that Plaintiff's baseless, clueless and frivolous Complaint, in obvious motive to abuse the United States judicial system, either being motivated by himself or by his handler in a hostile foreign power, should be dismissed by its entirety, with prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), CPLR 3013, and CPLR 3016 (b) among other violations.\n\n#### Brief Introduction of the Background\n\nOn February 5, 2019, Defendant Ho Wan Kwok, by and through his counsel, Aaron Mitchell, Esq., filed a text-book type frivolous Complaint against the named Defendants for following six counts of cause of actions:\n\nExtortion and Attempted Extortion\n\nFraud\n\nConspiracy to Commit Fraud\n\nBreach of Contract\n\nBreach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing\n\nTortious Interference with Business Relations\n\nPlaintiff has thus far failed to have effectuated any proper service upon none Defendants arguably except Defendant Baosheng Guo.\n\nAll these Complaints were timely answered with Defendants' counterclaims.\n\nThe Complaint of frivolity was pending disposition by this Honorable Court.\n\nThe Complaint must be dismissed by its entirety with prejudice for its frivolity in addition to its cluelessness, not just being groundless.\n\n2\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2020\n\n\\*Respectfully resubmitted with slight corrections following Court's 01/21 Instruction.\n\n#### Argument\n\nThe whole clueless laugh stock started with the following fraudulent, willful misrepresentation of facts of either insanity or deceiving perjury:\n\n\"In or about December 2017, while physically in New York, Defendants approached Guo and offered to conduct research and provide information regarding Boxun and Xiong that would prevent Boxun and Xiong from interfering with Guo's whistleblowing efforts and bring Boxun and Xiong to justice. In exchange, Defendants requested that Guo pay Defendants for their services\". Paragraph 20, p4 of the Complaint; Doc 1)\n\n\"During this time, Defendants falsely represented that they could provide legitimate information on Boxun and Xiong that would shine a light on the unlawful conduct of both Boxun and Xiong and simultaneously cease Boxun and Xiong's efforts to interfere with Guo's anti-corruption campaign.\" Id. Paragraph 21.\n\nPlaintiff's clueless allegation to willfully deceive the Court with perjury was carefully designed to tarnish Defendants' public image and ruin the relations between the Defendants, particularly Defendant Ning Ye, and Boxun and Xiong, with whom Defendant Ye has been legal counsel for long while \\*.\n\nThe Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) among other violations. With respect to the final ground, \"it is well settled that in considering a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must presume the facts pleaded to be true and must accord them every favorable inference. It is,\n\n\\* Defendant Ye, through out of his life, has never ever talked to Plaintiff Guo, much less met or physically approached that controversial figure. Plaintiff Guo Wengui's so-called anti-corruption whistleblowing efforts by fake and deceiving information for his mere agenda to help Xi Jinping's \"China Dream\" is just disgusting, does not worth a dime. For public records of twitter articles, Plaintiff repeatedly invited Defendant Ye, through social media, vowing to having Maotai liquor and banquet ready on his Cruise, with the condition to help him fight against Xiong and Boxun, and repeatedly received Mr. Ye's flat rejection with sarcastic condemnation as public statement. The fact is Plaintiff Guo repeatedly call for Defendant Ye offering to him legal service to form a seizure enforcement team to \"confiscate and remove the property of Boxun and of Wang Qishan\" on social media was repeatedly and flatly slapped by Ning Ye\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2020\n\non twitter: If I can take law in my own hand to confiscate Boxun, or Qishan Wang's family property, does that mean I can also take your Guo Wengui's private jet and cruise at my pleasure? Your offer has disregarded the very foundation of private property ownership of the Western society!\"\n\nhowever, also axiomatic that factual allegations which fail to state a viable cause of action, that consist of bare legal conclusions, or that are inherently incredible . . . are not entitled to such consideration.\" Leder v. Spiegel, 819 N.Y.S.2d 26, 27 (1st Dep't 2006) (emphasis added). The Court is therefore not constrained to accept all the outlandish allegations contained in the Complaint. Many are \"inherently incredible\" and not entitled to a presumption of truth or favorable inferences. Leder, 819 N.Y.S.2d at 27. To the contrary, claims based on inherently incredible allegations should be dismissed. Mamoon v. Dot Net Inc., 135 A.D.3d 656, 658 (1st Dept 2016) (dismissing conversion and unjust enrichment claims consisting of incredible and conclusory allegations). Numerous of the Complaint's other allegations are merely conclusory. These too, are not entitled to any weight. Leder, 819 N.Y.S.2d at 27. In that regard, CPLR 3013 requires that \"[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.\" \"Dismissal of the complaint is warranted if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim . . . . \" Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 137, 141-42 (N.Y. 2017). Under these standards, the Complaint should be dismissed for the reasons set out below.\n\nIn the instant case, Plaintiff's charges against Defendants did not only appear baseless without a single piece of proven evidence, it simply appear clueless, when Plaintiff's lavishly talked about \"contract\" and \"breach thereof\", \"distortion through communication\", \"frauds\", having caused Plaintiff's to deposit his \"\\$3,000,000.00 aside\", by simply making up stories in wild tracklessness, without showing the Court with a single sheer clue, much less a single factual ground.\n\nCPLR 3013 requires that \"[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.\" \"Dismissal of the complaint is warranted if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim . . . \" Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 137, 141-42 (N.Y. 2017). Under these standards, the Complaint should be dismissed for the reasons set out below.\n\nMoreover, elements of Fraud must be pleaded with particularity, under the heightened standard of CPLR 3016(b), which provides that \"the circumstances constituting the\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2020\n\ndefending several indigent or close to indigent victims under Plaintiff blanket of abusive litigations, seeking for skyrocketed damages up to U.S. \\$100 Millions. Plaintiff's this legal action is apparently retaliatory in nature. Such frivolity and retaliation in nature is also shown in Plaintiff's globally advertisement calling for \"victimized women of the world to stand up to expose beastal lawDefendantsr Defendants's sexual assaults\" in implicitly return in US\\$100,000.00 rewards of criminal bribery, distortion and wire fraud. (Exhibit 1A) Here in the State of New York, \"filing retaliatory counterclaims may violate\" the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). \"This desire to punish the individual for engaging in protected activity (i.e. filing a lawsuit), and to deter others from acting similarly, is what makes it retaliation.\" See Brissette v. Franklin County Sheriff's Office, 235 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. Mass. 2003). Retaliation claims are analyzed using the traditional burden-shifting framework of McDomell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). To prevail, the victim must show (1) that the individual engaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that retaliation was a motivating factor in the emploDefendantsr's decision. See Treglia v. Manlius, 313 F.3d 713, 719 (2d Cir. 2002); LovejoyWilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 223 (2d Cir. 2001). The sequence of time line between this Defendant jumped into Representing these Plaintiff's most hated adversaries and Plaintiff's popping up such a world's most absurd litigation against this virtually irrelevant to Plaintiff and his business except for ideological confrontation between an agent for Chinese secret police and a veteran freedom fight and an evangelical Christian. This frivolous litigations followed his consecutive representation of Plaintiff's enemies and the retaliatory motive was explicitly manifested by Mr. Guo Wengui's advertisement implicating Defendant is a sexual predator. See also Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 224 (2d Cir.2001) (\" 'The causal connection needed for proof of a retaliation claim can be established indirectly by showing that the protected activity was closely followed in time by the adverse action.' \" (quoting Cifra v. Gen. Elec. Co., 252 F.3d 205, 216 (2d Cir.2001))); Conclusively, Plaintiff should be sanctioned for filing a retaliatory action against this Defendant in legal accuracy.\n\nOther Clueless Allegation may also needs to be dismissed altogether.\n\n#### Conclusion\n\nWherefore, in the above light, Plaintiff's case must be dismissed with prejudice. Other Clueless Allegation may also needs to be dismissed altogether.\n\nPlaintiff must be sanctioned for apparently abusing the nation's judicial systems by filing such a defamatory, outlandish, frivolous and clueless legal actions with this Honorable Court's reprimand and may need to be imposed with obligations to pay\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2020\n\nattorney fees and costs.\n\nRespectfully submitted by\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq.\n\nfor all Defendants\n\n| THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| )Index Number: 151251/2019 | | | | |\n| ) COUNSEL'S AFFIRMATION | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### AFFIRMATION\n\nThis undersigned, an attorney at law in good standing, hereby states and swear under oath:\n\nThis affiant is the defense counsel for all Defendants, including himself for the record for this instant case.\n\nHe further certifies that he furnished all Defendants with the draft of this dispositive Motion for Dismissal and received approval from all defendants;\n\nAll the contents in the context of the Motion and Memorandum thereof are true,\n\nrepresenting the accuracy in fact, evidence and law to the best of the Defendants'\n\nknowledge and belief. .\n\n19\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 38 of 83\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22, 12:26:26 Page 39 of 83\n\n### FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nGUO WENGUI a/k/a KWOK HO WAN a/k/a MILES KWOK,\n\nIndex No.\n\nPlaintiffs,\n\nSUMMONS\n\n-against-\n\nGUO BAOSHENG, YAN ZHAO, and NING YE,\n\nDefendants,\n\nTo the above-named Defendants: Guo Baosheng 1440 Clubhouse Road Gainesville, VA 20155\n\nYan Zhao 300 East 54th Street New York, New York 10222\n\nNing Ye 13511 38th Street, Suite 1A Flushing, New York 11354\n\nYOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the plaintiff's attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.\n\nDated: White Plains. New York February 5, 2019\n\n> LAW OFFICES OF COHEN & HOWARD, L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiff\n\nBY:\n\nAaron A. Mitchell, Esquire 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 301 Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724 (732) 747-5202 (732) 747-5259 (fax) amitchell(@cohenandhoward.com\n\n1 of 12\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\\_ Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22,12:26:26 Page 40 of 83\n\n(FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK GUO WENGUI a/k/a KWOK HO WAN a/k/a MILES KWOK, Index No. Plaintiffs. COMPLAINT -against-GUO BAOSHENG, YAN ZHAO, and NING YE, Defendants,\n\nPlaintiff Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Guo\" or \"Plaintiff\") for his complaint and action for money damages against defendants Guo Baosheng (\"Baosheng\"), Yan Zhao (\"Zhao\"), and Ning Ye (\"Ning,\" collectively \"Defendants\"), alleges as follows:\n\n#### NATURE OF THE ACTION\n\n1. This action is for fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business relations against Defendants and responds to Defendants' extortionate scheme and conspiracy to financial harm Guo.\n\n2. Plaintiff Guo is a Hong Kong citizen currently residing in the City, County and state of New York.\n\n3. Defendant Baosheng is a resident of the State of Virginia.\n\n4. 9 Defendant Zhao resides, upon information and belief, in the City, County and State of New York.\n\n5. State of New York.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\\_ Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22,12:26:26 Page 41 of 83\n\n[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n6. Defendant Ning is a lawyer licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York.\n\n#### FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS\n\n7. in the United States. Guo has been a longstanding critic of corruption within elements of the Chinese government and a leading advocate for government reform in China.\n\n8. Plaintiff's whistleblowing activities have garnered significant attention and support from around the world. He has been interviewed by many leading newspapers worldwide, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other international publications.\n\n9. Guo's exposure of corruption within the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") has come with a great amount of risk to Guo's own safety and wellbeing, along with that of his family members. It has led many individuals and companies to attack Guo's reputation, and threaten Guo's safety and livelihood, along with that of Guo's family members, friends and colleagues.\n\n10. One organization that has personally targeted Guo is Boxun Inc. (\"Boxun\") which owns and operates the websites www.Boxun.com and www.en.boxun.com.\n\n11. Boxun has engaged in extensive efforts not only to defame Guo and permanently harm his reputation through false and defamatory reporting, but also spread vicious rumors about Guo's family members that threaten their livelihood.\n\n12. Boxun has not limited its malice to just Guo but has for years targeted innocent Chinese immigrants that fled the CCP's oppression in China, seeking better lives for themselves in the Unites States. Boxun has targeted these individuals and solicited money from these individuals under the false pretense that Boxun could help these individuals obtain political asylum Case 22-50073 Doc 451\\_ Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22, 12:26:26 Page 42 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 by NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 BECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\nor otherwise permanent resident status in the United States. However, Boxun has never had the capabilities of assisting any of these people and intentionally preyed upon the very individuals Boxun promised to assist.\n\n13. Upon information and belief, there are ongoing criminal investigations related to both Boxun and its founder and owner Watson Meng.\n\n14. Xianmin Xiong ak/a Sino (\"Xiong\") is a contributing writer and a reporter of Boxun. Xiong has written and published numerous false and defamatory articles about Guo and his family.\n\n15. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Xiong, along with others at Boxun, has falsely held himself out as a lawyer and immigration specialist to Chinese immigrants seeking to flee the CCP's oppression in China and obtain political asylum and/or permanent resident status in the United States.\n\n16. Upon information and belief, Xiong has solicited and accepted money from Chinese immigrants under the false pretense that Xiong is a lawyer who could assist these individuals with their immigration to the United States and help these individuals obtain political asylum and/or permanent resident status in the United States.\n\n17. Some of the individuals that were defrauded by Boxun and Xiong were friends and colleagues of Plaintiff Guo (the \"Defrauded Individuals\").\n\n18. Seeing that Boxun and Xiong were i) interfering with Guo's efforts to expose corruption within the Chinese government and CCP, and ii) intentionally deceiving and harming Guo's friends and colleagues, Defendants approached Guo and offered to help by providing information that would prevent Boxun and Xiong from interfering with Guo's anti-corruption efforts and bring Boxun and Xiong to justice.\n\n3\n\n4 of 12\n\nCase 22-50073\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n19. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendants purported attempts to \"help\" Guo were nothing more than part of their scheme to fraudulently extort money from Guo.\n\n20. In or about December 2017, while physically in New York, Defendants approached Guo and offered to conduct research and provide information regarding Boxun and Xiong that would prevent Boxun and Xiong from interfering with Guo's whistleblowing efforts and bring Boxun and Xiong to justice. In exchange, Defendants requested that Guo pay Defendants for their services.\n\n21. During this time, Defendants falsely represented that they could provide legitimate information on Boxun and Xiong that would shine a light on the unlawful conduct of both Boxun and Xiong and simultaneously cease Boxun and Xiong's efforts to interfere with Guo's anticorruption campaign.\n\n22. Defendants made these representations with the intent to defraud Guo into paying Defendants for services Defendants knew they could never provide.\n\n23. Guo trusted and relied on Defendants' false representations and, in or about December 2017, entered into a services agreement (the \"Agreement\").\n\n24. One of the important provisions of the Agreement was its confidentiality. In an effort to keep his family and colleagues safe, Guo insisted that Defendants keep the existence, subject matter and parties of the Agreement confidential.\n\n25. Defendants agreed to keep all aspects of the Agreement confidential. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants could not disclose the existence of the Agreement, the identities of any party, or the subject matter of the Agreement to any third party.\n\n4\n\n5 of 12\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\\_Filed 06/01/22 | Entered 06/03/22\\_12:26:26 | Page 44 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n26. In breach of the Agreement's confidentiality provision, Defendants willingly disclosed both the context of the Agreement and the parties to the Agreement to numerous thirdparties.\n\n27. In fact, defendant Ning breached the Agreement by disclosing its content to Xiong and now represents Xiong in a separate defamation lawsuit between Guo and Xiong. 1\n\n28. Defendants Baosheng and Zhao then attempted to extort Guo by demanding millions of dollars from Guo or they would otherwise disclose the Agreement to various thirdparties.\n\n29. Defendants Baosheng and Zhao therafter disclosed the Agreement to third-parties, including but not limited to Xiong and Boxun in breach of their confidentiality requirements and in breach of the Agreement.\n\n30. Defendants Baosheng and Zhao also disclosed the Agreement to individuals and/or entities with whom defendants Baosheng and Zhao knew Guo had potential business dealings. Defendants Baosheng and Zhao did so with the intent to interfere with Guo's business relations.\n\n31. As a result, Guo suffered damages including past and future financial loss, loss of future income, interruption with business relations and emotional distress.\n\n### AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n#### EXTORTION AND ATTEMPTED EXTORTION\n\n32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 31 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n33. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants were to conduct research into and provide information regarding Boxun and Xiong.\n\n4 See Guo v. Xiong, New York County Supreme Court, Index No.: 151430/18, Doc. No. 28.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n34. | Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendants a fixed fee and an incentive fee conditioned upon what information Defendants could provide to Plaintiff concerning Boxun and Kiong.\n\n35. Pursuant to the Agreement, the combined fixed fee and incentive fee payable to Defendants was to be a maximum of \\$3 million.\n\n36. | In reliance upon the Agreement and in good faith, Plaintiff set aside and did not otherwise invest \\$3 million based on Defendants' false representations that they could perform under the Agreement.\n\n37. | Although Defendants never performed any work under the Agreement and disclosed the Agreement to various third parties in breach of the Agreement's confidentiality clause, Defendants demanded the fixed and incentive fee in the amount of \\$3 million be paid to them as though they had fully performed under the Agreement.\n\n38. | Knowing they had no basis to demand payment from Plaintiff, in illegal efforts to extort payment to which Defendants were not entitled, for services which Defendants did not perform, Defendants resorted to a malicious, tortious and extortionate course of conduct, including, but not limited to: threatening physical harm to Plaintiff and his family and property, threatening to publish supposed \"facts\" concerning Plaintiff for no purpose other than to injure him, and causing Plaintiff irreparable damage to his reputation and in his business, in addition to economic damage.\n\n39. | By their threats and actions, Defendants have attempted to deprive and have deprived Plaintiff of his property by fear of injury to himself and to his property.\n\nof 12\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n40. Defendants committed these threats and acts in furtherance of their malicious, tortious scheme to extort payment from Plaintiff to which they are not entitled and inflict physical and economic harm against Plaintiff's person, property, and reputation.\n\n41. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be not less than \\$2 million.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n#### FRAUD\n\n42. J. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 41 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n43. In or around December 2017, while negotiating the terms of the Agreement, Defendants falsely stated and represented that they could provide detailed and extensive research on Boxun and Xiong. Defendants falsely stated and represented that this information would serve dual purposes of (i) eliminating Boxun and Xiong's interference with Plaintiff's whistleblowing efforts, and (ii) bringing Boxun and Xiong to justice for their misrepresentations to Chinese immigrants.\n\n44. Defendants knew that this representation was false when they made it to Plaintiff.\n\n45. Defendants made the false representations with the intent to deceive Plaintiff for the sole purpose of extorting and pilferin money from Plaintiff.\n\n46. Plaintiff initially believed the Defendants' misrepresentations to be true. Plaintiff acted on Defendants' misrepresentations in good faith by setting aside \\$3 million for potential payment to Defendants and otherwise not investing that \\$3 million dollars in other business ventures.\n\n7\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\\_Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 47 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n47. Plaintiff could not obtain the research and information on Boxun and Xiong on his own because Boxun and Xiong had published countless defamatory and false articles about Plaintiff and his family. As such, Boxun and Xiong would never have agreed to meet with Plaintiff or otherwise provide information to Plaintiff that Defendants represented they could obtain.\n\n48. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be not less than \\$2 million.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n#### CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD\n\n49. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 48 of this Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n50. Upon information and belief, the Defendants conspired together to defraud Plaintiff.\n\n51. Upon information and belief, after negotiating the terms of the Agreement, Defendants met amongst themselves and decided that defendant Ning would approach Xiong and disclose the Agreement's existence to Xiong.\n\n52. Thereafter, Ning, an attorney, did disclose the Agreement's existence to Xiong and is now representing Xiong in a separate defamation lawsuit between Plaintiff and Xiong.\n\n53. Jo As a result, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but believe to be not less than \\$2 million.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n#### BREACH OF CONTRACT\n\n54. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 53 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n8\n\n9 of 12\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\\_ Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 48 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n55. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants were to conduct research into and provide information regarding Boxun and Xiong.\n\n56. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendants a fixed fee and an incentive fee conditioned upon what information Defendants could provide on Boxun and Xiong.\n\n57. Pursuant to the Agreement, the combined fixed fee and incentive fee payable to Defendants was \\$3 million.\n\n58. Plaintiff set aside and did not otherwise invest \\$3 million based on Defendants' false representations that they could perform under the Agreement.\n\n59. Defendants' breached the Agreement by (i) disclosing its existence to various third parties in breach of the Agreements' confidentiality clause, and (ii) failing to provide any research at all with respect to Boxun and Xiong.\n\n60. Defendant Ning disclosed the Agreement to Xiong.\n\n61. Defendants Baosheng and Zhao disclosed the Agreement to third-parties with whom they knew Plaintiff had potential business relations.\n\n62. As a result, Plaintiff was damaged in that (i) Plaintiff lost future income by not investing the \\$3 million in other business ventures; (ii) incurred expenses in negotiating the Agreement; and (iii) increased security costs as a result of Defendants' breach of the Agreement's confidentiality clause, all in amount to be determined at trial but believed to be not less than \\$250,000.00.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n### BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING\n\n63. J Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 62 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n9\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\\_ Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 49 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n64. Defendants' breached the Agreement by (i) disclosing its existence to various thirdparties in breach of the Agreements' confidentiality clause, and (ii) failing to provide any research at all with respect to Boxun and Xiong.\n\n65. Defendants then sought to withhold the benefits of the Agreement from Plaintiff by conspiring to extort money from Plaintiff without every performing their obligations under the Agreement.\n\n66. As a result, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be not less than \\$250,000.00.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION\n\n### TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS\n\n67. 9 Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 66 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n68. Prior to entering into the Agreement, Plaintiff had a business relationship with a third-party (the \"Business Relationship\").\n\n69. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's Business Relationship.\n\n70. Upon information and belief, Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's Business Relationship by informing Plaintiff's known business partners and potential business partners about the Agreement and spreading false rumors to Plaintiff's business and potential business partners about Plaintiff's intentions with respect to the Agreement.\n\n71. Upon information and belief, Defendants acted solely out of malice in their interference with Plaintiff's Business Relationship and had no legitimate reason to interfere with Plaintiff's Business Relationship.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n72. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff's Business Relationship was injured\n\nby precluding Plaintiff from entering into other profitable business ventures. Plaintiff was damaged\n\nin an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be not less than \\$3,500.000.00.\n\nWHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:\n\n- (a) On the First Cause of Action: Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of two million (\\$2,000,000.00) dollars in compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;\n- (b) On the Second Cause of Action: Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of two million (\\$2,000,000.00) dollars in compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;\n- (c) On the Third Cause of Action: Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of two million (\\$2,000,000.00) dollars in compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;\n- (d) On the Fourth Cause of Action: Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand (\\$250,000.00) dollars in compensatory damages;\n- (e) On the Fifth Cause of Action: Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand (\\$250,000.00) dollars in compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;\n- (t) On the Sixth Cause of Action: Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of three million four hundred fifty thousand (\\$3,500,000.00) dollars in compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;\n- (g) Together with the costs, attorneys fees and disbursement of this action; and\n- (h) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.\n\nDated: February 5, 2019 White Plains, New York COHEN & HOWARD, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff\n\nBy: Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq. 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724 (732)-747-5202 (732)-747-5259 amitchell@cohenandhoward.com\n\n11\n\n12 of 12\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\n#### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK STATE\n\n| Wengui Guo, aka Miles Kwok | |\n|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|\n| Plaintiff | ) Index Number: 151251-2019 |\n| V. | |\n| Guo Baosheng, Yan Zhao and Ning Ye | |\n| Defendants | |\n| | |\n\n#### Defendant Ning Ye's Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims\n\nDefendant Ning Ye, Esq., by and through the undersigned counsel of his own, respectfully answers Plaintiff's Complaint of frivolity, with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, as follows:\n\nAnswers:\n\n- 1. Denied. Civil Conspiracy is not an actionable tort in this jurisdiction; The rest three appear baseless nonsense;\n- 2. Declined to answer for want of verifiable information;\n- 3. Admitted\n- Denied. 4.\n- ഗ Admitted.\n- 6. Admitted.\n- 7. Denied for Defendant's willful concealment of his own role in \"longstanding corruption in China\" inclusion with Chinese Secret Police and its such Gestapo Tsars as Ma Jian, Liu Yanping, etc.\n- 8. Denied for Plaintiff's willful misrepresentation of his real role and identity to the world;\n- 9. Denied. The risk of Guo and his family in China has been mostly from Guo's conscience shocking high crimes which are punishable in all civilized countries under rule of law;\n- 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 are denied collectively, categorically and respectively for being clueless, irrelevant and nonsensical.\n\n17. Denied for being clueless and irrelevant;\n\n- 18. Denied for wild and insane speculation, baseless, and clueless;\n- 19. Denied for baseless fabrication out of typical insanity or for pretending to be insane.\n- 20. Denied for baseless fabrication out of typical insanity.\n\n21. Denied with specific notation that there has been only one \"anti-corruption campaign\" led by or misled by Chinese Communist Party's totally corrupted ruling bloc under its maximum dictator Xi Jinping to whom Plaintiff frequently vowed to public the world over that he wanted to dedicate his\" influence, resources\" and ultimately, his \"life\" to defend.\n\n22. Denied for being baseless, illusionary and irrelevant;\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\n23. Denied for being nonsensical, lack of condition precedent for \"contract\", or With Answer withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" to the Court, if any;\n\n24. Denied for being nonsensical or With Answer withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" to the Court, if any;\n\n25. Denied for being nonsensical or With Answer withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" to the Court, if any;\n\n26. Denied for being nonsensical or With Answer withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" to the Court, if any;\n\n27. Denied for being untruthful, fraudulent and nonsensical or With Answer withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" followed that of its leaks, to the Court, if any;\n\n28. Denied as nonsense.\n\n- 29. Denied for being baseless;\n- 30. Denied for being clueless, baseless and nonsensical.\n- 31. Denied for being illusionary and fraudulent;\n\n32. Denied. Bad as to one, bad as to all.\n\n33. Denied for being nonsensical, lack of condition precedent for \"contract performance\", or With Answer withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" to the Court, if any;\n\n34 through 38. Denied, collectively and separately, for being baseless, clueless, nonsensical, insane, lack of condition precedent for \"contract performance\", there is no contract, or formation thereof between Plaintiff and this Defendant, or with answers withheld for Plaintiff to show proof of alleged \"contract\" to the Court, if any;\n\n39. Denied for being clueless, baseless and nonsensical;\n\n40. Denied for being clueless, baseless, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n41. Denied for being baseless, clueless and want of; conditions precedent;\n\n42. Denied for being clueless, baseless, nonsensical and defamatory ..\n\n43. Denied for being clueless, baseless, nonsensical and defamatory ..\n\n44. Denied for being clueless, baseless, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n45. Denied for being clueless, baseless, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n46. Denied for being clueless, baseless, speculative, nonsensical and defamatory by part of factual narrative, which is untruthful. Accept by part for Party's admission and estoppel.\n\n47. Denied for being clueless, baseless, speculative, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n48. Denied for being clueless, baseless, speculative, nonsensical, insane and defamatory.\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\n49. Categorically denied.\n\n50. Denied for being clueless, baseless, speculative, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n51. Denied for being clueless, baseless, insane, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n52. Denied for being clueless, baseless, speculative, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n53. Denied for being clueless, baseless, speculative, nonsensical and defamatory.\n\n54. Categorically denied.\n\n55. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\" which exists nowhere.\n\n56. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere\n\n57. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere. If Plaintiff believes that what he said contract does indeed exist, he is encouraged to deposit what he vowed that \\$3M to the Clerk of this Court;\n\n58. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere. If Plaintiff believes that what he said contract does indeed exist, he is encouraged to deposit what he vowed that \\$3M to the Clerk of this Court;\n\n59. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere\n\n60. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere\n\n61. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere\n\n62, Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere. If Plaintiff believes that what he said contract does indeed exist, he is encouraged to deposit what he vowed that \\$3M to the Clerk of this Court, rather than any other underworld depositories;\n\n63. Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere\n\n64, 65, 66 .: All Denied for want of condition precedent: \"Agreement\". which exists nowhere\n\nFrom 67 through 72: All Denied for being clueless, speculative, nonsensical, insane and defamatory.\n\n#### Affirmative Defense:\n\n### Affirmative Defense One: Motion for Summary Dismissal with Prejudice on Plaintiff's Claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 a (7 ): Failure to State a Cause of Action\n\nPlaintiff's Complaint is a poorly crafted sheets of pleading paper in which the labels of cause of action does not match the enumerated counts of allegations. Affirmative Defenses has to reconstruct what Plaintiff really meant to talk about.\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\n#### Counterclaims:\n\nDefamation by Libel and Slander\n\nOn November 23, 2018; (exhibit 1A) December 7, 2018 (Exhibit 2 and 3), December 8, 2018, (Exhibit 4 and 5) Defendant Guo Wengui repeated, massively defamed Defendant Ning Ye for \"beastality, immigration frauds, sexual assaults\" by repeating his old tactic, which has been going unpunished yet, by advertising through out the world using his \"Guo Media\" calling for any and all victimized women to stand up to take actions against \"beastal lawyer\" Ning Ye, implicating his paying high roller rewards for exposing such scandalous \"criminal offenses\" which exist nowhere. Due to the fact that Mr. Guo Wengui's advertisement give his half million viewers a misled false impression that this Defendant did commit scandalous beastality and sexual assaults against women, such broadly spread public call is a textbook type defamation which was designed, devised, and broadly published simply to ruin the victim's public image and reputation, damaging the victim's business, and causing his sufferings from disgrace of by the community, knowing it is false.\n\nIn November 2017, Defendant Guo used the same tactic, advertising and calling for the women victims world over, to act to fight back against eight falsely alleged \"sexual predators\" among them there was Professor Yeliang Xia, by offering U.S\\$ 100,000.00 to each exposing woman \"victim\", a bribery for perjury. Mr. Guo's fishing trip has somewhat successful and at least one woman has been hooked by Mr. Guo's decoy. A Michillin Restaurant owner came up to help Mr. Guo's wire fraud in obstruction of justice by lying that Professor Xia Yeliang sexually molested her in her restaurant. (Exhibit 6 and 7) The hoax was later aborted because one of Mr. Guo's accomplices who knows everything rebelled him and told the truth and that woman also despised Mr. Guo because the latter, a multi-billion red mogul dishonored his advertised promise of \\$100K. The end results of monetary disputes between two conspirators ended up with paying \\$10K instead of \\$100K, a further proof of wire fraud, Plaintiff had never meant to seriously honor what he promised to women at large for committing criminal mischief.\n\nPlaintiff's advertisement, among all other extremely vicious defamatory actions, has been legally sufficient to be found as common law defamation and defamation per se.\n\n। ਰੇ\n\n#### RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\nIn the State An action for defamation is one where a defendant is accused of making a false statement which tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society. Foster v. Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751 (1996); See also, Manfredonia v. Wiess, 37 AD3d 286 [\\*7](1st Dept. 2007); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999); Fairley v. Peekskill Star Corporation, 83 AD2d 294 (2nd Dept. 1981). The elements of a defamation are (1) the publishing of a false statement to a third party; (2) publishing said statement without authorization or privilege; (3) fault, judged at a minimum by a negligence standard; and (4) special harm or defamation per se. Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999); Salvatore v. Kumar, 2007 WL 3307778 (2nd Dept. 2007). Special harm or special damage means the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value. Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 (1992).\n\nDue to the fact that Plaintiff's very vicious defamation was also publicized in writing, and the nature of such defamation which may even involve elements of criminal activities, proving of economic loss, which does exist, is not needed.\n\nSpecial damages need not be pled or proven when the cause of action is for defamation per se. Id. Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 NY2d 369 (1977); Donati v. Queens Ledger Newspaper Group, 240 AD2d 696 (2nd Dept. 1997). Slander per se is any oral statement which relate to any one of the following: statements charging plaintiff with a serious crime, statements that tend to injure another in his trade, business or profession, statements that accuse plaintiff of having a loathsome disease, or statements that impute that a woman is unchaste. Id. Libel per se is a writing which exposes plaintiff to \"public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce[s] an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society.\" Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 NY2d 369, 379 (1977).\n\nHad Plaintiff's vicious plot to call for allegedly \"victimized women\" to fight back against falsely alleged \"sexual criminal\" of \"beastality\" of this legal counsel representing his adversaries succeed in any way, this undersigned would have experienced enormous, or even life threatening. catastrophes , which may ranging from losing his professional license, prison detention, and\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\npremature death. Plaintiff's such egregious misconduct must be curbed and punished by punitive damages!\n\nAdditionally, Plaintiff's baseless narrative in this instant action falsely accusing Defendant to have committed fraud to entrapping the Plaintiff, ending up causing his again completely fraudulent damages of more than 12million U.S. dollars in conspiracy with two co-defendants are in totally defamatory in nature. Such a egregious defamation under the disguises of litigation does not enjoy an absolute immunity from being suit if its frivolity and retaliatory in nature appears so obvious.\n\nFor such a defamation against the Defendant in this magnitude, plaintiff respectfully prays for the Honorable Court to award treble damages based upon damages in addition to permanent injunction being sought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Ning Ye.\n\nA plaintiff seeking to recover on a cause of action asserting defamation per se inasmuch as a defendant's statements have hurt his trade, business or profession, must prove that the defamation is of the kind incompatible with his business, trade, office, or profession. Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 (1992). The statement must be in reference to a matter of significance and importance for that purpose. Id. Beastality and sexual assaults against women are typically this type of defamation per se.\n\nIn evaluating whether a statement is defamatory\n\nthe words must be construed in the context of the entire statement or publication as a whole, tested against the understanding of the average reader, and if not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, they are not actionable and cannot be made so by a strained or artificial construction\n\nDillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38 (1st Dept. 1999); See also, Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592 (1985). Accordingly, whether words are defamatory present a question of law for the court to decide in the first instance. Id. To that end, courts will not strain to find defamation where none exists. Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, (1st Dept. 1999); Fairley v. Peekskill Star Corporation, 83 AD2d 294 (2nd Dept. 1981). Loose, figurative, or hyperbolic statements, even if deprecating are not actionable. Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999).\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\nWith regard to defenses to defamation, truth provides a complete defense to an action asserting defamation. Fleckenstein v. Friedman, 266 NY 19 (1934); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999); Proskin v, Hearst Corporation, 14 AD3d 782 (3rd Dept. 2005); Love v. William Morrow and Co., Inc., 193 AD2d 586 (2nd Dept. 1983); Smith v. United Church Ministry, Inc., 212 AD2d 1038 (4th Dept. 1995); Schwatzberg v. Mongiardo, 113 AD2d 172 (3rd Dept. 1985).\n\nSubstantial truth, will also suffice to defeat an action for defamation. Id .; Leibowitz v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, 281 AD2d 350 (1st Dept. 2001); Fairley v. [\\*8]Peekskill Star Corporation, 83 AD2d 294 (2nd Dept. 1991). On the issue of substantial truth as a bar to defamation the court in Fleckenstein, articulated what it called a workable test, namely whether the statement as published would have a different effect on the reader or listener than the truth as pleaded. Fleckenstein v. Friedman, 266 NY 19 (1934). The rationale being that [w]hen the truth is so near to the facts as published that fine and shaded distinctions must be drawn and words pressed out of their ordinary usage to sustain a charge of libel, no legal harm has been done. Id. at 23.\n\nPlaintiff's defamation has absolutely no truth, much less substantial truth. It was completely fabricated to defraud the general public and to cause enormous harms against the Defendant.\n\nFor the Defamation against the Defendant Ning Ye, he prays for this Honorable Court to award the treble damages in punitive nature, ranging from \\$12,000,000.00 to \\$36,000,000.00.\n\nDefendant Ning Ye also respectfully prays for such relief as permanent injunctive relief which bars the Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, from any such defamatory actions against Defendant.\n\n#### Counterclaims Number Two: RICO Violations\n\nDefendant has criminal history as a convicted felon in China and was again criminally convicted for international money laundering by Hong Kong's High Court and was confiscated for criminal forfeiture of 62.4 billion Honog Kong dollars, roughly equalizing 10billion U.S. dollars. (Exhibit 8)\n\n22\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\nPlaintiff's grave covert actions committed in the United States mostly in felony natures, starting from huge amount of money laundering to fund his abusive and massive litigations in frivolity against Chinese political dissidents and his spying operation for China, many of such activities are in criminal nature, from espionage, unregistered foreign agents activities to obstructing justice by corrupted procurement of \"victimized women's\" perjury, are not engaged, pursued or accomplished by his lone person. Plaintiff's large scale of wrongful and criminal covert acts were designed, devised, pursued, engaged and accomplished through his collusion with Communist China's secret police apparatus, and variety of large group of co-conspirators, accomplices in aiding and abetting to him (Exhibit 9). Some of his accomplices are apparently dispatched and assigned by Communist China's secret police, or simply his fellow colleagues within the elite circle of Chinese secret police, an equivalent to NAZI Germany's Gestapo and former USSR's KGB.\n\nTherefore, this Defendant is one of the victims of Mr. Guo Wengui's RICO conspiracy and RICO activities seen in his covert actions.\n\nPlaintiff's vicious covert action in criminal alliance with China's Secret Police and its members has violated 18 USC 1962, and his violation of Section 1962 has caused enormous injury against this Defendant.\n\nSection 1964(c) of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, provides a private right of action to any person injured in its business or property by reason of a violation of the activities prohibited by section 1962. \"To establish a RICO claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1692; (2) an injury to business or property; and (3) that the injury was caused by the violation of Section 1962.\" Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC, 720 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 305 (2d Cir. 2001) ). To establish RICO violation, a plaintiff must show \"(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.\" DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 306 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985) ).\n\nPlaintiff's harm by advertising to procure perjury to entrap the Defendant into an anticipated endless and scandalous legal and disciplinary troubles thich could be in worst scenario life threatening even if this Defendant may end up getting delayed clearance. Plaintiff's such covert action to show his allegiance to Chinese Communist tyranny(Exhibit 8, supra) for retaliatory\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\npurpose was not done by his lone efforts, it was accomplished by numerous operations by an huge such unlawful enterprises as Guo Media, Guo Ants Mafioso Underworld, the Chinese Communist Party and its maximum dictator Xi Jinping, the Secret Police of the People's Republic, namely, MSS (Exhibit 9), and its such Tsars as Mr. Liu Yanping, Mr. Gao Hui, Mr. Ma Jian, acting in orchestration. Mr. Guo's wrongful conducts shows a pattern of signature criminal behavior: Advertising criminal in nature defrauding advertisement to procure women's perjury testimonies by falsely offering high roller corruptive cash rewards, causing to sue and to distort by using his criminal proceeds as international money laundering (See Testimony by Mr. Guo Baosheng plaintiff's former key associate, as Exhibit 10); Such Plaintiff's covert actions are of corruptive, and racketeering activities in nature among all other criminal and unethical features. It is four corner squared RICO act.\n\n\"Racketeering activity\" is defined to include any \"act\" indictable under various specified federal statutes, including the mail and wire fraud statutes and the obstruction of justice statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (defining \"racketeering activity\" to include offenses indictable under 18 U.S.C. \\$ 8 1341 (relating to mail fraud), 1343 (relating to wire fraud), and 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice) ). A \"pattern of racketeering activity\" is defined by the statute as \"at least two acts of racketeering activity\" within a ten-year period. 18 U.S.C. § 1691(5). Plaintiff's signature pattern in calling for allegedly \"victimized women\" to fight the so-called, predetermined \"sexual predator\" to obstruct justice by corruptive wire frauds.\n\nDefendant respectfully pray for the Honorable Court to award punitive treble damages against Plaintiff for RICO violations, based upon Plaintiff's demanded amount of damages.\n\nConclusion: Prayer of Relief\n\nWherefore, in the foregoing light, Defendants respectfully prays to this Honorable Court for the following reliefs:\n\nThe Part of Plaintiff's Complaint of frivolity be dismissed with prejudice;\n\nAn injunctive relief is granted to Defendant to enjoin Plaintiff from continuing spreading distortion and defamations against Defendant\n\nFor the part of Defendant ning Ye's Counterclaim, Defendant prays for a Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Ning Ye's Counterclaims:\n\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/03/2019\n\nTo award Defendant Ning Ye with Punitive treble damages for Defamation, Defamation per se, calculation of the amount of punitive treble damage shall be based upon Plaintiff's Claim as of \\$12,000,000.00;\n\nTo award Defendant Ning Ye with Punitive treble damages for Plaintiff's RICO, calculation of the amount of punitive treble damage shall be based upon Plaintiff's Claim fas of \\$12,000,000.00;\n\nTo award Defendant Ning Ye with sanctions by filing frivolous and retaliatory suit pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and for cost pursuant to CPLR 8303\n\nDefendant prays for a permanent injunction to enjoin Plaintiff from inflict further agonizing and costly legal action of frivolity against this Defendant.\n\nDefendant prays for a permanent injunction to enjoin Plaintiff from inflict further agonizing and costly legal action of frivolity against this Defendant.\n\nDefendant prays that this Honorable Court also award the Defendant with such other relief as this Court finds it appropriate.\n\nShould this case on plaintiff's part be not instantly dismissed with prejudice, Defendant\n\n#### respectfully prays for a trial of facts by jury.\n\nRespectfully submitted by,\n\n/s/Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq. For Defendant Ning Ye\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 62 of 83\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22, 12:26:26 Page 63 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n1\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n-- X\n\nWengui Guo, Plaintiff, Plaintiff vs. Baisheng Guo, et al Defendants\n\nIndex No.151251/2019 Notice of Motion to Dismiss for An Abandoned Complaint The Honorable David B. Cohen\n\n## NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND OF THE AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS\n\nMadams and/or Sirs:\n\nPLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to CPLR 3025(a) and (b), upon the annexed Motion for Leave of the Court to File Defendants' Amended CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Motion to Dismiss, and the Amended Motion to Dismiss remaining Count 4 of this Complaint leading to Dismissal of the entire Complaint with Prejudice, with the annexed Affidavit, papers, certificates, and exhibits, and all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at the Motion Part 130, New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 on 12th day of April, 2022, Tuesday at 9:30 am in the forenoon, of that day or as soon as thereafter as the counsel(s) can be heard, for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for an abandoned case, on the Plaintiff's side, in the light of CPLR 3404, for an abandoned clueless claim of frivolity.\n\nPLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to CPLR 2214 (b), answering papers if any must be served on the undersigned no later than seven (7) days before the Motion is noticed to be heard.\n\nDated: 03/14/2022 New York County, New York State\n\n> Respectfully submitted by /s/Ning Ye, Counsel for the Defendants 135-11 38th Avenue, Rm 1A Flushing, NY 11354 Tel .: 7183086626; Fax: 7182285816 Email: yeningusa@gmail.com\n\nTo: Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22212:26:26 Page 64 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 68\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\nCertificate of Compliance:\n\nThis undersigned, hereby certifies that the Motion to Reargue is in full compliance 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b [a] and (c ). This undersigned further certifies that this Affirmation is counted with 13222 words below the word count limit and this word count relies upon the word count of the word-processing, namely, Micro-Soft Word, which was used to prepare this document.\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq.\n\nCounsel for the Defendants\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22, 12:26:26 Page 65 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n2\n\n## Counsel for the Plaintiff SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nWengui Guo, Plaintiff, Plaintiff vs. Baisheng Guo, et al Defendants\n\nIndex No.151251/2019 Notice of Motion to Dismiss for An Abandoned Complaint The Honorable David B. Cohen\n\n### DEFENDANTS'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR 3211 (a)(7) MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CLUELESS COMPLAINT OF FRIVOLITY WHICH HAS BEEN ABANDONED\n\nDefendants, by and through their undersigned counsel Ning Ye, Esq., respectfully pray, for Leave of the Court, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a ) and (b) to file this Supplemental CPLR 3211 (a )(7 ) Motion (Doc 55, 01/22/2020) with this Honorable Court to dismiss the the remaining small portion of the above-captioned Complaint on Plaintiff's part with prejudice, given to the latest development demonstrating Plaintiff's multifaceted dooms, under the circumstances where Plaintiff's abandonment in unreasonable failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3404 appears self-evident. Any further permission in favor of Plaintiff so-called \"litigation revolution's\" last dying breath in this instant case may be a waste of this Honorable Court's precious and scarce judicial resources.\n\nOn February 5, 2019, Defendant Ho Wan Kwok, by and through his counsel, Aaron Mitchell, Esq., filed a text-book type frivolous Complaint against the named Defendants for following six counts of cause of actions: 1. Extortion and Attempted Extortion; 2. Fraud; 3. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; 4. Breach of Contract; 5. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, 6. Tortious Interference with Business Relations.\n\nTo prove Plaintiff's story that there is an alleged service contract existing between Plaintiff Wengui Guo (aka: Miles Kwok, or \"Haoyun Kwok\") and Defendants, and to further prove, by fraud and willful misrepresentation to the Court, his \"good faith\" not only on the contract formation phase, but on performance phase, Plaintiff had US\\$3,000,000.00 \"set aside\" for the Defendants as his \"intended beneficiaries\". Though \\$3M did not look like to have satisfied Defendants/counter-plaintiffs' dollar amount demand for Defendants' damages set forth in their counterclaims, Defendants any way welcomed Counter-Defendant Wengui Guo's offer, and recommended that Mr. Guo to deposit so-called \"set-aside\" \\$3M cash into this Honorable Court's escrow account by the Clerk, pending final disposition of this case. As of this date, it appears that Plaintiff had not deposit a single penny into the Clerk's Account accordingly. This is one of the most recent developments for which this Honorable Court may take record of it.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n3\n\nOn January 2020, Defendants respectfully filed a CPLR 3211 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by its Entirety with Prejudice (Doc 55). This Honorable Court, apparently by exercising the brilliant judicial wisdom, issued an order on June 18, 2020, (Doc 64), dismissing counts 1,2,3,5,and 6, left the Count 4 of the Breach of Contract remaining for further adjudication. Again as of this date, Plaintiff had not deposit with the Clerk of the Court what he swore \\$3 Million \"set aside\" contract forbearance cash by designating three Defendants as intended beneficiaries into the Clerk's Account to demonstrate his \"good faith performance\" on his part to prove an existence of a contract against which Defendants had allegedly breached. This is one of the most recent developments for which this Honorable Court may take record of it. Failure to do so without even answering to the proposal with a single word, It has now become crystal clear that this Plaintiff's allegation of a \"contract\" and \"breach\" thereof by Defendants are completely a hoax, a clueless, not just groundless, fraud to fool and ridicule the Honorable Court.\n\nAdditionally, Plaintiff has failed to file the Court ordered NOI on or before October 29, 2020. With these developments in place, Defendants humbly pray to this honorable Court that they be permitted to leave of the Court to file amended CPLR 3211 (a )(7) Motion to Dismiss the remaining count, breach of contract, leading to dismissal of the Plaintiffs entire Complaint with prejudice.\n\nWith these Developments, Defendants humbly pray that this Honorable Court grant Defendants with a Leave of the Court to File an Amended CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's entire clueless Complaint of frivolity by its entirety with prejudice.\n\nThis Motion will be respectfully filed with this Honorable Court together with the Defendants' Amended CPLR 3211(a)(7 ) Motion to Dismiss, and Counsel's Affirmation and all other such documents as of Certificates and exhibits.\n\nWherefore, in the foregoing light, Defendants respectfully pray that they be grant a Leave of the Court to file an Amended CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Motion to Dismiss the Remaining Count 4 leading to Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Entire Complaint with prejudice.\n\nRespectfully submitted by,\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq. For All Defendants Case 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22\\_12:26:26 Page 67 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n4\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n----- X\n\nWengui Guo, Plaintiff, Plaintiff vs.\n\nBaisheng Guo, et al\n\nDefendants\n\nAmended Motion to Dismiss the Complaint The Honorable David B. Cohen\n\nIndex No.151251/2019\n\n## DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS REMAINING COUNT 4 LEADING TO DISMISSAL OF THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE ON PLAINTIFF'S PART AND PRAYING FOR GRANT OF COUNTERCLAIMS AND MEMORANDUM OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES THEREOF\n\nDefendants, by and through their undersigned counsel Ning Ye, Esq., respectfully pray, for Leave of the Court, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a ) and (b ) to file this MENDED CPLR 3211 (a )(7 ) Motion with this Honorable Court to dismiss the above-captioned Complaint on Plaintiff's part, by its entirety, with prejudice, also pursuant to CPLR 3404.\n\nOn June 18, 2020, this Honorable Court issued a Decision-Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint for failure to state all six causes in his complaint (Motion #6, Doc 55) regarding Doc. 55, 60 and 62, by granting the Motion by count 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, denying the Motion for count 4, Breach of Contract, given to Plaintiff's claim, among others, that he had dutifully set aside \\$3,000,000.00 for the Defendants as allegedly \"intended beneficiaries\" to show his good faith in honoring his forbearance not only for the formation phase, but also on the performance phase of a \"contract\". Plaintiff's quantum leap rushing to a contract in his fantasy world, and his claim of performance nunc pro tunc, merely for litigation purpose, has made a so called service contract between two adversaries look like a real one, apparently by knowing fraud upon the Court. While highly acclaiming this Honorable Court's 06/18/2020 Order which threw out super majority of Plaintiff's counts, Defendants' feel it necessary to pray to this Honorable Court to grant their Leave of the Court to File Their Amended Motion to Dismiss the remaining count pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) with new development and to grant Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Prayers for appropriate reliefs.\n\n#### Procedural Posture\n\n1. On January 22, 2020, this Honorable Court issued a Scheduling Order, which, among others, ordered the Plaintiff to file a Note of Issues by October 29, 2020. (Exhibit 2). As of this date, 16 months has past the Court ordered deadline for the Plaintiff to file NOI,\n\n# FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 BM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n5\n\nPlaintiff \"unreasonably failed\" to do so. Plaintiff may have million reasons to defend his unreasonable failure, yet it is Plaintiff 's duty to file a Motion with reason to explain to the Court for continuance, if Plaintiff did not mean to commit civil contempt. Plaintiff's two-year idling by simply sleeping on his case has demonstrated his abandonment of his Complaint, while the fact pattern shows Plaintiff may be unable to do anything better than resting on his knowing frivolous case by doing nothing. Plaintiff has demonstrated his intention in abandoning his clueless Complaint of frivolity and thus the case should be dismissed;\n\n- 2. In order to survive from Defendants' CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motion to Dismiss for the part of alleged \"Breach of Contract\", Plaintiff Wengui Guo (AKA: \"Miles Kwok\") presented to this Honorable Court, that he had \"\\$3,000,000.00 set aside\" for concretely performing what he alleged \"the contract\" on his part for the purpose to engage Defendants to perform their part in offering service he had bargained for. In response to Plaintiff's claim in \"setting aside \\$3M\" likely nunc pro tunc, Defendants demanded in their answer to the Complaint with Affirmative and Counterclaims, that Plaintiff deposit that \"setaside\" \\$3M to the Escrow Account of the Clerk of this Court, in order for the Plaintiff to demonstrate his claim of \"real contract\" with \\$3M setting aside in \"good faith\" on his part were not out of his illusionary fantasy, or not mere fraud to fool the Honorable Court. Seeing Defendants' such reasonable and explicit request, Plaintiff has remain silent for a period of approximately two years. Defendant has failed to deposit such fraudulently offered \"setting-aside \\$3,000,000.00 with the Clerk of the Court;\n- 3. Since day 1 of Plaintiff's having his Complaint docketed with this Court, Plaintiff has not submit any single sheet of executed papers to substantiate his clueless claim of \"contracting with Defendants\".\n- 4. Plaintiff Wengui Guo has most recently admitted his doom in this legal action by admittedly listing all three Defendants as his litigation creditors, in which he presented to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hartford Connecticut that he had indebted to all three Defendants in this action for litigation related debts ranging from \\$3M to 12 millions. (See U.S. Bankruptcy Paper as Exhibit 2)\n\n#### Status Report bv Defendants\n\nOn January 22, 2020, this Honorable Court issued a Scheduling Order, which for the relevant part, ordered, among other schedules, the Plaintiff to submit the Note of Issues to the Court on or before October 29, 2020. (See Exhibit 1, with relevant part highlighted in yellow.). As of this date, 16 months after the deadline of NOI submission, Plaintiff did neither submit the NOI to the Court, nor any motions or pleas which sought for continuance or enlargement of time, presenting the reasons for this Court to forgive its excusable neglect.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22\\_12:26:26 Page 69 of 83\n\n### FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n24\n\n#### Conclusion:\n\nWherefore, in the foregoing light, this undersigned respectfully prays that this Honorable Court, by the Honorable Clerk, dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. A prompt solution appears justifiable and appropriate in this instant case not only for procedures, but also for substantive law of justice.\n\n#### Prayer for Reliefs:\n\nDefendants respectfully prays for the following reliefs:\n\nDefendants Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended CPLR 3211 Motion be granted.\n\nFor Remaining Count 4, Breach of Contract, Defendants respectfully pray that this Honorable Court to dismiss that remaining Count for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be rendered, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), hence dismiss the entire case on the Plaintiff's part with prejudice.\n\nFor the part of Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' Part, which this Honorable Court has not yet disposed, counter-plaintiffs respectfully pray the following reliefs:\n\nInjunctive Relief: Plaintiff Wengui Guo publicize a Confession and Apology to all Defendants to confess his wrongful mischief in New York Times and Wall Street Journal, by the size of no smaller than one 8th of a page, every day for seven days \\*. The text of the confession should be drafted by the counter-Plaintiff Ning Ye, and approved by this Honorable Court.\n\nPermanent injunctive relief which enjoins Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, from engaging in any such defamatory actions against Defendants in any media.\n\nPermanent injunctive relief which enjoins Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, for submitting detailed accounting/auditing reports to specify, item by item, his exact assets being placed in all his shell companies and trustees, offshore financial institutions, in and out of the United States.\n\nPermanent injunctive relief which enjoins Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, for submitting detailed accounting/auditing reports to specify, item by item, his exact assets being placed in all his shell companies and trustees, offshore financial institutions, in and out of the United States, specifically disclose the contents of his \"verbal loaning\" funds\\*\\* funneling from any financial resources he laundered in conspiracy with such of his shell companies as Golden Spring New York, Inc., Arabic-China Foundations, any and all offshore financial institutions in the name of his spouse, his son and daughter, and his CCP/MSS handlers/corroborators within a period of 3 months after the entry of this Judgment.\n\nCounter-Plaintiffs also respectfully pray that this Honorable Court render a Declaratory Relief to Declare that all institutions, financial institution which were formed by Counter-Defendant Wengui Guo to promote counter-defendant's so-called \"litigation Revolution\" as extraterritorial persecution instrument targeting political dissidents from China, given to these institutions being penalized by the SEC, New York DA, and USDOJ, are illegal organizations., and should be banned.\n\n#### FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n25\n\n#### Monetary Relief\\*:\n\nCounter-Plaintiffs also respectfully pray that this Honorable Court render Monetary Relief to all Counter Plaintiffs as follows:\n\n\\$12 Million for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for Defamation per se;\n\n\\$3 Million for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for RICO Violations;\n\n\\$60,000.00 for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for filing frivolous complaint;\n\n\\$60,000.00 for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for filing Retaliatory complaint.\n\nSuch other fees and costs, other reliefs as this Honorable Court finds it appropriate.\n\nShould this Court finds that the time is not ripe to grant these reliefs, Counter-Plaintiffs respectfully pray that their counter-claims be adjudicated by Jury Trial.\n\nRespectfully submitted by,\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq., Counsel for all Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs\n\n\\*Let Counter-Defendant make one time good, ethical and decent expenditure, rather than a complete waste in \"litigation revolution\", in enforcing hitting list for his handlers in Beijing, or messing up U.S. democratic election process, of his apparently shared assets with the world's notoriously infamous dictatorship all accumulated from unjust enrichment from the enslaved people of all nationalities on the CCP occupied land.\n\n\\*\\* In Guo v. Xia, a civil Complaint with the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia, now pending appeal for years with the 40 Circuit, Counter-Defendant Guo testified under oath in both Deposition and jury trial that he loaned about \\$3billions \"by verbal agreement (?!)\". Now, this Mr. Slippery Willy filed Chapter 11 Petition with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut, stating that his only income is approximately 19 thousand dollars per month, while admitting all three counter-plaintiffs in this case has claims against him ranging from \\$3Million to \\$12Million in disputes. Being elected to be the member of three-member committee for unsecured creditors. Mr. Ye will certainly challenge his less than \\$240,000.00 declared income in comparison to his sworn \"verbal loan\" of \\$3billions. He made stupid mistakes in contempt of court by hiding his Lady May overseas, and attempting to evade this Court's penalty, resulted in his foolish move to seek for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. His disoriented move spared me from seeking for passive, involuntary bankruptcy against this hit n run folk.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n26\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\n-- X Wengui Guo, Plaintiff, Plaintiff vs. Baisheng Guo, et al Defendants\n\nIndex No.151251/2019 Amended Motion to Dismiss the Complaint The Honorable David B. Cohen\n\n### ORDER (DRAFT)\n\n\\_ X\n\nThis Court, having considered Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended CPLR 3211 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, having found that good cause does exist. Defendants Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended CPLR 3211 Motion be granted.\n\nThis Court, having considered Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Dismissal of the Complaint's last remaining Count by its entirety with prejudice, finding good cause does exist to grant Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' Motion. The remaining count 4 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, hence the Complaint by its entirety on plaintiff's part, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n27\n\nThis Court, further considered Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Amended Motion seeking for this Court's Relief in granting their counter-claims, finding that good cause does exist to grant the following reliefs:\n\nInjunctive Relief: Plaintiff Wengui Guo publicize a Confession and Apology to all Defendants to confess his wrongful mischief in New York Times and Wall Street Journal, by the size of no smaller than one 8th of a page, every day for seven days\\*. The text of the confession should be drafted by the counter-Plaintiff Ning Ye, and approved by this Honorable Court.\n\nPermanent injunctive relief which enjoins Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, from engaging in any such defamatory actions against Defendants in any media.\n\nPermanent injunctive relief which enjoins Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, for submitting detailed accounting/auditing reports to specify, item by item, his exact assets being placed in all his shell companies and trustees, offshore financial institutions, in and out of the United States.\n\nPermanent injunctive relief which enjoins Plaintiff under the penalty of contempt, for submitting detailed accounting/auditing reports to specify, item by item, his exact assets being placed in all his shell companies and trustees, offshore financial institutions, in and out of the United States, specifically disclose the contents of his \"verbal loaning\" funds\\*\\* funneling from any financial resources he laundered in conspiracy with such of his shell companies as Golden Spring New York, Inc., Arabic-China Foundations, any and all offshore financial institutions in the name of his spouse, his son and daughter, and his CCP/MSS handlers/corroborators within a period of 3 months after the entry of this Judgment.\n\nCounter-Plaintiffs also respectfully pray that this Honorable Court render a Declaratory Relief to Declare that all institutions, financial institution which were formed by Counter-Defendant Wengui Guo to promote counter-defendant's so-called \"litigation Revolution\" as extrateritorial persecution instrument targeting political dissidents from China, given to these institutions being penalized by the SEC, New York DA, and USDOJ, are illegal organizations., and should be hanned\n\n#### Monetary Relief\\*:\n\nCounter-Plaintiffs also respectfully pray that this Honorable Court render Monetary Relief to all Counter Plaintiffs as follows:\n\n\\$12 Million for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for Defamation per se;\n\n\\$3 Million for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for RICO Violations;\n\n\\$60,000.00 for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for filing frivolous complaint;\n\n27 of 28\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451\n\n### FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 66\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2022\n\n28\n\n\\$60,000.00 for each Counter-plaintiff, including Mr. Ning Ye and two other Counter-Plaintiffs as Mr. Gaosheng Guo and Mr. Yan Zhao for filing Retaliatory complaint.\n\nIt is so ordered on this \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nThe Honorable David B. Cohen, Justice\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 74 of 83\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1\n\nINDEX NO. 151251/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2019\n\n34. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendants a fixed fee and an incentive fee conditioned upon what information Defendants could provide to Plaintiff concerning Boxun and Xiong.\n\n35. Pursuant to the Agreement, the combined fixed fee and incentive fee payable to Defendants was to be a maximum of \\$3 million\n\n36. In reliance upon the Agreement and in good faith, Plaintiff set aside and did not otherwise invest \\$3 million based on Defendants' false representations that they could perform under the Agreement.\n\n37. Although Defendants never performed any work under the Agreement and disclosed the Agreement to various third parties in breach of the Agreement's confidentiality clause, Defendants demanded the fixed and incentive fee in the amount of \\$3 million be paid to them as though they had fully performed under the Agreement.\n\n38. Knowing they had no basis to demand payment from Plaintiff, in illegal efforts to extort payment to which Defendants were not entitled, for services which Defendants did not perform, Defendants resorted to a malicious, tortious and extortionate course of conduct, including, but not limited to: threatening physical harm to Plaintiff and his family and property, threatening to publish supposed \"facts\" concerning Plaintiff for no purpose other than to injure him, and causing Plaintiff irreparable damage to his reputation and in his business, in addition to economic damage.\n\n39. By their threats and actions, Defendants have attempted to deprive and have deprived Plaintiff of his property by fear of injury to himself and to his property.\n\nნ\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 76 of 83\n\n\n\n| । | IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | EASTERN DIVISION OF VIRGINIA |\n| 3 | |\n| র্ব | ★
WENGUI GUO |\n| 5 | Plaintiff
★ |\n| ર્ભ | Case No. : 1 : 1 8 - C V - 1 7 4
*
v S . |\n| 7 | *
YELLIANG XIA |\n| 8 | Defendant
* |\n| ி | |\n| 10 | DEPOSITION OF: |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | WENGUI GUO |\n| 13 | Tuesday, June 4, 2019 |\n| । ਪੈ | Washington D.C. |\n| 15 | 10:16 A.M. |\n| 1 6 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| । ਰੇ | |\n| 20 | Job Number: 3409553 |\n| 21 | Pages: 1-88 |\n| | 22 Court Reporter: Stayce Lawson, Court Reporter |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 79 of 83\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 80 of 83\n\n| ਜਾ | | Q. Do you have you any assets that you pledge as |\n|------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | | collateral for the loans? |\n| ന | | A. I don't understand what you're saying. Is this |\n| ਦੇ | before or now? | |\n| 5 | ၁ | You say that you get money through loans. |\n| 6 | | that correct?
] ន |\n| 7 | A. | Uh-huh . |\n| ಹ | | Q. Now, do you people give you loans just based on |\n| の | | who you are, or do you promise them collateral? You do |\n| 1 0 | | understand what collateral is, correct? |\n| 11 | A. | Some I do, some I don't. |\n| 12 | : | Okay. So how much would you say is |\n| 13 | | collateralized? In other words, how much of your loans |\n| 1 4 | | are based on collateral? |\n| 15 | | A. I could not tell you that. I couldn't answer |\n| । ਦ | | that because I don't see what that is related to this |\n| 17 | | case. The question that you are asking, if we want to |\n| | | 18 - talk about it, it's going to take all day long. |\n| । ਤੇ | | Q. Okay. We can talk all day long. Please answer |\n| 20 | the question. | |\n| 21 | | A. You said we can take all day long? What's the |\n| 22 | question? | |\n\n| rri | Q. How much of your loans are collateralized? |\n|------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| N | MR. MORRISSY: Are you seeking a dollar |\n| 3 | amount? |\n| র্ব | MR. DENNIS: I'm seeking a dollar amount. |\n| 5 | Twelve billion to thirteen billion.
A. |\n| ર | Is that RMB or US dollars?
. Q. |\n| 7 | Dollars.
A. |\n| ಕ | Q. And what are the assets that you use to |\n| ் | collateralize that? |\n| 10 | A. Some of them is our real estate, our family real |\n| 다 대 | estate in China, and some of them are my personal |\n| 12 | guarantee. |\n| 13 | Q.
Okay. The physical assets, where are those |\n| 」で | located? |\n| 15 | Except for this one that I currently reside in
A. |\n| 16 | New York, most of them are in China. |\n| 1 7 | Q. And in China, do you know the mainland or Hong |\n| 18 | Kong or both? |\n| 19 | That's including Hong Kong and China.
A. |\n| 20 | Do you have any assets that are non-physical
Q. |\n| | 21 such as accounts receivables, bonds, any holding in |\n| | 22 other corporations, anything along those lines? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 82 of 83\n\n| 1 | A. | You mean personally do I have it? |\n|------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | () . | Yes. Do you have access to that? |\n| 3 | A. | No . |\n| ব | | Q. And when you say that you borrowed the money and |\n| 5 | | pledged those assets, do you actually have signed loans |\n| 6 | for those amounts? | |\n| 7 | A. | Some I do, and some I don't. |\n| ಕ | · Q. | Okay. The ones that are collateralized, are |\n| の | | those reduced to writing, those loans? |\n| 1 0 | A. | Most of them don't require my signature, but |\n| 11 | some I do. | |\n| 12 | Q. | Okay. So the people who loaned you the money, |\n| । ਤ | | how do they get you the money? |\n| । ਚੋ | A. | Most of them are based on the contract. Most of |\n| 1 5 | | them are given to the loan account. |\n| 16 | | Based on the stipulation on the loan aqreement, |\n| 17 | | the loan will be provided to the account dated on the |\n| 18 | contract. | |\n| । ਹੈ | () . | Okay. When you don't have a contract, how does |\n| 20 | | the money get transferred? |\n| 21 | | A. Those that have no contract, we will just orally |\n| 22 | agree . | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 83 of 83\n\n| 」 | Q. Right. But how do they know where to send the |\n|------|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | money? |\n| ട് | Based on our oral agreement and instruction tha
A. |\n| ರ್ | they would just follow. |\n| 5 | And how do you pay these loans back?
Q. |\n| ട | A.
It's based on my reputation, my personal |\n| 7 | reputation and the future. |\n| ಕ | Based on our verbal agreement, the conditions |\n| თ | agree upon our verbal agreement. And also based on |\n| 10 | their trust on my future capability of making the · |\n| । T | repayment, and also based on the collateral pledged. |\n| 12 | Okay. And these are friends who loan you the
(2. |\n| 13 | money .
Is that correct? |\n| । ক | They are organizations.
A. |\n| 15 | Okay. What organizations are they?
Q . |\n| 1 6 | Personal investor.
A. |\n| 17 | Private funds and investment funds. |\n| 18 | Okay. And how long have you been using that as
Q. |\n| 19 | a source of income? |\n| 20 | A.
Two years. |\n| 21 | Okay. And do you file taxes in the United
o |\n| 22 | States? |","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文件 451 提交于 06/01/22 录入于 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 1 页，共 83 页\n\n美利坚合众国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区，布里奇波特分院\n\n)\n\n)\n\n)\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 债务人\n\n第 11 章 案卷号 22-50073 债权证明及制裁动议\n债权人债权证明及制裁动议*\n\n现由以下三名自行出庭的具名债权人 Ning Ye（叶宁）、Yan Zhao（赵岩）及 Baosheng Guo（郭宝胜），谨向本尊敬法院共同及分别提交其债权证明如下（其副本见附件 1），并恭请本尊敬法院对申请人 Ho Wan Kwok（又名 Wengui Guo）实施制裁，原因是其破产欺诈在本尊敬法院内不断蔓延，达到毫无约束的疯狂程度。\n\n此外，债务人 Kwok 对本院及其积极侵入和滥用的本国任何法院所实施的欺诈行为，生动展示了一种前所未有的腐败行为模式，其显著特征为中国极权主义政治亚文化腐蚀美国主流法律文化。整个美国司法系统已面临前所未有的挑战，即此类不断蔓延的 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）细胞对有毒异质文化的侵入；如不妥善遏制，其倾向于腐蚀本国司法机构的完整性。因此，这些自行出庭的债权人恳请本尊敬法院将此惯常说谎者移送美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice），予以刑事起诉，并施加民事处罚，以维护本国司法文化完整性的基本存续。\n\n将该三名债权人列入无担保债权人名单，系基于 Kwok 先生在纽约最高法院（New York Supreme Court）提起的一项显然轻率的民事诉讼，即 Wengui Guo（又名 Hao Wan Kwok）诉 Gaosheng Guo（郭高胜）等人，（案卷号：151251/2019），涉及六（6）项罪名：(1) 敲诈及敲诈未遂；(2)\n\n* 为减少纸张，大多数以纸质方式提交的附件均为节选。作为引证数据库使用的完整法院文件及 06/04/2019 证言笔录连同本动议的可文本检索 PDF 格式，已缩减存储于一张 C D 记忆棒中，该记忆棒可协助法院将其转入 ECF 案卷系统。\n\nKwok 先生针对被告/反诉原告所实施的诽谤、当然诽谤及 RICO 罪行等侵权行为（请参见附件 4 和 5）。该三名反诉原告提出的反诉由压倒性证据支持，目前正由纽约最高法院等待处理。\n三名具名债权人恳请本尊敬法院惩处债务人 Hao Wan Kwok，因其在明显恶意故意隐瞒资产方面肆意蔓延的欺诈流行，并使其就其在数十亿美元级别欺骗法院的惯常模式承担民事及刑事后果\n\n以下三名具名债权人谨恳请本尊敬法院对债务人 Hao Wan Kwok 实施制裁，因其在明显恶意故意隐瞒资产方面肆意蔓延的欺诈流行，并使其就其在数十亿美元级别欺骗法院的惯常模式承担民事及刑事后果。\nA. Kwok 先生可能在本院前欺诈性隐瞒了 $3 Million\n\n在债务人可能故意隐瞒的其他隐藏或可见资产中，Hao Wan Kwok 先生至少曾在本尊敬法院前恶意欺诈性隐瞒 US$3,000,000.00：\n\n在其向纽约最高法院提交的经核实起诉状所载的引发事由中，债务人陈述：\n\n第 36 段：“原告基于被告关于其能够履行本协议的虚假陈述，依赖本协议并出于善意预留且未以其他方式投资 $3million”；（案号 151251/2019，文件 1，附件 6，第 6 页，相关页面中有关部分以黄色高亮显示，作为附件 7）\n\n债务人 Kwok 从未就“协议”向该三名被指称的合同相对方支付过任何一分钱；其“预留”的 $3million，据其本人当事人自认，从未用于任何商业投资。记录显示，此人在其自夸的“multibillionaire（数十亿美元富翁）”与“penniless poor man（身无分文的穷人）”之间反复摇摆，甚至不时于同一天内如此，其在向本院提交其“穷人”破产申请时，欺诈性隐瞒了其“$3,000,000.00”现金储备；\nB. Kwok 先生可能在本院前欺诈性隐瞒了 US$12-13 Billion 现金资产及/或其藏匿地点\n\n记录显示，Hao Wan Kwok 先生一直过着奢侈生活方式，除其豪宅外，曾拥有并占有两架破旧私人飞机及一艘或两艘豪华游艇。此外，他已支付数千万美元，甚至可能数亿美元，实施各种撒旦式邪恶行动，包括雇凶、雇佣间谍公司监视顶级中国共产党叛逃者、扰乱美国民主选举程序。腐蚀现任或退休的美国及英国高级政治人士及其副手，高度可能违反 18 U.S. Code § 201，构成多项重罪；并再次投入数千万美元，动员提起针对数十名政治异议人士的轻率民事诉讼，其中大多因轻率而败诉，借由滥用横跨全美的美国司法系统。其在美国的所有秘密行动，均是为了通过其公开宣读的宣言，作为中共系统训练的战略级职业间谍，履行其对中国共产党（CCP）、对中共最高独裁者 Xi Jinping（习近平）以及对中共情报机构所负的终身忠诚和职业职责。其突出特征是，其表面上具有合法性质的黑钱似乎无穷无尽，显然通过规模巨大的国际洗钱，从中共国库为其无上限的全能秘密警察预算输送而来：\n\n在面临其如此疯狂程度的所有不法行为后果时，此人立即变成一名“身无分文的穷人”。该债务人极有可能欺诈性隐瞒的最大资产可能已达到如下惊人水平：US$12-13Billions。此种恶意欺诈性隐瞒的金额，在本尊敬法院的历史上可能前所未有：\n\n2019 年 6 月 5 日，Hao Wan Kwok 先生在 Guo v. Xia 一案中宣誓作证，即在承担法律伪证处罚的情况下作证如下：\n\na. 在 2017 年至 2019 年的两年期间，他通过个人贷款筹集了 U.S. $12-13 billion（用于资助其生活方式及其为改变世界而伪装的大量行动，补充）；\nb. 此类贷款的部分来源为其所谓的“family trust funds（家族信托基金）”；\nc. 其中部分贷款共计 $12-13Billion，系通过口头协议筹集，未签订书面贷款协议，亦无任何抵押品作为质押；\nd. 其中部分以其位于曼哈顿中城的豪宅作为质押（他承认，其据称由“shadow corporation（影子公司）”拥有的纽约房产，是为其共计 $12-13billion 的“个人贷款”提供质押的抵押品。（见作为附件 8 的证言笔录）\n\n以下为证言作证期间 Harry Danis III 律师（“Q”）与 Ho Wan Kwok（“A”）之间的问答：\n\n问：您如何支付产生的任何账单？答：我借钱支付所有账单。问：您从哪里借钱？答：我向我的朋友借。从亲属……从家人、家族基金、家族基金会借。（Ho Wan Kwok 的证言，06/04/2019，第 11 页，附件 8）问：现在，人们仅仅基于您是谁就向您提供贷款，还是您向他们承诺抵押品？您理解什么是抵押品，对吗？答：有些我提供，有些我不提供。问：好的。那么您会说有多少金额设有抵押？换言之，您有多少贷款以抵押品为基础？（Ho Wan Kwok 的证言，6/04/2019，第 12 页，附件 8）问：您有多少贷款设有抵押？MORRISSY 先生：您是在寻求一个金额吗？DENNIS 先生：我在寻求一个金额。答：一百二十亿至一百三十亿美元。问：那是人民币还是美元？答：美元。8 问：您用于为其提供抵押的资产是什么？答：其中一些是我们的房地产、我们在中国的家族房地产，其中一些是我的个人担保。问：好的。那些实物资产位于何处？答：除我目前居住在纽约的这一处外，大多数在中国。（Ho Wan Kwok 的证言，6/04/2019，第 13 页，附件 8）\n\n问：好的。那么借钱给您的人，他们如何将钱给您？答：大多数基于合同。大多数根据贷款协议中的约定，存入贷款账户。贷款将提供至合同载明的账户。\n\n问：好的。在您没有合同的情况下，钱如何转移？答：没有合同的，我们就口头约定。（Ho Wan Kwok 的证言，6/04/2019，第 14 页，附件 8）问：对。但是他们如何知道把钱汇到哪里？答：依据我们的口头协议和他们将遵循的指示。问：您如何偿还这些贷款？答：这基于我的信誉、我的个人信誉和未来。基于我们口头协议中约定的条件。也基于他们对我未来还款能力的信任，并且也基于所质押的抵押品。问：好的。这些是借钱给您的朋友，对吗？答：他们是组织。问：好的。他们是什么组织？答：个人投资者。私人基金和投资基金。问：好的。您将其作为收入来源已有多久？答：两年。（Ho Wan Kwok 的证言，6/04/2019，第 14 页，附件 8）\n\nUS$12-13billions 是何种规模？其规模与许多小国的年度预算相当。例如，人口为 23millions 的中华民国（Republic of China, ROC）台湾，其 2018 年国防预算约为 US$ 10.7 billions。\n\n这些 US$12-13Billion 在哪里？这些 $12-13Billion 是否有任何余额？从这些 $12-13Billiuon 产生的利息是多少？来自这些 $12-13Billion 利率的现金储备，例如 $1.7-1.8Billion，是否足以偿还欠所有这些债权人及委员会成员的所有这些麻烦制造者债务，加上费用和成本？申请人/债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 先生应就其来自其“family fund（家族基金）”或投资基金的“$12-13Billion”现金、本金加利息，作出大量披露。\n\n在 2017 年至 2019 年期间筹集 US$12-13billion 个人贷款，此类现金积累的最终来源，要么是其通过空壳实体进行的自我另体资金，要么是从中共秘密警察资金外包而来。债务人先生显然混同的“fund of family（家族基金）”，其为主要控制成员，系其自身资产，高达 $12-13 billion。Kwok 先生在向本院提交第 11 章破产保护申请时，负有不可回避的法律义务，须向本尊敬法院及受托人如实披露其 $12-13Billion 的存在及所在地点。\n\n更严重的是，如 Kwok 先生从其“family funds（家族基金）”或其他机构基金筹集了该等 $12-13Billion 贷款，为何其未在其第 11 章破产保护申请中列明并披露这些数十亿美元债权人？\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）根据其本人在宣誓后所作证词，恶意且欺诈性地向本尊敬法院隐瞒高达 US$13.03Billions 的巨额个人资产/现金储备，其行为似乎已构成依下文所讨论相关法律法规欺诈美国政府的加重重罪。\n\n讨论：\n\n隐匿财产可依据 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) 或 § 152(7) 提出指控。这两款之间的一项重要区别是，根据第 (1) 款，被隐匿的财产必须属于破产财产。\n\n第 152 条第 (1) 款规定：\n\n任何人……明知且欺诈性地向受托管理人、受托人、法警或其他负责控制或保管财产的法院官员隐匿，或者就依据 title 11 的案件而言，向债权人或 United States Trustee（美国受托人）隐匿，任何属于债务人破产财产的财产；……应被处以罚金……监禁……或两者并处。\n\n政府依据 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) 必须证明的隐匿罪构成要件为：破产程序已经存在；被告向受托管理人欺诈性地隐匿该财产；以及该财产属于破产财产。见 United States v. Guiliano, 644 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1981)；United States v. Beery, 678 F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066 (1985)。另见 Devitt, Blackmar & O'Malley：《Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 24.03 (4th ed. 1990)》。\n\n尽管 § 152 本身未提供定义，短语“属于债务人破产财产的财产”已被作广义解释，包括“在提交破产申请之日债务人对财产拥有的任何法定、衡平或受益权益，或[债务人]在案件开始后可能取得的任何权益，但个人劳务收入或贷款所得除外。”United States v. Moody, 923 F.2d 341, 348 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 821 (1991)（认可含有上述措辞的指示）；United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 677 (reh'g denied)(10th Cir. 1989)(11 U.S.C. § 541 应作广义解释，以包括无论位于何处、由任何人持有的所有财产权益)。这一包罗万象的定义要求债务人披露可能构成破产财产的所有财产信息。$12-13.03Billion 绝非小数目，这位具有共产主义复兴使命背景的狡猾“身无分文”的亿万富翁不可能因一时疏忽而忽略该数额。\n\n对 18 U.S.C. § 152 的合理解读是，该法条要求破产人披露即时状态尚不确定的资产的存在。即使最终根据 Federal Bankruptcy Code（联邦破产法典）的技术性规则确定该资产不属于破产财产，第 152 条仍适当地对未报告该资产、从而抢先阻碍法院作出裁定者施加制裁。United States v. Cherek, 734 F.2d 1248, 1254 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985)，着重号为后加。\n\n被告不得隐匿其对破产财产中财产享有的衡平权益。某项资产的法定所有权并非由破产财产持有这一事实，并不免除被告披露破产财产对该资产所享有衡平权益的义务。United States v. Weinstein, 834 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th Cir. 1987), post conviction relief denied, 931 F.2d 899 (1991)；United States v. Moynagh, 566 F.2d 799, 803 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 917 (1978)；United States v. Schireson, 116 F.2d 881, 883 (3d Cir. 1941)。即使最终被确定不属于破产财产的财产，为起诉目的亦可被视为已被隐匿。United States v. Martin, 408 F.2d 949, 953 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 824 (1969)。\n\n资产是否为债务人的财产并属于破产财产，仍是应由陪审团决定的事实问题。United States v. Weinstein, 834 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1987), post conviction relief denied, 931 F.2d 899 (1991)；United States v. Robbins, 997 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 391 (1993)。在法律对于债务人是否确实会收到该财产尚不确定的情形下，该不确定性可能与判断被告未披露该潜在资产时是否具有明知且欺诈的意图有关。United States v. Collins, 424 F. Supp. 465 (E.D.Ky. 1977)（警察部门被停职成员未披露其若获复职可获得补发工资；因法律对于被告在其停职期间能否获得该等补发工资尚不确定，证据被认定不足以证明欺诈意图）。\n\n在此，要获得定罪，并不要求实际采取措施藏匿破产财产。“Conceal”（隐匿）在此并非仅指秘密藏匿或隐藏。事实上，破产欺诈被告根本无须实际隐藏财产。“Conceal”还指阻止发现资产或隐瞒对资产的知情，因为破产申请人负有以诚信向本尊敬法院披露破产财产的积极义务。见 United States v. Schireson, 116 F.2d 881, 884 (3d Cir. 1941)；Burchinal v. United States, 342 F.2d 982, 985 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843 (1965)。\n\n因此，由于债务人负有在债务人财产清单中列明所有破产财产的积极义务，未在破产清单中列出某项资产可构成该法条下的隐匿。Coghlan v. United States, 147 F.2d 233 (8th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 888 (1945)；United States v. Grant, 971 F.2d 799, 807 (en banc)(1st Cir. 1992)。\n\n此外，Kwok 先生的欺骗计划还可能受 False Statements Accountability Act of 1996（1996 年虚假陈述问责法，FSAA）, Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), 的约束。FSAA 作出了数项影响 United States Attorneys' Offices（美国联邦检察官办公室）工作的修改，包括对 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 6005 及 28 U.S.C. 1365 的修订。通常，被控加重欺诈罪的被告可能倾向于援引第 2(b) 款，主张申请人及其律师因具有旨在不妨碍法律辩护的有限豁免权而不受欺诈处罚。\n\n18 U.S.C. § 1001, 2 (b) 规定：\n\n2. 命令 Kwok 先生将其欺诈性隐匿的 $12.03-13.03 billions 交付至破产财产的法院指定账户，或交付至由法院指定的 Trustees/Receivers（受托人/接管人）在 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）监督下设立的任何其他适当形式的推定信托，以首先遏制其对美国及其公民持续不断造成的损害；\n\n3. 命令该欺诈性债务人赔偿所有债权人、委员会成员因其提交该等轻率、无知且欺诈性的 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection Petition（第 11 章破产保护申请）而产生的可计费工时费用，作为附带损害赔偿的一部分；\n\n4. 下列签署债权人理解，有关因故意隐匿破产财产而进行破产欺诈及重罪欺诈刑事起诉的法律并非自动执行，因此不得由私人当事人提起；然而，我们谨请本尊敬法院将这名涉案规模前所未有的可能违法者移交 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）进行刑事调查和起诉。\n\n5. 禁止申请人/债务人以任何方式进一步实施隐匿其破产财产的欺诈行为的禁令救济，并严正警告其将面临藐视法庭处罚；\n\n6. 驳回申请人撤回其破产申请的动议。\n\n7. 确认性救济：\n\n下列签署债权人请求本法院宣告，以债务人的该等另我直系家庭成员名义持有的所有资产，或其持续与之混同财产的机构名下的所有资产，均为属于 Ho Wan Kwok 先生的资产。\n\n8. 本尊敬法院认为适当且必要的其他救济。\n\n谨呈。\n\n/s/Ning Ye（叶宁），自行诉讼\n\n/s/Yan Zhao（赵燕），自行诉讼\n\n/s/Baosheng Guo（郭宝胜），自行诉讼\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于 2022 年 5 月 26 日，他们通过其律师向申请人/债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）送达了题述动议及全部支持证据的副本，收件人为下列地址；该等文件装入密封信封，以预付邮资的优先邮件方式，经 USPS（美国邮政署）寄送：\n\nDylan P. Kletter, Esq. 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 以及\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga, Esq. 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\ns/Ning Ye（叶宁）：\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）\n\nEJ 289 245 054 US 1\n债权证明\n\n填写本表前请阅读说明。本表用于在破产案件中提出付款债权。请勿使用本表请求支付行政费用。应根据 11 U.S.C. § 503 提出该等请求。\n\n04/22\n\n提交人必须在本表或任何所附文件中略去或涂抹有权受隐私保护的信息。请附上支持该债权的任何文件的经涂抹副本，例如采购订单、发票、未履行记录的逐项明细、判决、抵押贷款及担保协议。请勿寄送原始文件；其可能在扫描后被销毁。如任何文件无法提供，请在附件中说明。\n\n提交欺诈性债权的人可被处以最高 $500,000 的罚金、最高 5 年监禁，或两者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571。\n\n请填写案件的全部信息。该日期载于您收到的破产通知（Form 309）中。\n\n识别债权\nali a Ba\n\n1. 现任债权人是谁？ 现任债权人姓名（应就本债权获得付款的个人或实体）\n债权人曾用于债务人的其他名称\n\n2. 本债权是否从他人处取得？ D 否\n是。从何人处取得？\n\n3. 应将发给债权人的通知及付款寄往何处？\nFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则）\n(FRBP) 2002(g) 应将发给债权人的通知寄往何处？\n\n姓名\n38th Ave\n\n门牌号\n街道\nushing\n邮政编码\n州\n718 308 6626\n联系电话\n联系电子邮箱 Vening USA a gimail. Com\n第 13 章电子付款统一债权标识符（如您使用）： 应将付款寄往何处？（如\n不同）\n\nNing\n姓名\n门牌号\n街道\n城市\n联系电话\n联系电子邮箱 12\n州 邮政编码\n\n4. 本债权是否修改已提交的债权？ A 否\n是。法院债权登记册中的债权编号（如已知）________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 提交日期\nMM / DD : ҮҮҮҮҮ\n\n5. 您是否知道是否有其他人为本债权提交过债权证明？ 2 否\nJ 是。谁作出了较早提交？\n\n您是否有任何用于识别债务人的号码？ LINO\n\n索赔金额是多少？ $ 12,000,000,000 该金额是否包括利息或其他费用？\n\n否\n\n是。附上明细说明，列明《破产规则》3001(c)(2)(A)要求的利息、费用、支出或其他收费。\n\n索赔的依据是什么？ 示例：已售货物、借出款项、租赁、已提供服务、人身伤害或非正常死亡，或信用卡。\n\n附上《破产规则》3001(c)要求的任何支持该索赔文件的删节副本。\n\n限制披露有权受隐私保护的信息，例如医疗保健信息。\n\n清算/罪名项\n\n索赔的全部或部分是否有担保？ 否\n\n是。该索赔由对财产的留置权担保。\n\n财产性质：\n\n机动车\n\n其他。说明： 不动产。若该索赔由债务人的主要住所担保，请随本债权申报表提交《抵押债权申报附件》（官方表格410-A）。\n\n完善担保的依据：\n\n附上文件的删节副本（如有），以证明担保权益已完善（例如，抵押、留置权、所有权证书、融资声明或其他显示该留置权已提交或登记的文件）。\n\n财产价值： $\n\n有担保部分的索赔金额：\n\n无担保部分的索赔金额： $___________________（有担保及无担保金额之和应与第7行的金额相符。）\n\n截至申请日补救任何违约所需的金额：\n\n固定\n\n浮动 年利率（案件提交时）____________%\n\n该索赔是否基于租赁？ 否\n\n是。截至申请日补救任何违约所需的金额。\n\n该索赔是否享有抵销权？ 否\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22_12:26:26 Page 16 of 83\n\n索赔的全部或部分是否有权根据11 U.S.C. § 507(a)享有优先权？ 否\n\n是。勾选一项： 有权享有优先权的金额\n\n一项索赔可部分为优先索赔，部分为非优先索赔。例如，在某些类别中，法律限制了有权享有优先权的金额。 根据11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A)或(a)(1)(B)规定的家庭扶养义务（包括赡养费和子女抚养费）。 $\n\n为个人、家庭或家居用途购买、租赁或出租财产或服务所支付的定金，最高为$3,350*。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)。 $\n\n在破产申请提交前180日内，或债务人企业终止营业前180日内（以较早者为准）赚取的工资、薪金或佣金（最高为$15,150*）。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4)。 $\n\n欠政府单位的税款或罚金。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)。 $\n\n向雇员福利计划缴纳的供款。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)。 $\n\n其他。请注明适用的11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(__ )款。 $\n\n* 对于在调整日当日或之后开始的案件，金额将于4/01/25及其后每3年进行调整。\n\n第3部分：\n在下方签署\n\n填写本债权申报表的人必须签署并注明日期。FRBP 9011(b)。 勾选适当选项：\n\n我是债权人。\n\n我是债权人的律师或授权代理人。\n\n如以电子方式提交本索赔，FRBP 5005(a)(2)授权法院制定地方规则，规定何为签名。 我是受托人、债务人或其授权代理人。《破产规则》3004。\n\n我是保证人、担保人、背书人或其他共同债务人。《破产规则》3005。\n\n我理解，对本债权申报表作出的授权签名即表示确认：在计算索赔金额时，债权人已将就该债务收到的任何付款计入债务人的贷方。\n\n提交虚假索赔的人可能被处以最高$500,000罚款。 我已审阅本债权申报表中的信息，并有合理理由相信该信息真实且正确。\n\n可被处以最长5年监禁，或二者并处。\n\n18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571。 我在伪证处罚的约束下声明，前述内容真实且正确。\n\n可被处以最长5年监禁，或二者并处。\n\n3571。\n\n签署日期 05/20/2022\n\n签名\n\n请打印填写并签署本索赔的人士姓名：\n\n姓名 →\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n职务\n\n公司 如授权代理人为服务机构，请将公司服务机构注明为公司。 1800 520\n\n地址 3 - 50-01\n\n号码\n\n街道\n\n城市 州 邮政编码\n\n联系电话 718308 662 电子邮箱 Uningusaa/gmai\n\n官方表格410\n\n债权申报表\n\n04/22\n\n填写本表前请阅读说明。本表用于在破产案件中提出付款索赔。请勿使用本表请求支付行政费用。应依11 U.S.C. § 503提出该等请求。\n\n提交人必须在本表或任何附随文件中省略或删节有权受隐私保护的信息。附上支持索赔的任何文件的删节副本，例如本票、订单、发票、往来账户明细表、合同、判决书、抵押文件及担保协议。请勿发送原件；原件可能在扫描后被销毁。如文件无法取得，请在附件中说明。\n\n提交虚假索赔的人可能被处以最高$500,000罚款、最长5年监禁，或二者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571。\n\n填写案件提交时的所有信息。该日期载于您收到的破产通知（表格309）中。\n\n索赔\n确定索赔\n\n现任债权人是谁？ Crub Taosheng（克鲁布·陶生）\n\n现任债权人姓名（应就该索赔获得付款的人或实体）\n\n债权人曾与债务人使用的其他名称 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n该索赔是否从他人处取得？ 否\n\n是。从何人处取得？\n\n债权人的通知和付款应寄往何处？\n\nFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则，FRBP）2002(g) 债权人的通知应寄往何处？\n\nBaosheng GMC（宝盛 GMC）\n\n姓名\n\n35-11\n\n38th\n\nStreet\n\n号码\n\nUChina\n\n州\n\n邮政编码\n\n联系电话 7183086220\n\n联系电子邮箱 YEDING USA a giventi , Corve\n\n第13章电子付款的统一索赔识别码（如使用）： 债权人的付款应寄往何处？（如地址不同）\n\n姓名\n\n号码\n\n街道\n\n城市\n\n联系电话\n\n联系电子邮箱 州\n\n邮政编码\n\n本索赔是否修改已提交的索赔？ 否\n\n是。法院债权登记册中的索赔编号（如知悉）_ 提交日期 MM\n\nIDD\n\n/ ҮҮҮҮҮҮ\n\n5. 您是否知道他人已就该索赔提交债权申报表？ 否\n\n是。谁作出了较早的提交？\n\n6. 您是否有用于识别债务人的任何号码？ 否\n\n请提供债务人账户号码的最后4位数字，或您用于识别债务人的任何号码。22 = 500 7 \\\n\n索赔金额是多少？ $ 12,000,000.00 UU . U\n\n否\n\n是。附上明细说明，列明《破产规则》3001(c)(2)(A)要求的利息、费用、支出或其他收费。\n\n索赔的依据是什么？ 示例：已售货物、借出款项、租赁、已提供服务、人身伤害或非正常死亡，或信用卡。\n\n附上《破产规则》3001(c)要求的任何支持该索赔文件的删节副本。\n\n限制披露有权受隐私保护的信息，例如医疗保健信息。\n\n与法院进行诉讼\n\n索赔的全部或部分是否有担保？ 否\n\n是。该索赔由对财产的留置权担保。\n\n财产性质：\n\n不动产。若该索赔由债务人的主要住所担保，请随本债权申报表提交《抵押债权申报附件》（官方表格410-A）。\n\n机动车\n\n其他。说明：\n\n完善担保的依据：\n\n附上文件的删节副本（如有），以证明担保权益已完善（例如，抵押、留置权、所有权证书、融资声明或其他显示该留置权已提交或登记的文件）。\n\n财产价值： $\n\n有担保部分的索赔金额： $\n\n无担保部分的索赔金额： $___________________（有担保及无担保金额之和应与第7行的金额相符。）\n\n截至申请日补救任何违约所需的金额： $\n\n固定\n\n浮动 年利率（案件提交时）\n\n10. 该索赔是否基于租赁？\n\n否\n\n是。截至申请日补救任何违约所需的金额。\n\n11. 该索赔是否享有抵销权？ 否\n\n是。请确定财产：\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22_12:26:26 Page 19 of 83\n\n12. 索赔的全部或部分是否有权根据11 U.S.C. § 507(a)享有优先权？ 否\n\n是。勾选一项： 有权享有优先权的金额\n\n一项索赔可部分为优先索赔，部分为非优先索赔。例如， 根据11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A)或(a)(1)(B)规定的家庭扶养义务（包括赡养费和子女抚养费）。\n\n在某些类别中，法律限制了有权享有优先权的金额。 为个人、家庭或家居用途购买、租赁或出租财产或服务所支付的定金，最高为$3,350*。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)。\n\n在破产申请提交前180日内，或债务人企业终止营业前180日内（以较早者为准）赚取的工资、薪金或佣金（最高为$15,150*）。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4)。\n\n欠政府单位的税款或罚金。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)。\n\n向雇员福利计划缴纳的供款。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)。\n\n其他。请注明适用的11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(__)款。\n\n对于在调整日当日或之后开始的案件，金额将于4/01/25及其后每3年进行调整。\n\n第3部分：在下方签署\n\n填写本债权申报表的人必须签署并注明日期。FRBP 9011(b)。\n\n如以电子方式提交本索赔，FRBP授权法院制定地方规则，规定何为签名。\n\n提交虚假索赔的人可能被处以最高$500,000罚款、最长5年监禁，或二者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571。\n\n勾选适当选项：\n\n我是债权人。\n\n我是债权人的律师或授权代理人。\n\n我是受托人、债务人或其授权代理人。《破产规则》3004。\n\n5005(a)(2)授权法院制定地方规则 我是保证人、担保人、背书人或其他共同债务人。《破产规则》3005。\n\n我理解，对本债权申报表作出的授权签名即表示确认：在计算索赔金额时，债权人已将就该债务收到的任何付款计入债务人的贷方。\n\n我已审阅本债权申报表中的信息，并有合理理由相信该信息真实且正确。\n\n我在伪证处罚的约束下声明，前述内容真实且正确。\n\n签署日期 (J)\n\n签名\n\n请打印填写并签署本索赔的人士姓名：\n\n地址\n\n姓名 NO\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n职务\n\n公司 1-614 C\n\nCh\n\n如授权代理人为服务机构，请将公司服务机构注明为公司。\n\n地址 35-1\n\n号码\n\n街道 . Not\n\n5-1\n\n城市 州 邮政编码\n\n联系电话 308\n\n662 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JO MUGUSO . Garril Come\n\n电子邮箱\n\nyeningusa wamail. Com\n\n联系电话\n\n填写本信息以确定案件：\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n债务人2\n\n（如共同提交，为配偶）\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区美国破产法院）\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n官方表格410\n\n债权申报表\n\n04/22\n\n填写本表前请阅读说明。本表用于在破产案件中提出付款索赔。请勿使用本表请求支付行政费用。应依11 U.C.S. § 503提出该等请求。\n\n提交人必须在本表或任何附随文件中省略或删节有权受隐私保护的信息。附上支持索赔的任何文件的删节副本，例如购买订单、往来账户的经核准明细表、合同、判决书、抵押文件及担保协议。请勿发送原件；文件可能在扫描后被销毁。如文件无法取得，请在附件中说明。\n\n提交虚假请求的人可被处以最高 $500,000 的罚款、最高 5 年监禁，或两者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571.\n\n填写有关本案已提交的全部信息。该日期载于您收到的破产通知（Form 309）中。\n\n确认请求\n1、现债权人是谁？ an 现债权人的姓名（应就该请求获得付款的个人或实体）\n2、该请求是否从他人处取得？ 否\n是。自何人处取得？ 债权人曾向债务人使用的其他名称\n3、应将寄给债权人的通知和付款寄往何处？\n联邦破产程序规则（FRBP）2002(g) an ZHAO do Ning\n姓名\n135-\n门牌号\nUShing\n城市\n联系电子邮箱 应将寄给债权人的通知寄往何处？\n38th Ave. #\n州\n邮政编码\n联系电话 718308 6626\nVeningusan amail. Com\n第 13 章电子付款统一请求标识符（如使用）： 不同）\n姓名\n门牌号\n街道\n城市\n联系电话\n联系电子邮箱 应将向债权人的付款寄往何处？（如\n州 邮政编码\n本请求是否修改已提交的请求？ 否 是。法院请求登记册中的请求编号（如已知） 提交日期\nMM / DD ! ҮҮҮҮҮ\n5、您是否知道他人已就本请求提交请求证明？ 否\n是。谁提交了先前的申请？\n6、您是否有用于识别债务人的任何编号？ Tres. 债务人账户号码的最后 4 位，或您用于识别债务人的任何号码：2 2 - 500 7 3\n7、请求金额是多少？ $ 12, 00 0, 000, 000, 000, DU_. 该金额是否包括利息或其他费用？\n否\n是。附上载明利息、费用、开支或破产规则 3001(c)(2)(A) 要求的其他费用明细的说明。\n该请求的依据是什么？ 示例：已售货物、借出款项、租赁、已提供服务、人身伤害或非正常死亡，或信用卡。\n附上破产规则 3001(c) 要求的支持该请求的任何文件的删节副本。\n限制披露有权受隐私保护的信息，例如医疗保健信息。\n\n该请求的全部或部分是否有担保？ 否\n是。该请求由财产留置权担保。\n财产性质：\n房地产。如该请求由债务人的主要住所担保，请随本请求证明提交抵押请求证明附件（Official Form 410-A）。\n机动车\n其他。请说明：\n完善担保权益的依据：\n附上显示担保权益已完善证据的文件删节副本（如有）（例如，抵押、留置权、产权证书、融资声明，或显示留置权已提交或登记的其他文件。）\n财产价值：\nని\n有担保的请求金额：\n$\n无担保的请求金额：$_____________________________________________________（有担保金额之和应与第 7 行的金额相符。）\n截至提交申请之日补救任何违约所需的金额：$\n年利率（案件提交时）____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________\n固定\n浮动\n\n否\n10、该请求是否基于租赁？\n是。截至提交申请之日补救任何违约所需的金额。$\n11、该请求是否享有依据 11 U.S.C. § 507(a) 的优先权？ 否\n一项请求可能部分享有优先权、部分不享有优先权。例如，在某些类别中，法律限制有权享有优先权的金额。 依据 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) 或 (a)(1)(B) 的家庭扶养义务（包括赡养费和子女抚养费）。\n为个人、家庭或家庭成员用途购买、租赁或出租财产或服务所支付的定金，最高 $3,350*。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)。\n在破产申请提交前或债务人企业终止前（以较早者为准）的 180 日内赚取的工资、薪金或佣金（最高 $15,150*）。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4)。\n欠政府单位的税款或罚款。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)。\n向雇员福利计划缴纳的供款。11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)。\n其他。请注明适用的 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)（__）款。 享有优先权的金额\n$\n$\n$\n$\nક\nક\n\n第 3 部分：\n请在下方签名 * 对于在调整日期当日或之后开始的案件，金额将于 4/01/25 及此后每 3 年调整一次。\n填写本请求证明的人必须签名并注明日期。FRBP 9011(b)。\n如以电子方式提交本请求，FRBP 5005(a)(2) 授权法院制定当地规则，以明确何种形式构成签名。 请勾选适当方框：\n我是债权人。\n我是债权人的律师或获授权代理人。\n我是受托人、债务人或其获授权代理人。破产规则 3004。\n我是保证人、担保人、背书人或其他共同债务人。破产规则 3005。\n\n我理解，对本请求证明作出的授权签名即表示确认：在计算请求金额时，债权人已就收到的用于偿还该债务的任何付款向债务人给予抵扣。\n\n提交虚假请求的人可被处以最高 $500,000 的罚款、最高 5 年监禁，或两者并处。18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157, and 3571。\n虚假请求可能为真实且正确。\n\n签署日期：05/20/201200\n\n签名\n\n请以印刷体填写完成并签署本请求之人的姓名：\n\n姓名\n\n名字\n中间名 姓氏\n职务 top ne\n公司 Uttick of\nવાય 4\ni n P\nECG\n如获授权代理人为服务商，应将公司服务商列为公司。\n地址 38th\nAVY .\n门牌号\n街道\n- Inshing 11554\n城市 州 邮政编码\n联系电话 7183086626 电子邮箱 yening its Aagmail. Co\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）\n纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\nDAVID BENJAMIN COHEN（大卫·本杰明·科恩）法官\n出庭： 合议庭\nIAS 动议 SBEEN 1\n\n法官\n\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵） 案号\n151251/2019\nFlamatt， 01/27/2020\n动议日期\n动议序号\n(15\n10 11 10\nGUO BAOSHENG（郭宝胜）、YAN ZHAO（赵岩）、NING YE（叶宁） 关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告\n\n以下已电子提交的文件，按 NYSCEF 文件编号（动议 006）55、80、62 列示，已就本项要求驳回的动议予以审阅。\n\n基于前述文件，现裁定如下：\n\n驳回动议部分准许，部分驳回。起诉状列明六项诉因：(1) 敲诈及企图敲诈；(2) 共谋实施欺诈；(4) 违约；(5) 违反诚信及公平交易义务；以及 (6) 对商业关系的不法干预。被告依据 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 提出驳回动议，理由是未能陈述诉因。\n\n在依据 CPLR §3211 审理驳回动议时，法院应对诉状作“宽松解释，将起诉状中所述事实视为真实，并给予原告一切可能的有利推论”（Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., 22 NY3d 1, 5-6 (2013); Faison v. Lewis, 25 NY3d 220 (2015)）。但是，如起诉状在其文义范围内未能陈述构成诉因所必需的要件，该请求必须予以驳回（Andre Strishak & Associates, P.C. v. Hewlent Packard & Co., 300）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官办公室，2008 年\nNYSCEF：已提交，日期：\nHoldings Corp., 127 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2015]［“法院适当驳回了欺诈请求，因其与违约请求重复；原告仅主张 11MS 在作出承诺时虚假陈述其履行合同义务的意图。”］Arnon Ltd v Belervalier, 125 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2015]［被告的欺诈诱导反诉被驳回，因其与违约反诉重复；原告被指称的虚假陈述——其有能力并有意立即向被告付款——仅为“对未来履行的不真诚承诺”］；Forty Central Park South, Inc. v Anza, 117 AD3d 523 [1st Dept. 2014]［起诉状未能陈述欺诈诱导诉因，因为其实质上主张被告在作出承诺性陈述时无意履行合同，该主张仅产生违约请求。］）。本案中，起诉状主张被告就其能够对原告的敌人提供研究的能力作出虚假陈述，以欺骗原告订立服务协议。由于原告的欺诈请求实质上是主张被告从未打算履行服务协议，其仅属违约请求，与违约请求重复，必须予以驳回。\n\n此外，若欺诈诱导请求主张“不同于或附加于违约的义务违反”，则不会因与违约请求重复而被驳回（GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [1st Dept 2010]）；但本案并未主张任何独立义务。在 GoSmile 一案中，法院写道：“本院以及上诉法院均已判定，对现有事实的虚假陈述不同于对将来履行合同意图的虚假陈述，前者与合同无关，即使其可能诱使原告签署合同，因而构成独立的义务违反”（id. at 81, citing Decellald）。\n\n1612617/2019 WENGUI, GUO v. BAOSHENG, GUO 动议编号 006\n纽约县 NYSCEF 1 DORE Corp. v Chesebrough Portos, Inc. of NY Seps Fi 1986）。包括在内的程度为，若欺诈诱导请求未涉及独立义务，而实质上主张被告在作出承诺性陈述时无意履行合同，则该起诉状可依据 3211(a)(7) 被驳回，因为其仅产生违约请求（Forty Central Park South, Inc. v Anza, 117 AD3d 523 [1st Dept 2014]）。关键问题在于：是否存在诱使原告订立合同的、对未来履行意图的虚假陈述，或者对现有事实的虚假陈述（First Bark of Americas v Motor Car Funding, Inc., 257 AD2d 287 [1st Dept 1999]）。如属前者，该请求应因重复而被驳回（id.）。但是，如原告主张其因对重要现有事实的虚假陈述而被诱使订立交易，即使相同情形亦会产生违约请求，原告仍已陈述一项请求（id.）。本案中，（除起诉状和动议文件将该请求称为一般欺诈而非欺诈诱导外），起诉状并未主张任何独立义务，未主张对现有事实的任何虚假陈述，也未主张被告实施了除作出有关履行的虚假陈述以外的任何行为。由于违约请求和欺诈请求均源于未能履行合同（如下文所述），欺诈请求因重复而被驳回。\n\n驳回违约请求的动议被驳回。原告主张当事人订立了一份服务协议，其中包括固定费用和保密条款。尽管尚不清楚原告是否曾为该服务付款，但原告至少主张被告违反了协议中的保密部分（见 Minnell, at 339［法院正确认定，起诉状基于被告被指称违反该项不作出此类披露的协议，陈述了一项违约诉因］）。\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, GUO v. BAOSHENG, GUO 动议编号 008\n第 4 页，共 7 页\n\n纽约县\nNYSCEF：文件待定。将起诉状所述事实视为真实，并给予原告一切可能的有利推论，违约诉因已得到适当陈述。\n\n第五项诉因，即违反默示诚信与公平交易契约，亦因重复而被驳回。起诉状主张，因披露服务协议以及未能提供研究而违反了该默示契约。这些与违约请求所依据的前提完全相同，因此构成重复（Art Capital Group, LLC（艺术资本集团有限责任公司）v Carlyle Inv. Mgt. LIC（凯雷投资管理公司）, 151 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2017]［法院亦适当地驳回了默示诚信与公平交易契约请求，理由是其构成重复。起诉状中的指控所依据的行为与违约请求相同，并且“与据称因违反合同而产生的损害在本质上相联系”］）。此外，该契约是每一承诺人以诚信履行任何“处于受诺人地位的理性人有理由理解为已被纳入的承诺”的默示义务（Rowe v. Great Ati. & Pac. Tea Co.（大西洋及太平洋茶叶公司）, 46 NY2d 62 (1978)，援引 5 Williston, Contracts § 1293, at 3682 [rev ed 1937]）。这意味着，“任何一方均不得实施任何会产生剥夺另一方获得合同利益之效果的行为”（Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv.（教育考试服务机构）, 87 NY 2d 384, 389 [1995]）。在此，不存在任何指控称被告采取了任何并非据称由合同所预见的行为。也不存在任何指控称被告实施了任何破坏原告获得已履行合同利益能力的行为。相反，唯一的请求是被告未履行其在合同项下的义务。\n\n侵权干涉商业关系的诉因亦被驳回。侵权干涉合同及商业关系“要求存在原告与第三方之间的有效合同、被告知悉该合同、被告无正当理由地故意促成第三方违反合同、合同实际遭到违反，以及由此产生的损害”（Lama Holding Co v Smith Barney Inc.（史密斯·巴尼公司）, 88 NY2d 413, 424 (1996)）。在此，就该请求提出的全部事实为：“在订立协议之前，原告与第三方存在商业关系”，被告对此知情；并且，在被告散布有关原告的谣言并公开服务协议的存在之后，“原告的商业关系因妨碍原告从事其他有利可图的商业项目而受到损害。”除关于其他当事方的模糊、结论性且不具体的指控外，原告未陈述任何与该诉因有关的事实。原告未提供其失去的合同或机会的任何细节，未指明任何第三方，甚至未称其已与第三方订立实际协议。因此，原告未能陈述该诉因的第一项要件。\n\n最后，关于共谋实施欺诈的诉因被驳回。纽约州不承认独立的共谋实施欺诈诉因（Hoeffner v Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ILP（奥睿律师事务所）, 85 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2011]）。“尽管原告可以在欺诈或其他侵权请求中指称各方实施共谋，但共谋实施欺诈或侵权本身并不构成诉因”（见 MBF Clearing Corp. v. Shine, 212 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]，援引 Brackett v Griswold, 112 NY 454 (1889)）。鉴于民事共谋不是独立侵权，其不能拥有自身独立的损害赔偿计算标准；任何可归因于原告共谋请求的损害，仅存在于可就欺诈判定的损害之中”（同上）。相反，“本案起诉状中指控共谋的陈述被视为相关的其余诉因的一部分”（Errant Gene Therapeutics（埃兰特基因治疗公司））。\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, GUO（郭文贵）诉 BAOSHENG, GUO（郭宝胜） 动议编号：006\n\n第 5 页，共 7 页\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY / CLE\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号及第三方被告知悉该合同\n\n由于不再存在侵权诉因，且本案属于商业／合同事项，民事共谋诉因必须驳回。据此，现命令如下：\n\n裁定：准许驳回动议，但仅限于驳回第一、第二、第三、第五及第六项诉因；其余部分驳回。\n\n151251/2019 WENGUI, GUO（郭文贵）诉 BAOSHENG, GUO（郭宝胜） 动议编号：006\n\n第 7 页，共 7 页\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 451 Filed 06/01/22 Entered 06/03/22 12:26:26 Page 31 of 83\n\nNYSCEF 收到日期：01/22/2020\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n原告 ）案号：151251/2019\n\n诉 ）驳回动议通知\n\nBaosheng GUO（郭宝胜）等 ）\n\n被告\n\n被告方驳回动议通知\n\n致原告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），通过\n\nAaron A. Mitchell, Esq.（阿伦·A·米切尔律师）\n\n特此通知：基于被告方于 January 21, 2020 正式确认的随附宣誓陈述、随附法律备忘录，以及本案迄今为止的全部诉状和程序，下列签署人将于 February 7, 2020（星期五）上午 9:30，或此后律师能够获准陈述意见时，在 60 Centre Street, New York 10007，130 号法庭，向本院申请作出实体性判决命令，依据 CPLR 3211 (a) (7) 和 CPLR 3013 驳回起诉状。\n\n特此进一步通知：根据 CPLR 2214(b)，如有答辩文件，必须至迟于本动议通知开庭日期前七（7）日向下列签署人送达。\n\n日期：New York, New York, New York。\n\nJanuary 21, 2020\n\n谨呈；\n\n/s/Defendants, Esq.（被告方律师） 被告方律师 135-11 38th Avenue, Rm. 1A Flushing, NY 11354 电话：7183086626；传真：7182285816 电子邮件：ynyale@aolcom 致：原告，通过 Aaron Mitchell, Esq.（阿伦·米切尔律师），经 ECF 电子提交系统\n\n---- X\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：55\n\nNYSCEF 收到日期：01/22/2020\n\n纽约州最高法院\n\n纽约县\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n原告 ）案号：151251/2019\n\n诉 ）驳回动议通知\n\nBaosheng GUO（郭宝胜）等 ）\n\n被告\n\n被告方驳回动议及其法律备忘录*\n\n全体被告通过其下列签署律师 Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师），谨请本院根据 CPLR 3211(a)(7)、CPLR 3013、CPLR 3016 (b) 及其他违规事项，驳回原告毫无根据、毫无头绪且轻率的起诉状；该起诉状显然意图滥用美国司法制度，无论其系由原告本人或敌对外国势力中的其操控者所驱使，并应有偏见地整体驳回。\n\n背景简介\n\nOn February 5, 2019，被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）通过其律师 Aaron Mitchell, Esq.（阿伦·米切尔律师），针对所列被告提交了一份教科书式的轻率起诉状，提出以下六项诉因：\n\n敲诈及企图敲诈\n\n欺诈\n\n共谋实施欺诈\n\n违反合同\n\n违反默示诚信与公平交易契约\n\n侵权干涉商业关系\n\n迄今为止，原告未能向任何被告完成适当送达，或可称仅向被告 Baosheng Guo（郭宝胜）完成送达。\n\n所有这些起诉状均已由被告方及时答辩，并提出被告方反诉。\n\n该轻率起诉状正等待本尊敬法院作出裁决。\n\n该起诉状不仅毫无根据，而且毫无头绪，因其轻率性，应有偏见地整体驳回。\n\nNYSCEF 收到日期：01/22/2020\n\n*谨依照法院 01/21 指示作出轻微更正后重新提交。\n\n论证\n\n这一场毫无头绪的笑柄始于下述虚假、故意的事实失实陈述；该陈述要么出于精神失常，要么属于欺骗性伪证：\n\n“于 2017 年 12 月前后，在实际身处纽约期间，被告接触 Guo（郭）并提出进行研究和提供有关 Boxun（博讯）及 Xiong（熊）的信息，该等信息将阻止 Boxun 和 Xiong 干扰 Guo 的举报努力，并将 Boxun 和 Xiong 绳之以法。作为交换，被告要求 Guo 为其服务向被告付款。”起诉状第 20 段，第 4 页；文件 1）\n\n“在此期间，被告虚假表示，其能够提供关于 Boxun 和 Xiong 的合法信息，该等信息将揭示 Boxun 和 Xiong 二者的违法行为，同时制止 Boxun 和 Xiong 干扰 Guo 反腐败运动的努力。”同上，第 21 段。\n\n原告为以伪证故意欺骗法院而提出的毫无头绪的指控，经过精心设计，旨在损害被告的公众形象，并破坏被告，尤其是被告 Ning Ye（叶宁），与 Boxun 和 Xiong 之间的关系；被告 Ye 长期以来一直担任其法律顾问*。\n\n起诉状应依据 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 及其他违规事项予以驳回。就最后一项理由而言，“业已确立，在审理依据 CPLR 3211 (a) (7) 提出的驳回动议时，法院必须推定所主张的事实为真，并给予其一切有利推论。其为，\n\n* 被告 Ye 一生中从未与原告 Guo 交谈过，更遑论曾会面或实际接触过该有争议人物。原告 Guo Wengui 所谓以虚假和欺骗性信息进行反腐败举报、仅为帮助 Xi Jinping（习近平）的“中国梦”而服务其自身议程的努力，实在令人厌恶，毫无价值。根据 Twitter 文章的公开记录，原告多次通过社交媒体邀请被告 Ye，承诺在其游艇上备好茅台酒和宴席，条件是帮助其对抗 Xiong 和 Boxun；而 Ye 先生多次以讽刺性谴责的公开声明明确拒绝。事实是，原告 Guo 多次在社交媒体上要求被告 Ye 向其提供法律服务，以组建一个扣押执行团队，“没收并移走 Boxun 和 Wang Qishan（王岐山）的财产”；该要求曾多次遭 Ning Ye 明确驳回。\n\nNYSCEF 收到日期：01/22/2020\n\nYe 在 Twitter 上回应道：如果我可以自行执法以没收 Boxun 或 Qishan Wang 家属的财产，那是否也意味着我可以随意取得你 Guo Wengui 的私人飞机和游艇？你的提议无视西方社会私有财产所有权这一最根本的基础！”\n\n然而，同样不言而喻的是，未能陈述可成立诉因的事实主张、仅由空泛法律结论构成的事实主张，或本质上难以置信的事实主张……均无权获得此类考量。”Leder v. Spiegel（莱德诉斯皮格尔案）, 819 N.Y.S.2d 26, 27 (1st Dep't 2006)（着重号为原文所加）。因此，法院并不受限于必须接受起诉状中载明的所有荒诞主张。其中许多主张“本质上难以置信”，无权享有真实推定或有利推论。Leder, 819 N.Y.S.2d at 27。相反，基于本质上难以置信主张的请求应予驳回。Mamoon v. Dot Net Inc.（马蒙诉Dot Net公司案）, 135 A.D.3d 656, 658 (1st Dept 2016)（驳回由难以置信且结论性主张构成的侵占及不当得利请求）。起诉状中的许多其他主张也仅属结论性主张。这些主张同样无权获得任何重视。Leder, 819 N.Y.S.2d at 27。就此而言，CPLR 3013要求：“[诉状中的]陈述应足够具体，以使法院和当事人知悉拟予证明的交易、事件或一系列交易或事件，以及每一项诉因或抗辩的实质要件。”“若原告未能陈述支持请求某一要件的事实……，则有理由驳回起诉状。”Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.（康诺顿诉奇波特墨西哥烧烤公司案）, 29 N.Y.3d 137, 141-42 (N.Y. 2017)。依照上述标准，起诉状应基于下述理由予以驳回。\n\n在本案中，原告针对被告的指控不仅在没有任何一项经证实证据的情况下显得毫无根据，而且当原告大肆谈论“合同”及“违反合同”、“通过通信进行歪曲”、“欺诈”，并通过肆意编造故事，称其致使原告将“$3,000,000.00另行存放”，却未向法院展示任何丝毫线索，更遑论任何事实依据时，这些指控简直显得毫无头绪。\n\nCPLR 3013要求：“[诉状中的]陈述应足够具体，以使法院和当事人知悉拟予证明的交易、事件或一系列交易或事件，以及每一项诉因或抗辩的实质要件。”“若原告未能陈述支持请求某一要件的事实……，则有理由驳回起诉状。”Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 137, 141-42 (N.Y. 2017)。依照上述标准，起诉状应基于下述理由予以驳回。\n\n此外，根据CPLR 3016(b)规定的提高标准，欺诈的要件必须具体陈述；该条规定，“构成该项\n\nNYSCEF已接收：01/22/2020\n\n为数名贫困或接近贫困的受害者辩护，这些受害者受到原告滥诉的笼罩，原告寻求高达U.S. $100 Millions的天价损害赔偿。原告的本次法律行动显然具有报复性质。此种无理取闹和报复性质亦体现在原告面向全球发布的广告中，该广告呼吁“世界各地受害妇女站出来揭露兽性法律被告的性侵犯”，并暗示以US$100,000.00的报酬换取刑事贿赂、歪曲及电信欺诈。（证物1A）在纽约州，“提出报复性反诉可能违反”《纽约州人权法》（NYSHRL）及《纽约市人权法》（NYCHRL）。“这种因个人从事受保护活动（即提起诉讼）而惩罚该个人，并阻止他人作出类似行为的意图，正是使其构成报复的原因。”见Brissette v. Franklin County Sheriff's Office（布里塞特诉富兰克林县治安官办公室案）, 235 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. Mass. 2003)。报复请求适用McDomell Douglas Corp. v. Green（麦克唐纳·道格拉斯公司诉格林案）, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)所确立的传统举证责任转换框架进行分析。为胜诉，受害人必须证明：(1)该个人从事了法定受保护活动；(2)其遭受了不利就业行为；以及(3)报复是雇主作出决定的一个动机因素。见Treglia v. Manlius（特雷利亚诉曼利厄斯案）, 313 F.3d 713, 719 (2d Cir. 2002)；Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc.（洛夫乔伊-威尔逊诉NOCO机动车燃料公司案）, 263 F.3d 208, 223 (2d Cir. 2001)。该被告介入代理原告最憎恨的对手，与原告随即对该被告提起这宗世界上最荒谬的诉讼之间的时间线表明，该被告实际上与原告及其业务无关，唯一相关之处是中国秘密警察的一名代理人与一名资深自由斗士及福音派基督徒之间的意识形态对抗。该无理诉讼发生于其连续代理原告敌人之后，而郭文贵先生的广告将被告指为性掠夺者，明确表明了报复动机。另见Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 224 (2d Cir.2001)（“‘证明报复请求所需的因果联系，可以通过表明受保护活动后不久即发生不利行为而间接确立。’”（引自Cifra v. Gen. Elec. Co., 252 F.3d 205, 216 (2d Cir.2001)））；综上，原告应因对该被告提起报复性诉讼而依法受到制裁。\n\n其他毫无头绪的主张也可能需要一并驳回。\n结论\n\n因此，鉴于上述情况，原告的案件必须有偏见地驳回。其他毫无头绪的主张也可能需要一并驳回。\n\n原告显然滥用国家司法系统，向本尊敬法院提起此类诽谤性、荒诞、无理取闹且毫无头绪的法律行动，应受本尊敬法院谴责，并可能被责令支付\n\nNYSCEF已接收：01/22/2020\n\n律师费及费用。\n\n谨呈\n\ns/宁叶，律师\n\n代表全体被告\n\nTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院）\n\n)索引号：151251/2019\n) 律师声明书\n\n声明书\n\n下述签署人，作为一名执业资格良好的律师，特此在宣誓后陈述并保证：\n\n本宣誓人系本案全体被告的辩护律师，并为本案记录在案的本人代理律师。\n\n其进一步证明，其已向全体被告提供本项终局性驳回动议的草案，并已获得全体被告的批准；\n\n该动议及其支持备忘录文本中的全部内容均属真实，\n\n并在被告尽其所知和所信的范围内，表明事实、证据及法律上的准确性。.\n\n案号22-50073 文件451 提交日期06/01/22 登记日期06/03/22 12:26:26 第38页，共83页\n\n案号22-50073 文件451 提交日期06/01/22 登记日期06/03/22，12:26:26 第39页，共83页\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM\n\nNYSCEF文件编号：1\n\n索引号：151251/2019 NYSCEF已接收：02/05/2019\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州纽约郡最高法院）\n\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n索引号：\n\n原告，\n\n传票\n\n—诉—\n\nGUO BAOSHENG（郭宝胜）、YAN ZHAO（赵燕）及NING YE（叶宁），\n\n被告，\n\n致上述被告：Guo Baosheng 1440 Clubhouse Road Gainesville, VA 20155\n\nYan Zhao 300 East 54th Street New York, New York 10222\n\nNing Ye 13511 38th Street, Suite 1A Flushing, New York 11354\n\n特此传唤你方答辩本案起诉状，并于本传票送达后20日内（不计送达当日）向原告律师送达答辩书副本；或者，如本传票未附送起诉状，则送达出庭通知（如本传票未在纽约州内亲自送达予你方，则应在送达完成后30日内）；如你方未出庭或答辩，将就起诉状所请求的救济对你方作出缺席判决。\n\n日期：White Plains, New York，February 5, 2019\n\nLAW OFFICES OF COHEN & HOWARD, L.L.P.（科恩与霍华德律师事务所） 原告代理律师\n\n签署人：\n\nAaron A. Mitchell（阿伦·A·米切尔），律师 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 301 Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724 (732) 747-5202 (732) 747-5259（传真）amitchell(@cohenandhoward.com\n\n案号22-50073 文件451 提交日期06/01/22 登记日期06/03/22，12:26:26 第40页，共83页\n\n（已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM）NYSCEF文件编号：1\n\n索引号：151251/2019 NYSCEF已接收：02/05/2019\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州纽约郡最高法院）GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），索引号：原告。起诉状—诉—GUO BAOSHENG（郭宝胜）、YAN ZHAO（赵燕）及NING YE（叶宁），被告，\n\n原告Guo Wengui（郭文贵），又名Miles Kwok（郭文贵）（“Guo”或“原告”），就其针对被告Guo Baosheng（郭宝胜）（“Baosheng”）、Yan Zhao（赵燕）（“Zhao”）及Ning Ye（叶宁）（“Ning”，以下统称“被告”）提起的损害赔偿起诉及诉讼，主张如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 本诉讼系针对被告提出的欺诈、民事共谋、违反合同及非法干预商业关系之诉，并系对被告勒索性计划及共谋使郭文贵遭受经济损害的回应。\n\n2. 原告郭文贵系香港公民，目前居住于纽约州纽约市、纽约郡。\n\n3. 被告郭宝胜系弗吉尼亚州居民。\n\n4. 9 据所知所信，被告赵燕居住于纽约州纽约市、纽约郡。\n\n5. 纽约州。\n\n案号22-50073 文件451 提交日期06/01/22 登记日期06/03/22，12:26:26 第41页，共83页\n\n[已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM] NYSCEF文件编号：1\n\n索引号：151251/2019 NYSCEF已接收：02/05/2019\n\n6. 被告叶宁系获准在纽约州法院执业的律师。\n适用于全部请求的事实\n\n7. 在美国。郭文贵长期以来一直批评中国政府部分机构中的腐败，并且是倡导中国政府改革的主要人士。\n\n8. 原告的吹哨活动已获得世界各地的广泛关注和支持。他曾接受世界多家主要报纸采访，包括《纽约时报》、 《华尔街日报》及其他国际出版物。\n\n9. 郭文贵揭露中国政府及中国共产党（“CCP”）内部腐败的行为，使郭文贵本人及其家属的安全和福祉面临极大风险。这导致许多个人和公司攻击郭文贵的声誉，并威胁郭文贵及其家属、朋友和同事的安全及生计。\n\n10. 曾亲自针对郭文贵的一个组织是Boxun Inc.（博讯公司）（“Boxun”），该公司拥有并运营网站www.Boxun.com和www.en.boxun.com。\n\n11. 博讯公司不仅通过虚假和诽谤性报道诽谤郭文贵并永久损害其声誉，还散布有关郭文贵家属的恶毒谣言，威胁其家属的生计。\n\n12. 博讯公司并未将其恶意仅限于郭文贵，而是多年来一直针对逃离中国共产党在中国的压迫、前往United States（美国）为自己寻求更好生活的无辜中国移民。博讯公司针对这些人士，并以博讯公司能够帮助这些人士获得政治庇护为虚假借口向其索取金钱\n\n案号22-50073 文件451 提交日期06/01/22 登记日期06/03/22，12:26:26 第42页，共83页\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM\n\n索引号：151251/2019 NYSCEF已接收：02/05/2019\n\n或者在美国取得永久居民身份。然而，博讯公司从未具备协助任何该等人士的能力，并故意利用其承诺协助的那些人士。\n\n13. 据所知所信，存在与博讯公司及其创始人兼所有人Watson Meng（孟维参）有关的持续刑事调查。\n\n14. Xianmin Xiong（熊宪民），又名Sino（“Xiong”），系博讯公司的特约撰稿人和记者。熊宪民曾撰写并发表多篇有关郭文贵及其家属的虚假和诽谤性文章。\n\n15. 此外，基于所获信息及信念，Xiong（熊）与Boxun（博讯）的其他人员一道，虚假地自称为律师及移民专家，面向寻求逃离中国共产党（CCP）在中国的压迫并在美国获得政治庇护和／或永久居民身份的中国移民。\n\n16. 基于所获信息及信念，Xiong以虚假借口向中国移民招揽并收取金钱，称其是一名律师，能够协助这些人士移民美国，并帮助这些人士在美国获得政治庇护和／或永久居民身份。\n\n17. 被Boxun和Xiong欺诈的部分人士是原告Guo（郭文贵）的朋友和同事（下称“受骗人士”）。\n\n18. 被告发现Boxun和Xiong：(i) 正在干扰Guo揭露中国政府及CCP内部腐败的努力；以及(ii) 故意欺骗并损害Guo的朋友和同事，遂接近Guo，并提出通过提供信息予以协助，该等信息将阻止Boxun和Xiong干扰Guo的反腐败努力，并使Boxun和Xiong受到法律制裁。\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/05/2019\n\n19. 原告并不知晓的是，被告声称“帮助”Guo的尝试，不过是其诈欺性勒索Guo钱财计划的一部分。\n\n20. 于2017年12月前后，在实际身处纽约期间，被告接近Guo，并提出就Boxun和Xiong进行调查并提供相关信息，该等信息将阻止Boxun和Xiong干扰Guo的举报努力，并使Boxun和Xiong受到法律制裁。作为交换，被告要求Guo就其服务向被告付款。\n\n21. 在此期间，被告虚假陈述其能够提供有关Boxun和Xiong的合法信息，该等信息将揭露Boxun和Xiong二者的非法行为，同时终止Boxun和Xiong干扰Guo反腐败运动的努力。\n\n22. 被告作出该等陈述，意图欺诈Guo向被告支付被告明知其永远无法提供的服务费用。\n\n23. Guo信赖并依赖被告的虚假陈述，并于2017年12月前后订立了一份服务协议（下称“协议”）。\n\n24. 协议的重要条款之一是保密性。为确保其家人和同事的安全，Guo坚持要求被告对协议的存在、标的事项及当事人予以保密。\n\n25. 被告同意对协议的所有方面予以保密。根据协议，被告不得向任何第三方披露协议的存在、任何一方当事人的身份或协议的标的事项。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件451＿提交于06/01/22 登记于06/03/22＿12:26:26 第44页，共83页\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/05/2019\n\n26. 被告违反协议的保密条款，故意向众多第三方披露了协议的背景及协议当事人。\n\n27. 事实上，被告Ning（宁）向Xiong披露协议内容，因而违反协议；目前，其在Guo与Xiong之间另一宗诽谤诉讼中代理Xiong。1\n\n28. 被告Baosheng（保生）和Zhao（赵）随后试图勒索Guo，要求Guo支付数百万美元，否则将向各第三方披露协议。\n\n29. 被告Baosheng和Zhao其后向第三方披露协议，包括但不限于Xiong和Boxun，此举违反了其保密要求及协议。\n\n30. 被告Baosheng和Zhao还向被告Baosheng和Zhao明知与Guo存在潜在业务往来的个人和／或实体披露了协议。被告Baosheng和Zhao这样做的意图是干扰Guo的商业关系。\n\n31. 因此，Guo遭受损害，包括既往及未来经济损失、未来收入损失、商业关系受干扰及精神痛苦。\n\n作为第一项诉因\n勒索及企图勒索\n\n32. 原告重述并再次主张本诉状第1至31段所载的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n33. 根据协议，被告应就Boxun和Xiong进行调查并提供相关信息。\n\n4 参见Guo v. Xiong，New York County Supreme Court（纽约郡最高法院），索引号：151430/18，文件编号28。\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/05/2019\n\n34. 根据协议，原告同意向被告支付固定费用及以被告可就Boxun和Xiong向原告提供何种信息为条件的激励费用。\n\n35. 根据协议，应向被告支付的固定费用与激励费用合计最高为$3 million。\n\n36. 原告依赖协议并出于善意，基于被告虚假陈述其能够履行协议，预留$3 million且未将该款项另行投资。\n\n37. 虽然被告从未根据协议开展任何工作，且违反协议保密条款向各第三方披露协议，被告仍要求向其支付金额为$3 million的固定费用及激励费用，如同其已完全履行协议。\n\n38. 被告明知其无权要求原告付款，为非法勒索被告无权获得的、针对被告未提供服务的款项，采取了恶意、侵权及勒索性的行为过程，包括但不限于：威胁对原告及其家人和财产造成人身伤害；威胁公布有关原告的所谓“事实”，其唯一目的在于损害原告；以及除经济损失外，对原告的声誉及业务造成不可弥补的损害。\n\n39. 通过其威胁和行为，被告试图通过使原告恐惧其本人及其财产受到损害而剥夺、并已剥夺原告的财产。\n\n第12页\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/05/2019\n\n40. 被告实施该等威胁和行为，是为了推进其恶意、侵权性的计划，即勒索其无权获得的原告付款，并对原告的人身、财产及声誉造成身体和经济损害。\n\n41. 由于上述原因，并作为被告行为的直接及近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但据信不少于$2 million。\n\n作为第二项诉因\n欺诈\n\n42. 原告重述并再次主张本诉状第1至41段所载的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n43. 于2017年12月前后，在协商协议条款期间，被告虚假陈述并表示，其能够就Boxun和Xiong提供详细而广泛的调查。被告虚假陈述并表示，该等信息将具有双重目的：(i) 消除Boxun和Xiong对原告举报努力的干扰；以及(ii) 使Boxun和Xiong因其对中国移民所作的虚假陈述而受到法律制裁。\n\n44. 被告在向原告作出该陈述时明知其为虚假。\n\n45. 被告作出虚假陈述，意图欺骗原告，其唯一目的在于勒索并窃取原告的钱财。\n\n46. 原告起初认为被告的虚假陈述是真实的。原告出于善意依据被告的虚假陈述行事，预留$3 million以备可能向被告付款，并未将该$3 million投资于其他商业项目。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件451＿提交于06/01/22 登记于06/03/22 12:26:26 第47页，共83页\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/05/2019\n\n47. 原告无法自行获得有关Boxun和Xiong的调查和信息，因为Boxun和Xiong已发表无数篇关于原告及其家人的诽谤性及虚假文章。因此，Boxun和Xiong绝不会同意与原告会面，或以其他方式向原告提供被告陈述其能够获得的信息。\n\n48. 由于上述原因，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但据信不少于$2 million。\n\n作为第三项诉因\n共谋实施欺诈\n\n49. 原告重述并再次主张本经核实的诉状第1至48段所载的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n50. 基于所获信息及信念，被告共同密谋欺诈原告。\n\n51. 基于所获信息及信念，在协商协议条款后，被告彼此会面，并决定由被告Ning接近Xiong并向Xiong披露协议的存在。\n\n52. 其后，身为律师的Ning确实向Xiong披露了协议的存在，且目前正在原告与Xiong之间另一宗诽谤诉讼中代理Xiong。\n\n53. 因此，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但据信不少于$2 million。\n\n作为第四项诉因\n违约\n\n54. 原告重述并再次主张本诉状第1至53段所载的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件451＿提交于06/01/22 登记于06/03/22 12:26:26 第48页，共83页\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/05/2019\n\n55. 根据协议，被告应就Boxun和Xiong进行调查并提供相关信息。\n\n56. 根据协议，原告同意向被告支付固定费用及以被告可就Boxun和Xiong提供何种信息为条件的激励费用。\n\n57. 根据协议，应向被告支付的固定费用与激励费用合计为$3 million。\n\n58. 原告基于被告虚假陈述其能够履行协议，预留$3 million且未将该款项另行投资。\n\n59. 被告通过以下方式违反协议：(i) 违反协议保密条款，向各第三方披露协议的存在；以及(ii) 未就Boxun和Xiong提供任何调查。\n\n60. 被告Ning向Xiong披露了协议。\n\n61. 被告Baosheng和Zhao向其明知与原告存在潜在商业关系的第三方披露了协议。\n\n62. 因此，原告遭受损害，包括：(i) 原告因未将$3 million投资于其他商业项目而失去未来收入；(ii) 产生协商协议的费用；以及(iii) 因被告违反协议保密条款而增加安保费用；全部金额将在审判中确定，但据信不少于$250,000.00。\n\n作为第五项诉因\n违反默示诚信及公平交易义务\n\n63. 原告重述并再次主张本诉状第1至62段所载的每一项指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件451＿提交于06/01/22 登记于06/03/22 12:26:26 第49页，共83页\n\n提交：纽约郡书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n案号 151251/2019 已由 NYSCEF 收到：02/05/2019\n\n64. 被告通过以下方式违反了该协议：(i) 违反协议中的保密条款，向各第三方披露该协议的存在；以及 (ii) 完全未就 Boxun（博讯）和 Xiong（熊）提供任何研究。\n\n65. 被告随后通过共谋向原告敲诈钱财，且从未履行其在该协议项下的义务，试图剥夺原告享有该协议利益的权利。\n\n66. 因此，原告遭受的损害金额将由审判确定，但据信不少于 \\$250,000.00。\n\n作为第六项诉因\n对商业关系的侵权干扰\n\n67. 原告重述并再次主张本起诉状第 1 至 66 段中载明的每一项指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n68. 在订立该协议之前，原告与一名第三方存在商业关系（以下简称“商业关系”）。\n\n69. 据悉并相信，被告知悉原告的商业关系。\n\n70. 据悉并相信，被告通过将该协议告知原告已知的商业伙伴及潜在商业伙伴，并向原告的商业伙伴及潜在商业伙伴散布有关原告就该协议之意图的虚假传言，故意干扰原告的商业关系。\n\n71. 据悉并相信，被告干扰原告商业关系的行为完全出于恶意，且没有干扰原告商业关系的任何正当理由。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/05/2019 01:33 PM\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1\n\n案号 151251/2019 已由 NYSCEF 收到：02/05/2019\n\n72. 由于被告的行为，原告的商业关系受到损害，致使原告无法参与其他有利可图的商业事业。原告遭受的损害金额将由审判确定，但据信不少于 \\$3,500.000.00。\n\n因此，原告请求法院对被告作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 就第一项诉因而言：原告请求判令被告支付二百万（\\$2,000,000.00）美元补偿性损害赔偿，以及金额由审判确定的惩罚性损害赔偿；\n\n(b) 就第二项诉因而言：原告请求判令被告支付二百万（\\$2,000,000.00）美元补偿性损害赔偿，以及金额由审判确定的惩罚性损害赔偿；\n\n(c) 就第三项诉因而言：原告请求判令被告支付二百万（\\$2,000,000.00）美元补偿性损害赔偿，以及金额由审判确定的惩罚性损害赔偿；\n\n(d) 就第四项诉因而言：原告请求判令被告支付二十五万（\\$250,000.00）美元补偿性损害赔偿；\n\n(e) 就第五项诉因而言：原告请求判令被告支付二十五万（\\$250,000.00）美元补偿性损害赔偿，以及金额由审判确定的惩罚性损害赔偿；\n\n(t) 就第六项诉因而言：原告请求判令被告支付三百四十五万（\\$3,500,000.00）美元补偿性损害赔偿，以及金额由审判确定的惩罚性损害赔偿；\n\n(g) 连同本案的诉讼费用、律师费和支出；以及\n\n(h) 法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：February 5, 2019 纽约州白原市 COHEN & HOWARD, LLP（科恩与霍华德律师事务所）原告代理律师\n\n签署人：Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq.（艾伦·A·米切尔律师）766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724 (732)-747-5202 (732)-747-5259 amitchell@cohenandhoward.com\n\n已由 NYSCEF 收到：05/03/2019\n纽约州最高法院\n\nWengui Guo（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n原告 ）案号：151251-2019\n诉\nGuo Baosheng（郭宝胜）、Yan Zhao（赵岩）及 Ning Ye（叶宁）\n被告\n\n被告 Ning Ye（叶宁）的附肯定性抗辩及反诉的答辩状\n\n被告 Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师）通过其本人下述代理律师，就原告轻率性的起诉状，谨作出附肯定性抗辩及反诉的答辩如下：\n\n答辩：\n\n1. 否认。本辖区内，民事共谋并非可诉侵权；其余三项似属毫无根据的荒谬之词；\n\n2. 因缺乏可核实的信息，拒绝答辩；\n\n3. 承认。\n\n4. 否认。\n\n5. 承认。\n\n6. 承认。\n\n7. 因被告故意隐瞒其本人在“中国长期腐败”中的角色，包括与中国秘密警察及诸如马建、刘彦平等盖世太保式沙皇人物的关联，故予否认；\n\n8. 因原告故意向世人虚假陈述其真实角色和身份，故予否认；\n\n9. 否认。郭及其家人在中国面临的风险，主要源于郭令人良知震惊的严重犯罪；在所有实行法治的文明国家，这些犯罪均应受惩罚；\n\n10. 第 11、12、13、14、15、16 项因无知、不相关及荒谬，分别且一并、明确予以否认。\n\n17. 因无知及不相关，予以否认；\n\n18. 因属狂妄且荒谬的臆测、毫无根据及无知，予以否认；\n\n19. 因系源于典型精神失常的无根据捏造，或假装精神失常，予以否认。\n\n20. 因系源于典型精神失常的无根据捏造，予以否认。\n\n21. 否认，并特别指出，唯一的“反腐运动”是由中国共产党完全腐败的统治集团领导或误导的运动，该集团由其最高独裁者 Xi Jinping（习近平）掌控；原告曾频繁向全世界公开宣称，他希望奉献其“影响力、资源”，并最终奉献其“生命”来捍卫习近平。\n\n22. 因毫无根据、虚幻且不相关，予以否认；\n\n已由 NYSCEF 收到：05/03/2019\n\n23. 因荒谬，缺乏“合同”的先决条件，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”的证据（如有），故予否认；\n\n24. 因荒谬，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”的证据（如有），故予否认；\n\n25. 因荒谬，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”的证据（如有），故予否认；\n\n26. 因荒谬，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”的证据（如有），故予否认；\n\n27. 因不真实、欺诈及荒谬，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”及其泄露后续事项的证据（如有），故予否认；\n\n28. 作为荒谬之词予以否认。\n\n29. 因毫无根据，予以否认；\n\n30. 因无知、毫无根据及荒谬，予以否认。\n\n31. 因虚幻及欺诈，予以否认；\n\n32. 否认。对一者不利，即对全体不利。\n\n33. 因荒谬，缺乏“合同履行”的先决条件，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”的证据（如有），故予否认；\n\n第 34 至 38 项：因毫无根据、无知、荒谬、精神失常、缺乏“合同履行”的先决条件，原告与本被告之间不存在合同或合同的订立，或者暂不答辩，等待原告向法院出示所称“合同”的证据（如有），分别及一并予以否认；\n\n39. 因无知、毫无根据及荒谬，予以否认；\n\n40. 因无知、毫无根据、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n41. 因毫无根据、无知及缺乏先决条件，予以否认；\n\n42. 因无知、毫无根据、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n43. 因无知、毫无根据、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n44. 因无知、毫无根据、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n45. 因无知、毫无根据、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n46. 因部分事实叙述不真实而无知、毫无根据、推测性、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。对于当事人的承认及禁反言部分，予以接受。\n\n47. 因无知、毫无根据、推测性、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n48. 因无知、毫无根据、推测性、荒谬、精神失常及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n已由 NYSCEF 收到：05/03/2019\n\n49. 明确否认。\n\n50. 因无知、毫无根据、推测性、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n51. 因无知、毫无根据、精神失常、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n52. 因无知、毫无根据、推测性、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n53. 因无知、毫无根据、推测性、荒谬及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n54. 明确否认。\n\n55. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。\n\n56. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。\n\n57. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。若原告相信其所称合同确实存在，则鼓励其将其承诺的 \\$3M 存入本法院书记官处；\n\n58. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。若原告相信其所称合同确实存在，则鼓励其将其承诺的 \\$3M 存入本法院书记官处；\n\n59. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。\n\n60. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。\n\n61. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。\n\n62. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。若原告相信其所称合同确实存在，则鼓励其将其承诺的 \\$3M 存入本法院书记官处，而非存入任何其他地下世界的寄存处；\n\n63. 因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，故予否认。\n\n第 64、65、66 项：均因缺乏先决条件：“协议”根本不存在，予以否认。\n\n第 67 至 72 项：均因无知、推测性、荒谬、精神失常及诽谤性，予以否认。\n\n肯定性抗辩：\n\n肯定性抗辩一：根据 CPLR 3211 a (7)，就原告的请求提出有偏见地简易驳回动议：未能陈述诉因\n\n原告的起诉状是一份拙劣起草的诉状文书，其诉因标签与列举的指控罪名项不相符合。肯定性抗辩必须重构原告实际意图陈述的内容。\n\n已由 NYSCEF 收到：05/03/2019\n\n反诉：\n\n文字诽谤及口头诽谤\n\n于 November 23, 2018；（证据 1A）December 7, 2018（证据 2 和 3）、December 8, 2018（证据 4 和 5），被告 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）通过重复其尚未受到惩罚的旧有手法，对被告 Ning Ye（叶宁）进行了反复、大规模诽谤，称其涉及“兽奸、移民欺诈、性侵犯”；其利用其“Guo Media（郭媒体）”在世界各地发布广告，呼吁所有受害女性站出来，对“兽奸律师”叶宁采取行动，并暗示其为揭露这些根本不存在的骇人“刑事犯罪”支付高额奖励。由于郭文贵先生的广告使其五十万观众产生误导性的错误印象，认为本被告确实对女性实施了骇人的兽奸和性侵犯，如此广泛传播的公开呼吁属于教科书式诽谤，其设计、策划并广泛发布的唯一目的，是在明知虚假的情况下毁坏受害人的公众形象和声誉，损害受害人的业务，并使其因社区的耻辱而遭受痛苦。\n\n2017年11月，被告Guo（郭文贵）使用同一策略，发布广告并号召世界各地的女性受害者行动起来，反击八名被虚假指称的“性掠夺者”，其中包括Professor Yeliang Xia（夏业良教授）；其向每一位揭露情况的女性“受害者”提供U.S$ 100,000.00，此乃为诱使作伪证而行贿。Guo先生的钓鱼之行取得了一定成功，至少有一名女性被Guo先生的诱饵钓中。一名Michelin Restaurant（米其林餐厅）业主出面协助Guo先生通过谎称夏业良教授在其餐厅内对其进行性骚扰，以实施其妨碍司法公正的电信欺诈。（证据6和7）该骗局后来被终止，原因是一名知悉一切的Guo先生同谋者背叛了他并说出真相，而该女性亦蔑视Guo先生，因为后者作为一名身家数十亿的红色巨富，未能兑现其广告中承诺的$100K。两名共谋者之间的金钱争议最终导致支付$10K而非$100K，进一步证明存在电信欺诈；原告从未真正打算兑现其向广大女性作出的、以实施犯罪恶作剧为条件的承诺。\n\n原告的广告，连同其他极其恶毒的诽谤行为，已在法律上足以被认定为普通法诽谤及当然诽谤。\n\n। ਰੇ\n已收到 NYSCEF：05/03/2019\n\n在本州，诽谤诉讼是指被告被指控作出虚假陈述，该陈述倾向于使原告遭受公众蔑视、嘲笑、厌弃或羞辱，或使思想端正之人对其产生恶意看法，并使其失去他人在社会中的友好交往。Foster v. Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751 (1996); See also, Manfredonia v. Wiess, 37 AD3d 286 [*7](1st Dept. 2007); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999); Fairley v. Peekskill Star Corporation, 83 AD2d 294 (2nd Dept. 1981)。诽谤的构成要件为：(1) 向第三方发表虚假陈述；(2) 未经授权或不享有特权而发表该陈述；(3) 过错，最低按过失标准判断；以及 (4) 特别损害或当然诽谤。Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999); Salvatore v. Kumar, 2007 WL 3307778 (2nd Dept. 2007)。特别损害或特殊损失，是指损失具有经济或金钱价值的某项事物。Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 (1992)。\n\n鉴于原告极其恶毒的诽谤亦以书面形式公开传播，且该等诽谤的性质甚至可能涉及犯罪活动要素，故无需证明确实存在的经济损失。\n\n当诉因属于当然诽谤时，无须主张或证明特别损害。Id. Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 NY2d 369 (1977); Donati v. Queens Ledger Newspaper Group, 240 AD2d 696 (2nd Dept. 1997)。当然口头诽谤是指与下列任一事项有关的口头陈述：指控原告犯有严重罪行的陈述；倾向于损害他人行业、商业或职业的陈述；指称原告患有令人厌恶疾病的陈述；或暗示女性不贞的陈述。Id. 当然书面诽谤是指使原告“遭受公众蔑视、嘲笑、厌弃或羞辱，或使思想端正之人对其产生恶意看法，并使其失去他人在社会中的友好交往”的书面文字。Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 NY2d 369, 379 (1977)。\n\n若原告为号召所谓“受害女性”反击其对本签署人——代表其对手的法律顾问——作出的关于“兽交”的虚假“性犯罪者”指控而设计的恶毒阴谋，以任何方式得逞，本签署人将遭受巨大乃至危及生命的灾难，其可能包括丧失职业执照、被监禁，以及\n\n已收到 NYSCEF：05/03/2019\n\n过早死亡。原告此类骇人听闻的不当行为必须通过惩罚性损害赔偿予以制止和惩罚！\n\n此外，原告在本案中的毫无根据的叙述，虚假指控被告实施欺诈以诱骗原告，最终与两名共同被告共谋造成其再次完全虚假的超过12million U.S. dollars损害赔偿，完全具有诽谤性质。此类披着诉讼外衣的严重诽谤，如其轻率性及报复性本质显而易见，则不享有免于被起诉的绝对豁免。\n\n就针对被告Ning Ye（叶宁）的如此程度诽谤，原告恳请尊敬的法院除原告针对被告Ning Ye寻求的永久禁令外，基于损害赔偿判给三倍损害赔偿。\n\n寻求基于当然诽谤主张获得赔偿的原告，如系因被告的陈述损害其行业、商业或职业，必须证明该诽谤属于与其商业、行业、职务或职业不相容的种类。Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 (1992)。为此，该陈述必须涉及具有显著性和重要性的事项。Id. 兽交及对女性的性侵犯通常属于此类当然诽谤。\n\n在评估某项陈述是否构成诽谤时\n\n必须在整个陈述或出版物的整体语境中解释该等文字，依普通读者的理解加以检验；如该等文字不能被合理理解为具有诽谤含义，则其不可诉，亦不得通过牵强或人为的解释使其成为可诉。\n\nDillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38 (1st Dept. 1999); See also, Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592 (1985)。因此，文字是否构成诽谤，首先属于应由法院裁决的法律问题。Id. 为此，在不存在诽谤之处，法院不会牵强认定诽谤。Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, (1st Dept. 1999); Fairley v. Peekskill Star Corporation, 83 AD2d 294 (2nd Dept. 1981)。松散、比喻或夸张的陈述，即使带有贬损性，亦不可诉。Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999)。\n\n已收到 NYSCEF：05/03/2019\n\n关于诽谤抗辩，真实构成针对主张诽谤的诉讼的完全抗辩。Fleckenstein v. Friedman, 266 NY 19 (1934); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34 (1st Dept. 1999); Proskin v, Hearst Corporation, 14 AD3d 782 (3rd Dept. 2005); Love v. William Morrow and Co., Inc., 193 AD2d 586 (2nd Dept. 1983); Smith v. United Church Ministry, Inc., 212 AD2d 1038 (4th Dept. 1995); Schwatzberg v. Mongiardo, 113 AD2d 172 (3rd Dept. 1985)。\n\n实质真实亦足以驳回诽谤诉讼。Id .; Leibowitz v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, 281 AD2d 350 (1st Dept. 2001); Fairley v. [*8]Peekskill Star Corporation, 83 AD2d 294 (2nd Dept. 1991)。就实质真实作为诽谤抗辩而言，Fleckenstein案法院阐明了其所谓可行的检验标准，即已发表的陈述是否会对读者或听众产生不同于所主张真实情况的影响。Fleckenstein v. Friedman, 266 NY 19 (1934)。其理由是，[当]真实情况与已发表事实如此接近，以至于必须作出细微而含蓄的区分，并将文字牵强地脱离其通常用法，方能维持诽谤指控时，即不存在法律损害。Id. at 23。\n\n原告的诽谤毫无真实可言，更遑论实质真实。其完全系捏造，旨在欺骗公众并对被告造成巨大损害。\n\n就针对被告Ning Ye的诽谤，其恳请本尊敬法院判给具有惩罚性质的三倍损害赔偿，金额范围为$12,000,000.00至$36,000,000.00。\n\n被告Ning Ye亦恭请判给永久禁令救济，禁止原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下，对被告实施任何此类诽谤行为。\n反诉第二项：RICO违法行为\n\n被告在中国有作为已定罪重罪犯的犯罪记录，后又被Hong Kong's High Court（香港高等法院）就国际洗钱罪判处有罪，并被作为犯罪没收没收62.4 billion Honog Kong dollars，约相当于10billion U.S. dollars。（证据8）\n已收到 NYSCEF：05/03/2019\n\n原告在美国实施的严重秘密行为大多具有重罪性质，包括从大额洗钱以资助其针对中国政治异见人士进行滥用性、大规模且轻率的诉讼，以及其为中国开展的间谍活动；其中许多活动具有犯罪性质，从间谍活动、未登记外国代理人活动，到通过腐败地取得“受害女性”的伪证来妨碍司法公正，均非其一人所从事、追求或完成。原告大规模的错误及犯罪性秘密行为，是通过其与中国共产党秘密警察机构，以及为其协助和教唆的各类大型共谋者、同谋者团体相互勾结而设计、策划、追求、从事和完成的（证据9）。其部分同谋者显然由中国共产党秘密警察派遣和指派，或者根本就是中国秘密警察精英圈内的同僚，其相当于纳粹德国的Gestapo（盖世太保）和前苏联的KGB（克格勃）。\n\n因此，本被告是Guo Wengui（郭文贵）先生在其秘密行为中所表现出的RICO共谋及RICO活动的受害者之一。\n\n原告与中国秘密警察及其成员结成犯罪联盟所实施的恶毒秘密行为，违反了18 USC 1962，其违反Section 1962的行为对本被告造成了巨大损害。\n\nRICO的Section 1964(c), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968，赋予任何因Section 1962禁止的活动遭受商业或财产损害之人私人诉权。“要成立RICO请求，原告必须证明：(1) 违反18 U.S.C. § 1692；(2) 商业或财产损害；以及 (3) 该损害系由违反Section 1962所致。”Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC, 720 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 305 (2d Cir. 2001) )。要证明RICO违法，原告必须证明“(1) 行为，(2) 企业，(3) 通过模式，(4) 实施敲诈勒索活动。”DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 306 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985) )。\n\n原告通过发布广告以取得伪证、诱使被告陷入预期无休无止且丑闻性的法律及纪律麻烦而造成的损害，即便本被告最终可能获得延迟澄清，在最坏情况下亦可能危及生命。原告为显示其对中国共产主义暴政的忠诚（证据8，见上文）而实施的、具有报复目的的此类秘密行为，并非由其单独努力完成；其系由Guo Media（郭媒体）、Guo Ants Mafioso Underworld（郭蚂蚁黑手党地下世界）、Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）及其最高独裁者Xi Jinping（习近平）、People's Republic的秘密警察即MSS（国家安全部）（证据9），以及其诸如Mr. Liu Yanping（刘彦平先生）、Mr. Gao Hui（高辉先生）、Mr. Ma Jian（马建先生）等沙皇式人物协同实施的大型此类非法企业的众多行动所完成。Guo先生的不法行为显示出一种具有标志性的犯罪行为模式：发布具有犯罪性质的欺诈性广告，以虚假提供高额腐败现金奖励的方式取得女性伪证证言，利用其作为国际洗钱所得的犯罪收益提起诉讼并加以歪曲（见原告前关键同事Mr. Guo Baosheng（郭宝胜先生）的证词，作为证据10）；此类原告的秘密行为，除其他犯罪及不道德特征外，具有腐败和敲诈勒索活动性质。这是四要素齐备的RICO行为。\n\n“敲诈勒索活动”被界定为包括根据多项指定联邦法规可被起诉的任何“行为”，包括邮件欺诈和电信欺诈法规以及妨害司法公正法规。见 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)（将“敲诈勒索活动”界定为包括可依 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341（关于邮件欺诈）、1343（关于电信欺诈）和 1503（关于妨害司法公正）被起诉的犯罪）。该法规将“敲诈勒索活动模式”界定为十年期间内“至少两项敲诈勒索活动”。18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)。原告以呼吁据称“受害的女性”与所谓预先确定的“性掠夺者”斗争的标志性模式，通过腐败性电信欺诈妨害司法公正。\n\n被告谨请求尊敬的法院根据原告所请求的损害赔偿金额，就原告违反 RICO 的行为判令原告承担惩罚性三倍损害赔偿。\n\n结论：救济请求\n\n因此，鉴于上述情况，被告谨向本尊敬的法院请求给予下列救济：\n\n驳回原告起诉状中无理取闹的部分，且不得再行起诉；\n\n向被告授予禁令救济，禁止原告继续传播针对被告的歪曲和诽谤；\n\n就被告 Ning Ye（叶宁）的反诉部分，被告请求作出有利于被告叶宁反诉请求的简易判决：\n\n收到 NYSCEF（纽约州法院电子提交系统）：05/03/2019\n\n判令被告叶宁就诽谤、当然诽谤获得惩罚性三倍损害赔偿；惩罚性三倍损害赔偿金额应以原告请求的 \\$12,000,000.00 为基础计算；\n\n判令被告叶宁就原告的 RICO 行为获得惩罚性三倍损害赔偿；惩罚性三倍损害赔偿金额应以原告请求的 \\$12,000,000.00 为基础计算；\n\n根据 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1，就提起无理取闹且报复性的诉讼，判令被告叶宁获得制裁，并根据 CPLR 8303 获得费用。\n\n被告请求作出永久禁令，禁止原告继续对本被告施加令人痛苦且代价高昂的无理取闹法律行动。\n\n被告请求作出永久禁令，禁止原告继续对本被告施加令人痛苦且代价高昂的无理取闹法律行动。\n\n被告请求本尊敬的法院另行判给被告本法院认为适当的其他救济。\n\n如本案原告方的案件未被立即有偏见地驳回，被告谨请求由陪审团审理事实。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Law Office of Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师事务所）代表被告叶宁\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 451 提交于 06/01/22 登记于 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 62 页，共 83 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 451 提交于 06/01/22 登记于 06/03/22，12:26:26 第 63 页，共 83 页\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：03/23/2022\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\n-- X\n\nWengui Guo（郭文贵），原告，原告诉 Baisheng Guo（郭百生）等被告\n\n索引号 151251/2019 关于驳回已放弃起诉状的动议通知 尊敬的 David B. Cohen（大卫·B·科恩）法官\n请求法院准许提交补充驳回动议及经修订驳回动议的动议通知\n\n女士和/或先生：\n\n兹通知，根据 CPLR 3025(a) 和 (b)，依据随附的请求法院准许提交被告经修订的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 驳回动议的动议，以及请求驳回本起诉状尚余第 4 项罪名、从而有偏见地驳回全部起诉状的经修订驳回动议，并依据随附的宣誓书、文件、证明及证据，以及此前在本案中进行的一切诉答和程序，签署人将于 2022 年 4 月 12 日星期二上午 9:30，或于该日之后律师可获听审的最早时间，在纽约县法院大楼动议庭第 130 部，60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007，向本法院提出动议，请求根据 CPLR 3404，因原告方放弃案件及放弃毫无依据的无理取闹请求，而驳回被告的起诉状。\n\n进一步通知，根据 CPLR 2214(b)，如有答辩文件，必须不迟于该动议通知听审日期前七（7）日向签署人送达。\n\n日期：03/14/2022 纽约州纽约县\n\n谨此提交 /s/Ning Ye（叶宁）, 被告代理律师 135-11 38th Avenue, Rm 1A Flushing, NY 11354 电话：7183086626；传真：7182285816 电子邮件：yeningusa@gmail.com\n\n致：Aaron A. Mitchell, Esq.（亚伦·A·米切尔律师）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 451 提交于 06/01/22 登记于 06/03/22212:26:26 第 64 页，共 83 页\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 68\n\n索引号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：03/23/2022\n\n合规证明：\n\n签署人特此证明，本重新辩论动议完全符合 22 NYCRR § 202.8-b [a] 和 (c)。签署人进一步证明，本确认书经计算为 13222 个字，低于字数上限，且该字数统计依据用于编制本文件的文字处理软件，即 Microsoft Word。\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师）\n\n被告代理律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 451 提交于 06/01/22 登记于 06/03/22，12:26:26 第 65 页，共 83 页\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：03/23/2022\n\n原告代理律师 纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\nWengui Guo（郭文贵），原告，原告诉 Baisheng Guo（郭百生）等被告\n\n索引号 151251/2019 关于驳回已放弃起诉状的动议通知 尊敬的 David B. Cohen（大卫·B·科恩）法官\n被告请求法院准许提交经修订动议以补充其 3211(a)(7) 驳回该已被放弃的毫无依据的无理取闹起诉状之动议\n\n被告通过其下列签署的代理律师 Ning Ye（叶宁）律师，谨根据 CPLR 3025(a) 和 (b)，请求法院准许向本尊敬的法院提交本补充 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 动议（文书 55，01/22/2020），有偏见地驳回原告方上述标题所示起诉状的其余小部分，鉴于最新进展显示原告多方面的厄运，且在原告依据 CPLR 3404 不合理地未予推进诉讼而放弃案件的情形显而易见的情况下。任何进一步准许原告所谓“诉讼革命”在本案中最后垂死挣扎的做法，可能是对本尊敬的法院宝贵而稀缺司法资源的浪费。\n\n2019 年 2 月 5 日，被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）通过其代理律师 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）律师，对具名被告提起了一份教科书式的无理取闹起诉状，提出以下六项诉因：1. 敲诈及企图敲诈；2. 欺诈；3. 共谋实施欺诈；4. 违约；5. 违反默示诚信及公平交易契约；6. 恶意干扰商业关系。\n\n为证明原告关于原告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）（又名：Miles Kwok，或“Haoyun Kwok”）与被告之间存在所谓服务合同的说法，并进一步通过欺诈和故意向法院作出虚假陈述，证明其不仅在合同订立阶段、亦在履行阶段的“诚信”，原告称其为被告“预留”了 US\\$3,000,000.00，作为其“预定受益人”。尽管 \\$3M 看起来并未满足被告/反诉原告在其反诉中提出的被告损害赔偿金额要求，被告仍欢迎反诉被告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）的提议，并建议 Guo 先生将所谓“预留”的 \\$3M 现金由书记官存入本尊敬的法院的托管账户，直至本案最终处置。截至本日期，原告似乎并未依此向书记官账户存入一分钱。这是本尊敬的法院可以记录的最新进展之一。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 11:59 PM NYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：03/23/2022\n2020 年 1 月，被告谨提交了请求有偏见地整体驳回起诉状的 CPLR 3211 驳回动议（文书 55）。本尊敬的法院显然凭借卓越的司法智慧，于 2020 年 6 月 18 日作出命令（文书 64），驳回第 1、2、3、5 和 6 项罪名，保留第 4 项违约罪名以待进一步裁决。再次，截至本日期，原告并未将其宣誓称为 \\$3 Million “预留”合同忍让现金、并指定三名被告为预定受益人的款项，存入法院书记官账户，以证明其为证明被告据称违反的合同存在而应履行的“诚信履行”。这是本尊敬的法院可以记录的最新进展之一。其未这样做，甚至未以一个字回应该提议，现在已清楚表明，该原告关于被告“合同”及“违反”该合同的指控完全是一场骗局，是一种毫无依据、且不仅仅是毫无根据的欺诈，意在愚弄和嘲笑本尊敬的法院。\n\n此外，原告未能于 2020 年 10 月 29 日或之前提交法院命令要求的 NOI。鉴于这些进展，被告谦恭地请求本尊敬的法院准许其提交经修订的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 动议，以驳回尚余的违约罪名，从而有偏见地驳回原告的全部起诉状。\n\n鉴于这些进展，被告谦恭地请求本尊敬的法院准许被告获得法院许可，提交经修订的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 动议，以有偏见地整体驳回原告全部毫无依据的无理取闹起诉状。\n\n本动议将与被告经修订的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 驳回动议、律师确认书及所有其他证明和证据文件一并谨向本尊敬的法院提交。\n\n因此，鉴于上述情况，被告谨请求准许其提交经修订的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 动议，以驳回尚余第 4 项罪名，从而有偏见地驳回原告的全部起诉状。\n\n谨此提交，\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq.（叶宁律师）代表全体被告 案件 22-50073 文书 451 提交于 06/01/22 登记于 06/03/22\\_12:26:26 第 67 页，共 83 页\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：03/23/2022\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\n----- X\n\nWengui Guo（郭文贵），原告，原告诉\n\nBaisheng Guo（郭百生）等\n\n被告\n\n经修订驳回起诉状动议 尊敬的 David B. Cohen（大卫·B·科恩）法官\n\n索引号 151251/2019\n被告经修订动议请求驳回尚余第 4 项罪名，从而有偏见地驳回原告方的全部起诉状，并请求准许反诉及其法律依据备忘录\n\n被告通过其下列签署的代理律师 Ning Ye（叶宁）律师，谨根据 CPLR 3025(a) 和 (b)，请求法院准许向本尊敬的法院提交本经修订的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 动议，以整体有偏见地驳回原告方上述标题所示的起诉状，亦根据 CPLR 3404。\n\n2020年6月18日，本尊敬的法院就被告以未能陈述其诉状中全部六项诉因为由提出的驳回诉状动议（动议 #6，文件 55），针对文件 55、60 和 62，作出了一项决定及命令，准许该动议中第 1、2、3、5 和 6 项罪名项，驳回就第 4 项即违约提出的动议，鉴于原告主张，除其他事项外，其已为被告预留 $3,000,000.00，作为据称的“预期受益人”，以表明其善意履行其克制行为，不仅是在“合同”的形成阶段，而且是在履行阶段。原告急于在其幻想世界中飞跃至一份合同，并且其仅为诉讼目的而追溯性地（nunc pro tunc）主张履行，已使两名对立方之间所谓的服务合同看起来像是真实合同，显然是明知而对法院实施欺诈。尽管高度赞扬本尊敬的法院 06/18/2020 命令驳回了原告绝大多数罪名项，被告认为有必要请求本尊敬的法院准许其提交经修订的动议，以根据 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 并基于新的进展驳回剩余罪名项，并准许被告/反诉原告所请求的适当救济。\n\n程序状况\n\n1. 2020年1月22日，本尊敬的法院发布了一项排期命令，其中除其他事项外，命令原告于 2020年10月29日之前提交审理事项声明书（Note of Issue，NOI）。（证据 2）。截至本日，距离法院命令原告提交 NOI 的截止日期已过去 16 个月，\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 晚上 11:59\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2022\n\n原告“无理地未能”如此办理。原告可能有百万个理由为其无理未能办理辩解，然而，如果原告无意构成民事藐视法庭，原告有义务提出一项附具理由的动议，向法院解释其要求延期的理由。原告仅仅搁置其案件而两年无所作为，已表明其放弃了其诉状；而事实模式表明，原告可能除了无所作为、依赖其明知属轻率的案件之外，无法做得更好。原告已表明其有意放弃其毫无头绪且轻率的诉状，因此本案应予驳回；\n\n2. 为了在被告就据称“违约”部分提出的 CPLR 3211(a)(7) 驳回动议中得以存续，原告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）（又名：“Miles Kwok（郭文贵）”）向本尊敬的法院陈述，其已“预留 $3,000,000.00”，以具体履行其所称“该合同”中其一方的义务，从而促使被告履行其一方提供其已议定服务的义务。作为对原告很可能追溯性地（nunc pro tunc）主张“预留 $3M”的回应，被告在其针对诉状提出的答辩以及肯定性抗辩和反诉中要求，原告将该“预留”的 $3M 存入本法院书记官的托管账户，以使原告证明其关于存在真实合同、其一方善意预留 $3M 的主张并非出自其虚幻幻想，亦非仅为欺骗尊敬的法院的欺诈。面对被告如此合理且明确的请求，原告在约两年期间内一直保持沉默。被告未能将该欺诈性提出的“预留 $3,000,000.00”存入法院书记官处；\n\n3. 自原告向本法院登记其诉状的第一天起，原告从未提交任何一页已签署文件，以证实其关于“与被告订立合同”的毫无头绪的主张。\n\n4. 原告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）最近通过在其向康涅狄格州哈特福德联邦破产法院（U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hartford Connecticut）提交的文件中，将全部三名被告列为其诉讼债权人，承认其在本诉讼中欠付全部三名被告金额从 $3M 至 12 millions 的诉讼相关债务，从而承认其在本法律行动中的厄运。（见作为证据 2 的美国破产文件）\n\n被告方情况报告\n\n2020年1月22日，本尊敬的法院发布了一项排期命令，其相关部分在其他排期中命令原告于 2020年10月29日或之前向法院提交审理事项声明书。（见证据 1，相关部分以黄色突出显示。）截至本日，距离 NOI 提交截止日期已过去 16 个月，原告既未向法院提交 NOI，也未提交任何请求延期或延长时间的动议或请求，以提出理由供本法院原谅其可原谅的疏忽。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 451 提交日期 06/01/22 录入日期 06/03/22_12:26:26 第 69 页，共 83 页\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 晚上 11:59\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2022\n\n结论：\n\n因此，鉴于前述情况，本签署人谨请求本尊敬的法院通过尊敬的书记官，在不妨碍再诉的情况下驳回该诉状。在本案中，迅速解决不仅在程序上，而且在实体正义法上，似乎均属正当和适当。\n\n救济请求：\n\n被告谨请求以下救济：\n\n应准许被告请求法院许可提交经修订的 CPLR 3211 动议的动议。\n\n对于剩余第 4 项即违约，被告谨请求本尊敬的法院根据 CPLR 3211(a)(7)，以未能陈述可获救济的请求为由驳回该剩余罪名项，从而有偏见地驳回原告一方的整个案件。\n\n对于本尊敬的法院尚未处置的被告/反诉原告部分，反诉原告谨请求以下救济：\n\n禁令救济：原告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）在 New York Times（《纽约时报》）和 Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）上，以不小于八分之一版面的篇幅，每日一次、连续七日刊登一份供认和道歉书，向所有被告承认其不当恶作剧。该供认文本应由反诉原告 Ning Ye（叶宁）起草，并经本尊敬的法院批准。\n\n永久禁令救济，禁止原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下，在任何媒体上对被告实施任何此类诽谤行为。\n\n永久禁令救济，要求原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下提交详细的会计/审计报告，逐项说明其置于其所有空壳公司和受托人、美国境内及境外离岸金融机构中的确切资产。\n\n永久禁令救济，要求原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下提交详细的会计/审计报告，逐项说明其置于其所有空壳公司和受托人、美国境内及境外离岸金融机构中的确切资产，具体披露其与其空壳公司（如 Golden Spring New York, Inc.（纽约金泉公司）、Arabic-China Foundations（阿拉伯—中国基金会））、以其配偶、儿子和女儿名义设立的任何及所有离岸金融机构，以及其 CCP（中国共产党）/MSS（国家安全部）操控者/合作者共谋洗钱的任何金融资源所输送的其“口头借贷”资金的内容；该等披露应于本判决书作出后 3 个月内完成。\n\n反诉原告还谨请求本尊敬的法院作出宣告性救济，宣告由反诉被告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）设立、用于推动反诉被告所谓“诉讼革命”并作为针对来自中国政治异议人士的域外迫害工具的所有机构、金融机构，鉴于这些机构受到 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）、New York DA（纽约地方检察官）和 USDOJ（美国司法部）的处罚，均为非法组织，并应予禁止。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 晚上 11:59\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2022\n\n金钱救济*：\n\n反诉原告还谨请求本尊敬的法院向所有反诉原告作出如下金钱救济：\n\n向每名反诉原告，包括 Ning Ye（叶宁）先生及另外两名反诉原告 Gaosheng Guo（郭高胜）先生和 Yan Zhao（赵岩）先生，就当然诽谤赔偿 $12 Million；\n\n向每名反诉原告，包括 Ning Ye（叶宁）先生及另外两名反诉原告 Gaosheng Guo（郭高胜）先生和 Yan Zhao（赵岩）先生，就 RICO 违法行为赔偿 $3 Million；\n\n向每名反诉原告，包括 Ning Ye（叶宁）先生及另外两名反诉原告 Gaosheng Guo（郭高胜）先生和 Yan Zhao（赵岩）先生，就提交轻率诉状赔偿 $60,000.00；\n\n向每名反诉原告，包括 Ning Ye（叶宁）先生及另外两名反诉原告 Gaosheng Guo（郭高胜）先生和 Yan Zhao（赵岩）先生，就提交报复性诉状赔偿 $60,000.00。\n\n本尊敬的法院认为适当的其他费用、成本及其他救济。\n\n如本法院认定目前尚不适宜准许这些救济，反诉原告谨请求由陪审团审判裁决其反诉请求。\n\n谨呈，\n\ns/Ning Ye, Esq.，全体被告/反诉原告的律师\n\n*让反诉被告作出一次良好、合乎伦理且体面的支出，而不是将其显然与世界上臭名昭著的独裁政权共同拥有、从中国共产党占领土地上所有民族受奴役人民的不当得利中积累的资产，完全浪费在“诉讼革命”上、执行其北京操控者的打击名单上，或者扰乱美国民主选举程序上。\n\n\\ 在 Guo v. Xia 案中，该案系在 Virginia Eastern District United States District Court（弗吉尼亚东区联邦地区法院）提起的一项民事诉状，目前已在 Fourth Circuit（第四巡回法院）上诉多年，反诉被告 Guo（郭）在证言录取及陪审团审判中均宣誓作证称，其以“口头协议（?!）”借出约 $3billions。现今，这位 Slippery Willy（滑头威利）先生向 Connecticut United States Bankruptcy Court（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）提交了 Chapter 11 申请，称其唯一收入约为每月 19 thousand dollars，同时承认本案全部三名反诉原告对其享有金额从 $3Million 至 $12Million 的争议债权。其被选为无担保债权人三人委员会成员。Ye（叶）先生必将对其不足 $240,000.00 的申报收入与其经宣誓所称 $3billions 的“口头借款”进行质疑。他因将其 Lady May 号游艇藏匿于海外并试图逃避本法院处罚而犯下藐视法庭的愚蠢错误，导致其愚蠢地寻求 Chapter 11 破产。他这一迷失方向的举动使我无需针对这名肇事逃逸之人寻求被动的非自愿破产。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 晚上 11:59\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2022\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK）\n\n-- X Wengui Guo（郭文贵），原告，原告 诉 Baisheng Guo（郭百胜）等，被告\n\n索引号：151251/2019 驳回诉状经修订动议 尊敬的 David B. Cohen（戴维·B·科恩）法官\n\n裁定（草案）\n\n_ X\n\n本法院已审议被告/反诉原告请求法院许可提交经修订的 CPLR 3211 驳回诉状动议的动议，并认定存在正当理由。准许被告请求法院许可提交经修订的 CPLR 3211 动议的动议。\n\n本法院已审议被告/反诉原告请求有偏见地完整驳回诉状最后剩余罪名项的经修订动议，并认定存在准许被告/反诉原告动议的正当理由。现有偏见地驳回原告诉状中的剩余第 4 项罪名项，从而驳回原告一方的整个诉状。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 03/23/2022 晚上 11:59\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引号 151251/2019 NYSCEF 收件日期：03/23/2022\n\n本法院进一步审议被告/反诉原告请求本法院准许其反诉请求救济的经修订动议，并认定存在准许下列救济的正当理由：\n\n禁令救济：原告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）应当在 New York Times（《纽约时报》）和 Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）上向全体被告公开发表一份《认罪与道歉》，承认其不当恶意行为，版面不得小于八分之一页，连续七天每日刊登*。认罪文本应由反诉原告 Ning Ye（叶宁）起草，并经本尊敬法院批准。\n\n永久禁令救济，禁止原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下，在任何媒体上对被告实施任何此类诽谤行为。\n\n永久禁令救济，要求原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下提交详细的会计/审计报告，逐项说明其置于其所有空壳公司和受托人名下、美国境内及境外金融机构中的确切资产。\n\n永久禁令救济，要求原告在藐视法庭处罚的约束下提交详细的会计/审计报告，逐项说明其置于其所有空壳公司和受托人名下、美国境内及境外金融机构中的确切资产；并在本判决书登记后三个月内，具体披露其与 Golden Spring New York, Inc.（纽约金泉公司）、Arabic-China Foundations（阿拉伯—中国基金会）、其配偶、儿子和女儿名下的任何及所有离岸金融机构，以及其中共/国安部操控者/协作者共谋洗钱的任何金融资源所输送的其“口头借款”资金的内容。\n\n反诉原告还恭请本尊敬法院作出确认性救济，确认反诉被告 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）为推动反诉被告所谓“诉讼革命”而设立的、作为针对来自中国的政治异议人士的域外迫害工具的所有机构和金融机构，鉴于这些机构已受到 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）、New York DA（纽约地区检察官办公室）和 USDOJ（美国司法部）的处罚，均属非法组织，并应予禁止。\n金钱救济*：\n\n反诉原告还恭请本尊敬法院向全体反诉原告作出如下金钱救济：\n\n就当然诽谤而言，向每名反诉原告，包括叶宁先生及另外两名反诉原告 Gaosheng Guo（郭高胜）先生和 Yan Zhao（赵岩）先生，赔偿 $12 Million；\n\n就 RICO 违法行为而言，向每名反诉原告，包括叶宁先生及另外两名反诉原告郭高胜先生和赵岩先生，赔偿 $3 Million；\n\n就提交无理诉状而言，向每名反诉原告，包括叶宁先生及另外两名反诉原告郭高胜先生和赵岩先生，赔偿 $60,000.00；\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）03/23/2022 11:59 PM\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 66\n\n索引编号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：03/23/2022\n就提交报复性诉状而言，向每名反诉原告，包括叶宁先生及另外两名反诉原告郭高胜先生和赵岩先生，赔偿 $60,000.00。\n\n特此命令，于本______________________________。\n\n尊敬的 David B. Cohen（戴维·B·科恩）法官\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451 提交 06/01/22 录入 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 74 页，共 83 页\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）02/05/2019 01:33 PM NYSCEF 文书编号 1\n\n索引编号 151251/2019 收到 NYSCEF：02/05/2019\n\n34. 根据该协议，原告同意向被告支付固定费用及一项激励费用，该激励费用以被告能够向原告提供有关 Boxun（博讯）和 Xiong（熊）的何种信息为条件。\n\n35. 根据该协议，应付给被告的固定费用与激励费用合计最高为 $3 million。\n\n36. 基于被告关于其能够履行该协议的虚假陈述，原告依赖该协议并本着善意预留且未以其他方式投资 $3 million。\n\n37. 尽管被告从未根据该协议开展任何工作，并且违反该协议的保密条款向多名第三方披露该协议，被告仍要求向其支付 $3 million 的固定费用和激励费用，如同其已完全履行该协议一般。\n\n38. 被告明知其无权要求原告付款，仍为非法勒索其无权获得的、就被告未提供的服务所支付的款项，而采取恶意、侵权及勒索性的行为过程，包括但不限于：威胁对原告及其家人和财产造成人身伤害；威胁公布有关原告的所谓“事实”，其唯一目的在于伤害原告；以及除造成经济损失外，对原告的声誉和业务造成不可弥补的损害。\n\n39. 被告通过其威胁和行为，已试图并已通过使原告害怕其本人及其财产受到损害而剥夺原告的财产。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451 提交 06/01/22 录入 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 76 页，共 83 页\n\n美国弗吉尼亚东区联邦地区法院\n\nWENGUI GUO（郭文贵）\n原告\n\n案号：1 : 1 8 - C V - 1 7 4\n\n诉\n\nYELLIANG XIA（夏业良）\n被告\n\n证言笔录：\n\nWENGUI GUO（郭文贵）\nTuesday, June 4, 2019\nWashington D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）\n10:16 A.M.\n\nJob Number: 3409553\n页码：1-88\n法庭记录员：Stayce Lawson（斯泰西·劳森），法庭记录员\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451 提交 06/01/22 录入 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 79 页，共 83 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451 提交 06/01/22 录入 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 80 页，共 83 页\n\n问：您是否有任何为贷款提供抵押担保的资产？\n\n答：我不明白您在说什么。您是指之前还是现在？\n\n问：您说您通过贷款获得资金。对吗？\n\n答：嗯。\n\n问：现在，人们仅仅基于您是谁就向您提供贷款，还是您向他们承诺提供抵押物？您明白抵押物是什么，对吗？\n\n答：有些我明白，有些我不明白。\n\n问：好的。那么，您认为其中有多少是有抵押担保的？换言之，您的贷款中有多少是以抵押物为基础的？\n\n答：我无法告诉您。我无法回答，因为我看不出这与本案有何关联。您提出的问题，如果我们要谈，得花一整天。\n\n问：好的。我们可以谈一整天。请回答问题。\n\n答：您说我们可以花一整天？问题是什么？\n\n问：您的贷款中有多少是有抵押担保的？\n\nMORRISSY 律师：您是在寻求一个金额吗？\n\nDENNIS 律师：我是在寻求一个金额。\n\n答：一百二十亿至一百三十亿。\n\n问：这是人民币还是美元？\n\n答：美元。\n\n问：您用什么资产为此提供抵押担保？\n\n答：其中一些是我们的房地产、我们家族在中国的房地产，还有一些是我的个人担保。\n\n问：好的。那些实体资产位于何处？\n\n答：除了我目前居住的位于纽约的这一处外，大多数都在中国。\n\n问：在中国，是指中国内地、香港，还是两者都有？\n\n答：包括香港和中国内地。\n\n问：您是否有任何非实体资产，例如应收账款、债券、在其他公司的任何持股，或诸如此类的资产？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451 提交 06/01/22 录入 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 82 页，共 83 页\n\n答：您是指我个人是否拥有这些吗？\n\n问：是。您是否能够取得这些资产？\n\n答：不能。\n\n问：当您说您借入该笔资金并抵押这些资产时，您是否确实就这些金额签署了借款协议？\n\n答：有些签了，有些没有。\n\n问：好的。那些有抵押担保的贷款是否形成书面文件？\n\n答：大多数不需要我的签字，但有些需要。\n\n问：好的。那么，向您提供资金的人如何把钱交给您？\n\n答：大多数是以合同为依据。大多数款项都存入贷款账户。\n\n答：根据借款协议中的约定，贷款会在合同注明的日期提供至该账户。\n\n问：好的。当您没有合同时，资金如何转移？\n\n答：没有合同的，我们只是口头约定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 451 提交 06/01/22 录入 06/03/22 12:26:26 第 83 页，共 83 页\n\n问：对。但他们如何知道把钱汇往何处？\n\n答：根据我们的口头约定和指示，他们会照办。\n\n问：您如何偿还这些贷款？\n\n答：这取决于我的信誉、我个人的信誉以及未来。\n\n答：基于我们的口头约定、在我们口头约定中约定的条件，也基于他们相信我未来具备还款能力，以及基于所提供的抵押物。\n\n问：好的。这些是向您提供贷款的朋友。对吗？\n\n答：他们是机构。\n\n问：是什么机构？\n\n答：个人投资者。\n\n答：私募基金和投资基金。\n\n问：您将此作为收入来源已有多长时间？\n\n答：两年。\n\n问：您是否在美国报税？","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CCP","RICO","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","Chinese Communist Party","MSS","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":55,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":64,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":23233,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-06-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-06-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:29:09"}