{"id":"court_ctb_478_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":478,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | |--------------------------------|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| In re:                              | CHAPTER 11                  |\n|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK,                        | Case No. 22-50073(JAM)      |\n| Debtor.                             |                             |\n| Weican (Watson) Meng and Boxun Inc, |                             |\n| Plaintiffs,                         | Adv. Proc. No. ____________ |\n| v.                                  |                             |\n| Ho Wan Kwok,                        |                             |\n| Defendant.                          |                             |\n\n# **COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY**\n\nWeican (Watson) Meng (\"**Meng**\") and Boxun Inc. (\"**Boxun**\") (together, \"**Plaintiffs**\"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, in support of this Complaint against Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui (the \"**Defendant**\" or \"**Debtor**\") hereby, allege and state as follows:\n\n# **PARTIES**\n\n1. Meng is the founder and a contributing writer of Boxun News\n\n(htt), a United States-based independent media outlet located in Flushing, New York. Meng is a graduate of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, having received his MBA in 2005, and was named a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University in 2008 and 2009. Meng maintains an active Twitter account (@wmeng8) and is often referred to,\n\nand known as, \"*Wei Shi*\" by his followers there and at Boxun. Meng is a creditor listed on the Debtor's list of top creditors filed in the Debtor's Bankruptcy Case (defined below).\n\n2. Boxun Inc. (collectively, with Boxun News, \"Boxun\"), Boxun News's corporate entity, is incorporated in New York. Boxun prides itself on being an independent voice that sheds light on the often opaque world of the Peoples' Republic of China (\"PRC\"). Its mission includes, but is not limited to, reporting on the inner workings of the secretive government of the PRC and publishing revelations about human rights violations in that country. Boxun utilizes the services of journalists, and at times non-journalists, who are, in most instances, PRC nationals with intimate, personal knowledge of the occurrences about which they report. Boxun Inc. is a creditor listed on the Debtor's list of top creditors filed in the Debtor's Bankruptcy Case (defined below).\n\n3. Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui, the Defendant in this adversary proceeding, is a Chinese national, and the debtor in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the \"**Bankruptcy Case**\"). Upon information and belief, the Defendant possesses passports from numerous countries, including those from Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, and the Republic of Malta, and uses a number of aliases, including Guo Wen Gui, Guo Haoyun and Miles Kwok, among others. The Defendant purports to presently reside in Connecticut, and, upon information and belief, at all times relevant to Plaintiffs and their claims, the Defendant resided in New York City.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334.\n\n5. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).\n\n6. Venue of this action is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a).\n\n7. The bases for the relief requested in this Complaint are 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007 and 7001.\n\n8. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on their claims against the Debtor and do not consent to trial in this Court.\n\n### **RELEVANT BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **I. The State Court Litigation and Plaintiffs Claims.**\n\n9. In 2017, Plaintiffs commenced a civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (the \"**State Court**\"), Index No. 159636/2017 (the \"**State Court Litigation**\"), against the Debtor, asserting claims for defamation, defamation *per se,* injurious falsehoods, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress. In all, Plaintiffs asserted five causes of action in the State Court Litigation arising from their injuries intentionally caused by the Debtor, with three of those causes of action currently pending (collectively, the \"**Plaintiffs Claims**\"). The other two causes of action were dismissed.\n\n10. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint in the State Court Litigation setting forth the Plaintiffs Claims (the \"**State Court Complaint**\") is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As alleged therein, unhappy with the truthful and factual reporting by Plaintiffs about him, the Debtor commenced a campaign against the Plaintiffs to defame, harass and intimidate them for purposes of causing injury to the Plaintiffs. The Debtor repeatedly published fabricated, false, and offensive statements about each of the Plaintiffs on social medial platforms such as Twitter and websites such as YouTube, asserting that Meng is a spy, and Plaintiffs are paid agents of the PRC, and have engaged in criminal acts that will lead to prosecution. The Debtor has intentionally and maliciously defamed each of the Plaintiffs and inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiffs, causing them substantial injury. *See, e.g.,* State Court Complaint ¶¶ 23-108.\n\n11. The State Court Complaint is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation of the State Court Complaint as if said allegation is fully set forth herein. As set forth in the State Court Complaint, the Debtor's intentional and malicious conduct against the Plaintiffs include, but are not limited to, the following events.\n\n12. From late 2014 to 2016, Plaintiffs published a number of articles about Guo indicating that he was working in close coordination with, and/or at the behest of, the government of the PRC, notwithstanding his public pronouncements against it.\n\n13. As a result, Guo embarked on a full-throated campaign to harm and discredit Plaintiffs using threats, intimidation, and defamation. In fact, upon information and belief, his media business plan expressly included his campaign to defame and harm Meng and Boxun.\n\n14. Guo's business plan, a copy of which Meng obtained from a Twitter posting (@YvetteWong0 on 09/14/2017), for a media venture called \"Democracy TV\" (a Guo Global Media Group project) asserted that in 2017, \"MGM will make every step forward to sink the Boxun, while phasing out the media under Watson's [Meng's] control.\"\n\n### **A. Guo's Defamatory Statements Posted on Twitter**\n\n15. Upon information and belief, at the time the State Court Litigation was filed, the Debtor had more than 524,000 followers on Twitter.\n\n16. On February 17, 2017, Guo asserted on Twitter: \"@wmeng8 Mr. Weishi, how dare you lie with your eyes open, netizens know how to read! Please do not make such stupid mistakes to think you are smarter than the netizens! You can present the evidences I have mentioned, you said I love money, I am an entrepreneur, so why wouldn't I love money, however, I am not like you who would betray friends and take advantage of other's trust to bully those who are weak and help those who are evil in order to earn ill-gotten money! You collected\n\nmoney from three sides from your falsified report about me, you are so evil, as evil as the bad Disciplinarum Committee + the Public Security!\"\n\n17. On February 17, 2017, the Debtor asserted on Twitter, \"@ZhaoMingObserve @wmeng8 You upheld the justice for me and they bullied you, how could I simply watch and not do anything, that's not the style for Guo Wengui. In order to thank you for upholding the justice for me today, please disclose on my behalf some evidence on Mr. Weishi lurking around and taking money! Whatever we do, we have to be sensible and reasonable at the same time, and we also go by evidence!\"\n\n18. On February 22, 2017, the Debtor asserted on Twitter, \"Dear netizens: I believe the netizens have seen the synthetic video of \"Triple Evilness\" of Guo Wengui. It is proved from an official and reliable channel that the source of the video is Fu Zhenghua, who directly ordered the video to be broadcasted. Weishi and Xinuo from overseas are directly under the orders from the First Bureau and Fu Zhenghua with the promise of great benefits. Get rid of Mingjing and Guo Wengui and give the overseas Chinese media market to Weishi, and offer them an enormous sum of money for support in addition to the original annual appropriations. As I did not fully follow their control and mentioned members and the standing committee of the Poliburo, the Special Investigation Team came to my company again in the last 48 hours for the so-called arraignment and evidence collection from the parties involved. It was said the above request is to convict Guo Wengui and his son at any cost. An international arrest warrant can only be issued if they are convicted.\"\n\n19. The First Bureau refers to the Ministry of Public Security, which is the PRC's principal police and security authority and the government agency that exercises oversight over\n\nlaw enforcement. Fu Zhenghua is a PRC public security official who served as Deputy Minister of Public Security.\n\n20. On February 22, 2017, the Debtor asserted on Twitter, \"@ZhaoMingObserve In order to thank the netizens for your indescribable support that has touched me so much: Let me break two news as my little reward to you[.] The person who is pixelated in the photo is the older brother of the former president of the Peking University, he is a great guy, as it only has the photo of Li You, me and us visiting Jiuzhaigou, I knew as soon as Boxun published the photo on their website that Li You and his shareholders from the Standing Committee of the Politburo bought over Weishi from Boxun.\"\n\n21. On March 6, 2017, the Debtor asserted on Twitter that \"Today is a great day: I read this objective and excellent article written by Mr. Tang Baiqiao and I was very touched. This is the power, attraction, warmth of the Tweeter world. Wengui is sincerely grateful to Mr. Tang, and Weishi, Xinuo and his boss must be brought for justice. Their threats and evil forces to the domestic and overseas Chinese must be eradicated, and everything has just begun. It must.\"\n\n22. On March 21, 2017, the Debtor asserted on Twitter that \"@wenyunchao Wengui is here to gamble for once with the supporters of Weishi: both Mr. Weishi and Mr. Xinuo will be sued by the prosecutor for offence of extortion by blackmail and tax evasion. I am simply asking you to drink the entire bottle at my victory banquet in New York for my grass root honesty and bravery. If they can get away by the end of 2017, I will invite them to my banquet for a bottle of drinks at the Spring Festival of 2018 and I will also give each one one million U.S. Dollars as a compensation. Who would like to sign up?\"\n\n23. On October 3, 2017, the Debtor asserted on Twitter that \"Everyone please be careful that this is a phishing email. It's fake… Weishi and B Wu and Xinuo did it!\"\n\n24. Upon information and belief, the Debtor made additional statements regarding Meng and Boxun on Twitter that have since been deleted from the Debtor's Twitter account.\n\n25. Insofar as Boxun's success as a functioning news service is premised upon its independence from the PRC government and all other government agencies, the false statements that Meng works with the government of the PRC are highly damaging to Meng's reputation and thus are defamatory *per se*.\n\n26. Also, the Debtor's false statements that Plaintiffs' purportedly committed a crime are also defamatory *per se.*\n\n#### **B. The Debtor's Defamatory Statements on YouTube.**\n\n27. The Debtor also made statements posted on YouTube concerning Plaintiffs.\n\n28. On May 19, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"They are also very interesting, they provide me with information immediately, saying that Weishi from Boxun is very bad. They said he has two younger brothers, his real name is Meng Weican, from Hebei Province, and he has one younger brother called Meng Weisong, and let me see, yes Meng Weisong, and another younger brother called Meng Weikang (transliteration). At least four tweeter friends, whom I don't know completely, said they have had dealings with his family before, which was to (illegible) and to (illegible), and they have connections with various departments.\"\n\n29. On May 20, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"I was very happy to see Weishi sent me a message after he saw my TV announcement and it was my first time to see Mr. Weishi getting so upset. He said I won't let you off easy if you direct against my family. However, I am very happy today because I finally see my opponent feeling the pain because of his family. I am not perverted, but I am very happy as I have found your pain spot. Don't your\n\nfamily let you feel the pain? I can also learn from your partners and traitors. Didn't you get a new task in Hong Kong? Didn't you say to me yesterday \"Guo Wengui, let's see who's going to get locked up first\"? That's right, let's see who's going to get locked up first. Next, as for your younger brothers and your family, you will see how I will handle them. Weishi you see, everything is easy as long you have a pain spot. Let's see who's going to get locked up first, Weishi. Mr. Weishi, you accepted your task in Hong Kong, and you have such delusion, you and the traitors and rogues are like twins who can have sufficient reasons to justify your evil doing and actions.\"\n\n30. On June 13, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"And there is Weishi from Boxun, Weishi from Boxun, plus, mostly importantly, the so-called systematic control behind the scenes from the traitors in domestic China, which is very very scary.\"\n\n31. On June 28, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"I don't even want to mention Boxun anymore, Boxun will be arrested by the U.S. Government for sure, let's wait and see and I am so anxiously looking forward to it. Even though, there are still people supporting it, for those who support it should know what end you will come to. They work for the Chinese government; this has already been acknowledged unanimously by the U.S. Government officials.\"\n\n32. On July 8, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Your two younger brothers are collecting money in Beijing, for everything you have done, Weishi, I will certainly make you pay! You will find out very soon, I had a bet with you. Let's see where you will go at the end of the year.\"\n\n33. On October 10, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"It was very strange yesterday, yesterday morning, which is at night in Beijing the day before, Maosheng's\n\nJin Zhizheng contacted me for information on the family members of Weishi and Xinuo, including a few buddies of Weishi raking in money in China. I was very shocked, I thought it wasn't real, I then went home to call to verify and found it was true. Very interesting, and then also yesterday, a few U.S. journalists called me to verify with me that they heard Hu Jingtao and Wen Jiabao were arrested. I asked if they saw it on Boxun and they said yes. I told them every information on that website is 100% fake. It is so disastrous. Can you believe Boxun actually said that Hu Jingtao and Wen Jiabao were arrested?!\"\n\n34. The term \"Jin Zhizheng\" means \"Economic Investigator of a Province,\" which is a Section of the Ministry of Public Security described above.\n\n35. On July 17, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Therefore, Weishi will certainly spend the rest of his life in jail. This is for sure and I can say it responsibly. Whatever you say doesn't matter as they have already finished with their investigation.\"\n\n36. On August 5, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Comparatively, Weishi from Boxun would be a piece of garbage, that guy could sell his mother for one hundred dollars, that Weishi, he could really sell his mother for one hundred dollars, he would take a deep breath as soon as he smells money, he can't help it, he is different. Therefore, knowing Weishi is a special agent and Xinuo is a special agent, but nobody does anything, now it feels like everyone is a special agent.\"\n\n37. On August 21, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Boxun, and Weishi, Xinuo, and Toad Li are an intelligence organization in the U.S., can they deceive any longer? Can't the U.S. Government see it? How much longer can they stay blind?! Therefore, as you can see, how many spies and special agents will be caught by Wengui's magic mirror, this is so interesting.\"\n\n38. On August 28, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Haemorrhoid Xia, Weishi, Xinuo, they phish blatantly and collect money, they violate the law and commit crimes, why don't quote that?\"\n\n39. On September 4, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Then Weishi, Xinuo are criminals and wanted men!\"\n\n40. On September 6, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Got away from the wild swine herd and wild dog pack of Toad Li Weidong, and Xinuo, Weishi, Haemorrhoid Xia of Xia Yeliang, as well as traitors like Sun Lijun and Meng Jianzhu.\"\n\n41. On September 10, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Therefore, Li Weidong, the Toad Li, and people such as Weishi and Xinuo, as well as Haemorrhoid Zhang and Haemorrhoid Xia are all the results of \"Lan-Jin-Huang [Blue/Gold/Yellow].\"\n\n42. \"Operation Blue/Gold/Yellow\" is a term the Debtor uses to describe the PRC's tactics to target individuals – through bribes, blackmail and other nefarious means – and to coerce them to work for the PRC government.\n\n43. On September 10, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Just like Haemorrhoid Xia, Haemorrhoid Zhang, Weishi, Xinuo, Toad Li Weidong, and this He Qinlian, and a bunch of these things, all of these will be wiped out like flying ashes. Let these people be a great gift to us, they will let us see these silent forces are threatening our pursuit of democracy and the legal system.\"\n\n44. On September 19, 2017, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"At the downstream, there are Weishi and Xinuo from Boxun as well as Toad Li Weidong operating on the outside with a public Tweeter account and a fake Wang Yanping identity, with many hackers attacking you and everyone at Mingjing.\"\n\n45. On February 4, 2018, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Can I go to Boxun? Of course I cannot go to Boxun, otherwise I will be caught if I go to Boxun, I would die sooner or later without knowing it.\"\n\n46. The Debtor continues, later in that YouTube video \"Chen Jun, you now need to answer the following questions: What is your relation with Weishi? What is your relation with Xinuo and what is your relation with Yuan Jianbin? Have you plotted with them to frame Guo Wengui? …When we look back, all of what you have said are rumors spreaded by Yuan Jianbin, Weishi, Wu Zheng and the Communist Party.\"\n\n47. The Debtor further states in that February 4, 2018 video, again referring to Chen Jun, that \"However, if he does not tell the truth but behaves like people such as Boxun, Weishi, Li Weidong, or Ye Liang, then we would have to wait and see…\"\n\n48. On February 10, 2018, the Debtor stated in a YouTube video that \"Everyone can see there is something common about Chen Jun, Yuan Jianbin, Weishi, Xinuo, Wu Zheng: that is they can lie without blinking their eyes. They think everyone else in this world has zero brain, it is because they got away with their lies each time, that's the reason they can be so ignorant and arrogant…Yuan Jianbin, Weishi, Xinuo, and Chen Jun scammed whom for money? It was their friends' money, while Wu Zheng scammed the government for money and Jack Ma stealed money from the government.\"\n\n49. Insofar as Plaintiffs' success as a functioning news service is premised upon its independence from the PRC government and all other government agencies, these allegations are highly damaging to Plaintiffs' professional reputation and thus are defamatory *per se*.\n\n### **C. The Debtor's Other Acts of Harassment and Intimidation.**\n\n50. In addition to the Debtor's very public defamatory statements about Plaintiffs, the Debtor undertook an intentional campaign of harassment and intimidation against Meng personally, in an effort to cause him emotional distress and to further derail Plaintiffs' business efforts.\n\n51. As discussed herein, the Debtor's extreme and outrageous actions, through his agents, have caused Meng severe emotional distress.\n\n52. On March 3, 2017, the Debtor sent three men to a Boxun employee's home in Flushing, New York.\n\n53. At approximately 6:40 p.m. that day, the men knocked on the door of the Boxun employee's home.\n\n54. The employee's landlady answered the door, but she refused to open it. In response, the men kicked the door. The employee's landlady threatened to call the police and the three men left. The incident left the employee's landlady in distress and physically ill.\n\n55. At 9:40 p.m. that same day, Meng's surveillance camera recorded a black car that had gone to his home. The black car's visiting his home was unusual for Meng's neighborhood particularly at this time of evening.\n\n56. The next day, on March 4, 2017, the Debtor admitted on Twitter that the harassment Meng and his employee experienced were at the Debtor's direction: \"Good morning Mr. Weishi: You originally tried to scare me by either trying to reach out to the prosecutors, or FBI, and then you wanted to file a lawsuit…Even half of the cows in Mongolia are scared to death by you… and your actions? Wengui can't wait any longer as I am ready to take actions…my buddies didn't scare you enough for you to pee in your pants yesterday, did they?\n\nThese prosecutors and police will accompany you to jail, you better reach out to your organization in Beijing for help! Mr. Weishi! Everything has just begun!\"\n\n57. With this statement, the Debtor posted four pictures depicting several men standing in front of a police vehicle. Upon information and belief, the men depicted in the pictures are police offers or otherwise associated with law enforcement.\n\n58. Later that same day, the Debtor issued Meng a challenge on Twitter: \"Mr. Weishi finally crawled out of the rat hole. Weren't (you) scared to death when (I) came? The address you gave me is fake, you were so scared that you went into hiding yesterday. You didn't even have the gut to accept the indictment and the investigation notice and you are still talking nonsense here, and now you are beginning to mention my passport. If you have the gut, let's bring our passports to a live broadcast at Mingjing. Or I can meet you anywhere you want today! Would you dare? Take a couple of walks?\"\n\n59. Meng, hoping to end the Debtor's harassment and intimidation tactics against him, accepted the Debtor's offer to meet in person.\n\n60. On March 4, 2017 at approximately 4 p.m., Meng met the Debtor at the Sheraton Hotel in Flushing, New York. The Debtor was accompanied by more than ten individuals that appeared to be bodyguards, a lawyer and assistants.\n\n61. At the meeting, Meng told the Debtor and his agents that they should not have sent people to the Boxun employee's home and that they should not have kicked his door.\n\n62. In response, the Debtor told Meng that the men he sent to the Boxun employee's home were police officers (intimating that he had hired the officers to do his work) and that they \"can go to anybody's home.\"\n\n63. The Debtor stated that he instructed the men to kick the door when the employee's landlady would not open it.\n\n64. Upon information and belief, the Debtor again ordered his agents, some or all of whom were carrying guns, to harass Meng in the early morning and late night.\n\n65. Meng's surveillance cameras captured the Debtor's agents returning to Meng's home several times.\n\n66. On March 6, 2017, the Debtor's agents followed Meng to a donut store near Plaintiffs' office.\n\n67. During this incident, the Debtor's agents took pictures of Meng and Meng's car, which were posted on Twitter (@YvetteWong0 on 8/18/2017).\n\n68. On March 7, 2017, the Debtor's agents followed Meng for over forty miles from his home to Boxun's office. Meng reported this incident to police.\n\n69. That same day, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Meng observed an unknown individual in a white car watching Meng's home. Concerned for his safety, Meng called the police. After investigating, the police indicated that the individual outside his home had been hired to surveil Meng's home.\n\n70. The next day, in the morning of March 8, 2017, Meng observed that the white sedan that was parked outside his home had been replaced by a van with an individual who was also surveilling Meng's home.\n\n71. When Meng photographed the van in front of his home, the van quickly drove away. The van later returned to the same location.\n\n72. Upon information and belief, the Debtor hired these individuals to surveil Meng's home in furtherance of his harassment and intimidation campaign.\n\n73. On May 8, 2017, Meng learned that the Debtor's agents had taken Meng's confidential personal and business bank information, including a record of his bank transactions.\n\n74. The Debtor published Meng's bank account information on Twitter and YouTube.\n\n75. The Debtor has also attempted to enlist third parties to participate in his attacks on Meng. Specifically, on multiple occasions in October 2017, the Debtor directed his agents and/or representatives, including, but not limited to, an individual named Guo Baosheng, to physically approach and verbally communicate with friends, colleagues and business associates of Meng, including, but not limited to, an individual named Yuan Jianbin.\n\n76. The Debtor's agents and representatives offered Meng's friends, colleagues and business associates money and other enticements to distance themselves from Meng and to publicly state negative things about Meng, thereby further defaming him.\n\n77. Some of these efforts have been unsuccessful because of the loyalty to Meng shown by his friends, colleagues and business associates.\n\n78. However, in other instances, these efforts were successful, including, but not limited to, Zhao Yan, Ge Lifang and Ai Furong, all of whom have betrayed Meng and Boxun by making negative public statements about them at the behest of the Debtor.\n\n79. The Debtor s acts of physical and emotional intimidation – along with his defamatory statements detailed herein – have caused severe emotional distress to Meng.\n\n80. The Debtor's interference with Meng's personal and professional relationships has contributed to and further exacerbated his emotional distress.\n\n### **II. The Commencement of the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n81. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"**Bankruptcy Code**\") commencing this bankruptcy case.\n\n82. The Debtor's list of largest unsecured creditors identifies each of the Movants as one of the largest non-insider creditors in this case. (ECF Nos. 4, 20).\n\n83. The Plaintiffs Claims are personal injury claims that are expressly excluded from matters in which bankruptcy courts may enter final judgments or that may be estimated by bankruptcy courts for distribution purposes, nor do bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to try such claims. *See* 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (O), 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(5). Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on their claims against the Debtor and do not consent to trial in this Court.\n\n## **COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Nondischargeability of the Defamation** *Per Se* **Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)**\n\n84. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n85. Individual debtors are not entitled to a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code from any debt \"for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity.\" 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).\n\n86. The first cause of action in the State Court Complaint sets forth the Plaintiffs' claim against the Debtor for the intentional tort of Defamation *Per Se* (the \"**Defamation** *Per Se* **Claim**\"). State Court Complaint ¶¶ 109-117. As set forth above and in the State Court Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Debtor intentionally and with malice repeatedly defamed Plaintiffs seeking to cause them injury, and did cause injury to Plaintiffs.\n\n87. Through postings to social media accounts, websites, and various other writings aforesaid, the Debtor has falsely and repeatedly claimed, among other things, that Meng is a paid agent of the government of the PRC, or otherwise under the control of that country's government and/or intelligence service, and that he engaged in criminal acts. The Debtor made similar statements against Boxun. These statements have been read by countless individuals.\n\n88. These repeated false statements have damaged Meng's reputation and caused many individuals to doubt Meng's independence as a journalist, and Boxun as an independent news source.\n\n89. These statements have damaged Meng's reputation among a large number of people, and caused them to associate Plaintiffs with bad journalism, false reporting and conflicted motivations.\n\n90. The Debtor knew that these statements are false and had no authorization to make these false statements nor are they protected by any privilege.\n\n91. The Debtor made these statements with malice and the intent to damage Boxun, Meng, his reputation and his business, and to induce third parties not to do business with him, particularly by ceasing to consume the independent journalism provided by Boxun.\n\n92. Meng has suffered extensive damages as a direct result of these false statements by Defendant, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of such violations of law for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Damages to the Plaintiff Meng are presumed for the Defamation *Per Se* Claim.\n\n93. The Debtor's conduct resulting in the Defamation *Per Se* Claim constitutes willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff Meng within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the State Court Litigation to be liable on the Defamation *Per Se* Claim, the Debtor's liability (including actual, presumed, and punitive damages, as well as interest, fees and costs) for the Defamation *Per Se* Claim is nondischargeable.\n\n## **COUNT II – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Nondischargeability of the Defamation Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)**\n\n94. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n95. Individual debtors are not entitled to a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code from any debt \"for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity.\" 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).\n\n96. The second cause of action in the State Court Complaint sets forth the Plaintiffs' claim against the Debtor for the intentional tort of Defamation (the \"**Defamation Claim**\"). State Court Complaint ¶¶ 118-127. As set forth above and in the State Court Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Debtor intentionally and with malice repeatedly defamed Plaintiffs seeking to cause them injury and did cause injury to Plaintiffs.\n\n97. Through postings to social media accounts, websites, and various other writings aforesaid, the Debtor has falsely and repeatedly claimed, among other things, that Meng is a paid agent of the government of the PRC, or otherwise under the control of that country's government and/or intelligence service, and that he engaged in criminal acts. Through social media, websites and various other writings, the Debtor also has falsely and repeatedly claimed that Boxun is a paid agent of the government of the PRC and that it engaged in criminal acts. These statements have been read by countless individuals.\n\n98. These repeated false statements have damaged Meng's reputation and caused many individuals to doubt Meng's independence as a journalist, and Boxun as an independent news source.\n\n99. These statements have damaged Meng's reputation among a large number of people, and caused them to associate Plaintiffs with bad journalism, false reporting and conflicted motivations.\n\n100. The Debtor knew that these statements are false and had no authorization to make these false statements nor are they protected by any privilege.\n\n101. The Debtor made these statements with malice and the intent to damage Boxun, Meng, his reputation and the Plaintiffs' business, and to induce third parties not to do business with the Plaintiffs, particularly by ceasing to consume the independent journalism provided by Boxun.\n\n102. The Plaintiffs have suffered extensive damages as a direct result of the intentional false statements by the Debtor, including but not limited to, lost revenue and injury to their professional reputation, in a monetary amount to be determined at trial, and Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of such violations of law for which there is no adequate remedy at law.\n\n103. The Debtor's conduct resulting in the Defamation Claim constitutes willful and malicious injury to Plaintiffs within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the State Court Litigation to be liable on the Defamation Claim, the Debtor's liability (including actual, presumed, and punitive damages, as well as interest, fees and costs) for the Defamation Claim is nondischargeable.\n\n### **COUNT III – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Nondischargeability of the IIED Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)**\n\n104. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n105. Individual debtors are not entitled to a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code from any debt \"for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity.\" 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).\n\n106. The fourth<sup>1</sup> cause of action in the State Court Complaint sets forth the Plaintiff Meng's claim against the Debtor for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (the \"**IIED**\n\n<sup>1</sup> The third cause of action was dismissed without prejudice to replead but was not replead by Plaintiffs.\n\n**Claim**\"). State Court Complaint ¶¶ 140-148. As set forth above and in the State Court Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Debtor intentionally and with malice repeatedly defamed, threatened and intimidated Plaintiffs seeking to cause them injury and did cause injury to Plaintiffs.\n\n**107.** The Debtor undertook a campaign to defame, harass and intimidate Plaintiff Meng. Through social media accounts, video statements, and writings aforesaid, the Debtor has falsely and repeatedly claimed that Plaintiff Meng is a paid agent of the government of the PRC or otherwise under the control of that country's intelligence service, and that he engaged in criminal acts. These statements have been read, viewed, and heard by countless individuals.\n\n108. The Debtor knew these statements are false and his repeated publishing of these false claims regarding Meng constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.\n\n109. In addition, the Debtor engaged in intentional conduct to harass and intimidate Meng, including by sending his agents to follow Meng; surveil his home; and investigate Meng's personal and business bank transactions. The Debtor's campaign of harassment and intimidation against Meng constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.\n\n110. The Debtor also engaged his agents and paid them to (1) make false statements about Plaintiffs to Meng's friends and colleagues; (2) physically intimidate Meng; and (3) approach the home of Meng's employee and to attempt to intimidate that person.\n\n111. The Debtor has made these statements, and committed acts of intimidation through his representatives, with intent to cause severe emotional distress to Meng.\n\n112. Directly, because of these false and outrageous statements and intentional actions made with malice to harm Meng, Meng has experienced at least the following: severe emotional\n\ndistress, shame, anxiety, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.\n\n113. As a result, Meng has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.\n\n114. The Debtor's conduct resulting in the IIED Claim constitutes willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff Meng within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the State Court Litigation to be liable on the IIED Claim, the Debtor's liability (including actual, presumed, and punitive damages, as well as interest, fees and costs) for the IIED Claim is nondischargeable.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\nWHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant judgment as follows:\n\n(a) Declaring the liability of Debtor to Meng for the Defamation *Per Se* Claim, as determined by the State Court in the State Court Litigation, to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6);\n\n(b) Declaring the liability of Debtor to Plaintiffs for the Defamation Claim, as determined by the State Court in the State Court Litigation, to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6);\n\n(c) Declaring the liability of Debtor to Meng for the IIED Claim, as determined by the State Court in the State Court Litigation, to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6); and\n\n(d) Granting such other and further relief to Plaintiffs as may be just and proper.\n\nDated: June 20, 2022\n\n */s/ Kristen B. Mayhew*\n\nKristin B. Mayhew **MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP** 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 kmayhew@mdmc-law.com\n\n- and -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari (*pro hac vice*) David S. Forsh (*pro hac vice*) **CALLARI PARTNERS LLC** One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 ccallari@callaripartners.com dforsh@callaripartners.com\n\n*Attorneys for Rui Ma*","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　案号 22-50073(JAM)\n债务人。\nWeican (Watson) Meng（孟维参）和 Boxun Inc.（博讯公司），\n原告，　对立程序案号 ____________\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n被告。\n确定可否免责之诉状\n\nWeican (Watson) Meng（以下简称“孟”）和 Boxun Inc.（以下简称“博讯”，与孟合称“原告”）通过其下方签名的代理律师，为支持针对 Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui（郭文贵，又名 Guo Wengui，以下简称“被告”或“债务人”）提出本诉状，特此主张并陈述如下：\n\n当事人\n\n1. 孟是 Boxun News（博讯新闻）的创始人及撰稿人；Boxun News 是一家位于纽约州法拉盛、总部设在美国的独立媒体机构（htt）。孟毕业于 Duke University（杜克大学）Fuqua School of Business（福库商学院），于 2005 年获得 MBA 学位，并于 2008 年和 2009 年获选为 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）John S. Knight Journalism Fellow（约翰·S·奈特新闻学研究员）。孟持有活跃的 Twitter 账户（@wmeng8），其在该平台及博讯的追随者常称其并知其为“魏师”。孟系债务人破产案件（定义见下文）中债务人提交的主要债权人名单所列债权人。\n\n2. Boxun Inc.（与 Boxun News 合称“博讯”）是 Boxun News 的法人实体，注册成立于纽约州。博讯以作为揭示中华人民共和国（以下简称“中国”）这一常常不透明世界的独立声音而自豪。其使命包括但不限于报道中国秘密政府的内部运作，以及刊载关于该国侵犯人权行为的披露。博讯聘用记者，以及有时聘用非记者；在多数情况下，该等人员均为中国国民，并对其报道事项具有密切的个人知识。Boxun Inc. 系债务人破产案件（定义见下文）中债务人提交的主要债权人名单所列债权人。\n\n3. Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui（郭文贵，又名 Guo Wengui），本对立程序中的被告，是中国国民，也是上述标题所列破产案件（以下简称“破产案件”）中的债务人。根据所知及确信，被告持有多个国家的护照，包括香港、阿拉伯联合酋长国和马耳他共和国的护照，并使用多个别名，包括 Guo Wen Gui、Guo Haoyun 和 Miles Kwok 等。被告声称目前居住于康涅狄格州；根据所知及确信，在与原告及其请求相关的所有期间内，被告居住于纽约市。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n4. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对当事人及本程序具有管辖权。\n\n5. 本案依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) 属于核心程序。\n\n6. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a)，本案在本地区的审判地适格。\n\n7. 本诉状所请求救济的依据为 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 以及 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007 and 7001。\n\n8. 原告就其针对债务人的请求要求陪审团审判，且不同意由本院进行审判。\n\n相关背景\n\nI. 州法院诉讼及原告请求。\n\n9. 2017 年，原告在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院，以下简称“州法院”）对债务人提起民事诉讼，案卷编号 159636/2017（以下简称“州法院诉讼”），主张诽谤、当然诽谤、损害性虚假陈述、故意造成精神痛苦及合谋故意造成精神痛苦等请求。原告在州法院诉讼中共主张五项诉因，该等诉因源于债务人故意造成的对原告的损害，其中三项诉因目前仍在审理中（合称“原告请求”）。其余两项诉因已被驳回。\n\n10. 原告在州法院诉讼中提出并载明原告请求的修正诉状（以下简称“州法院诉状”）的真实、正确副本作为附件 A 随附于此。如其中所述，债务人不满原告对其所作真实且基于事实的报道，遂对原告展开诽谤、骚扰和恐吓活动，以对原告造成损害为目的。债务人在 Twitter 等社交媒体平台及 YouTube 等网站上反复发布有关每一原告的捏造、虚假和冒犯性言论，声称孟是间谍，原告是受中国报酬雇用的代理人，并实施了将导致被起诉的犯罪行为。债务人故意且恶意地诽谤每一原告，并使原告遭受精神痛苦，对其造成重大损害。参见，例如，州法院诉状 ¶¶ 23-108。\n\n11. 州法院诉状通过援引整体并入本诉状。原告重复主张并再次陈述州法院诉状中的每一项指控，犹如该等指控已在本诉状中完整载明。如下文州法院诉状所述，债务人针对原告的故意和恶意行为包括但不限于下列事件。\n\n12. 自 2014 年末至 2016 年，原告发表多篇关于郭的文章，表明尽管其公开发表反对中国政府的言论，但其与中国政府密切协调和/或奉中国政府之命行事。\n\n13. 因此，郭使用威胁、恐吓和诽谤，发起了一场全面的活动以伤害并诋毁原告。事实上，根据所知及确信，其媒体商业计划明确包括其诽谤和伤害孟及博讯的活动。\n\n14. 郭的商业计划副本由孟从一则 Twitter 帖文（@YvetteWong0，发布于 09/14/2017）获得；该计划针对名为“Democracy TV”的媒体项目（一项 Guo Global Media Group 项目），其中声称，2017 年，“MGM will make every step forward to sink the Boxun, while phasing out the media under Watson's [Meng's] control.”\n\nA. 郭在 Twitter 上发布的诽谤性言论\n\n15. 根据所知及确信，在州法院诉讼提起时，债务人在 Twitter 上拥有超过 524,000 名追随者。\n\n16. 2017 年 2 月 17 日，郭在 Twitter 上声称：“@wmeng8 魏师先生，你怎敢睁着眼睛说谎，网民知道如何阅读！请不要犯这种愚蠢错误，以为自己比网民聪明！你可以拿出我提到的证据，你说我爱钱，我是企业家，那我为什么不爱钱；但是，我不像你那样，为赚取不义之财而背叛朋友、利用他人的信任去欺凌弱者、帮助恶人！你从关于我的伪造报道中向三方收钱，你太邪恶了，和坏的纪委 + 公安一样邪恶！”\n\n17. 2017 年 2 月 17 日，债务人在 Twitter 上声称：“@ZhaoMingObserve @wmeng8 你为我主持正义，他们就欺负你，我怎能只是看着而什么也不做，那不是郭文贵的风格。为感谢你今天为我主持正义，请代我披露一些有关魏师先生潜伏和收钱的证据！无论我们做什么，都必须同时保持理智和合情合理，我们也以证据为依据！”\n\n18. 2017 年 2 月 22 日，债务人在 Twitter 上声称：“亲爱的网民：我相信网民已经看过郭文贵‘三恶’的合成视频。经官方和可靠渠道证实，该视频的来源是傅政华，是其直接下令播放该视频。海外的魏师和希诺直接听命于一局和傅政华，并被许以巨大利益。除掉明镜和郭文贵，把海外华文媒体市场交给魏师，并在原有年度拨款之外，为支持他们提供巨额资金。由于我没有完全遵从他们的控制，并提到政治局成员和常委，特别调查组在过去 48 小时内再次来到我的公司，对有关人员进行所谓传讯和取证。据说上述要求是要不惜任何代价给郭文贵及其儿子定罪。只有在他们被定罪后，才能签发国际逮捕令。”\n\n19. 一局系指公安部，该部是中国主要的警察和安全机关，也是行使对执法工作监督权的政府机构。Fu Zhenghua（傅政华）是曾任公安部副部长的中国公安官员。\n\n20. 2017 年 2 月 22 日，债务人在 Twitter 上声称：“@ZhaoMingObserve 为感谢网民给予我的难以言表、令我十分感动的支持：让我爆出两条新闻，作为给你们的小小回报[。] 照片中被打码的人是前北京大学校长的哥哥，他是一个很了不起的人；由于该照片仅有李友、我以及我们访问九寨沟的照片，博讯一在其网站上发布该照片，我就知道李友及其来自政治局常委会的股东从博讯手中收买了魏师。”\n\n21. 2017 年 3 月 6 日，债务人在 Twitter 上声称：“今天是伟大的一天：我读到了唐柏桥先生写的这篇客观而出色的文章，我非常感动。这就是 Twitter 世界的力量、吸引力和温暖。文贵衷心感谢唐先生，魏师、希诺及其老板必须被绳之以法。他们对国内外华人的威胁和邪恶势力必须被根除，而且一切才刚刚开始。必须如此。”\n\n22. 2017 年 3 月 21 日，债务人在 Twitter 上声称：“@wenyunchao 文贵在此要与魏师的支持者赌一次：魏师先生和希诺先生都会因敲诈勒索和逃税罪被检察官起诉。我只是要求你在我于纽约举行的胜利宴会上，为我草根的诚实和勇敢喝完整瓶酒。如果到 2017 年底他们能够脱身，我会在 2018 年春节时邀请他们参加我的宴会，每人喝一瓶酒，我还会给每人一百万美元作为赔偿。谁愿意报名？”\n\n23. 2017 年 10 月 3 日，债务人在 Twitter 上声称：“请大家小心，这是一封网络钓鱼电子邮件。它是假的……是魏师、B Wu 和希诺干的！”\n\n24. 根据所知及确信，债务人还曾在 Twitter 上就孟和博讯发表其他言论，该等言论此后已从债务人的 Twitter 账户中删除。\n\n25. 鉴于博讯作为运作中的新闻服务机构取得成功的前提，是其独立于中国政府及所有其他政府机构，关于孟与中国政府合作的虚假言论极大损害了孟的声誉，因此构成当然诽谤。\n\n26. 此外，债务人关于原告据称实施犯罪行为的虚假言论亦构成当然诽谤。\n\nB. 债务人在 YouTube 上发表的诽谤性言论。\n\n27. 债务人还发表了在 YouTube 上发布的、涉及原告的言论。\n\n28. 2017 年 5 月 19 日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“他们也很有意思，他们马上给我提供信息，说博讯的魏师很坏。他们说他有两个弟弟，他的真名叫孟维参，来自河北省；他有一个弟弟叫孟维松，让我看看，对，孟维松；还有一个弟弟叫孟维康（音译）。至少有四个我完全不认识的 Twitter 朋友说，他们以前与他的家人打过交道，即（无法辨认）和（无法辨认），并且他们与各个部门有联系。”\n\n29. 2017年5月20日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“我很高兴看到 Weishi（魏石）在看完我的电视公告后给我发来消息，而这是我第一次看到魏先生如此生气。他说，如果你针对我的家人，我不会轻易放过你。然而，我今天非常高兴，因为我终于看到我的对手因其家人而感到痛苦。我不是变态，但我非常高兴，因为我找到了你的痛点。难道你的家人不会让你感到痛苦吗？我也可以向你的伙伴和叛徒学习。你不是在香港接受了一项新任务吗？你昨天不是对我说过‘Guo Wengui（郭文贵），咱们看看谁会先被关起来’吗？没错，咱们看看谁会先被关起来。接下来，至于你的弟弟们和你的家人，你会看到我将如何对付他们。魏石，你看，只要你有痛点，一切都很容易。让我们看看谁会先被关起来，魏石。魏先生，你在香港接受了你的任务，而你有这种妄想；你、叛徒和流氓就像双胞胎一样，能够找到充分理由为你的邪恶行径和行为辩解。”\n\n30. 2017年6月13日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“还有来自 Boxun（博讯）的 Weishi（魏石），来自博讯的魏石；此外，最重要的是，来自中国境内叛徒在幕后所谓的系统性控制，这非常非常可怕。”\n\n31. 2017年6月28日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“我甚至不想再提博讯，博讯肯定会被美国政府逮捕；让我们拭目以待，我正非常急切地期待着。尽管如此，仍然有人支持它；支持它的人应当知道你们将会有什么下场。他们为中国政府工作；这一点已经得到美国政府官员的一致确认。”\n\n32. 2017年7月8日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“你的两个弟弟正在北京收钱；魏石，就你所做的一切，我一定会让你付出代价！你很快就会知道，我和你打过赌。让我们看看你到年底会去哪里。”\n\n33. 2017年10月10日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“昨天很奇怪，昨天早上，也就是前一天北京的夜晚，Maosheng（茅生）的 Jin Zhizheng（省经侦）联系我，询问有关魏石和 Xinuo（新诺）家属的信息，包括魏石在中国收钱的几个伙计。我非常震惊，我以为这不是真的，随后我回家打电话核实，发现这是真的。非常有意思；而且也是在昨天，几名美国记者打电话向我核实，他们听说 Hu Jintao（胡锦涛）和 Wen Jiabao（温家宝）被捕了。我问他们是否是在博讯上看到的，他们说是。我告诉他们，该网站上的每一条信息都是100%假的。这太灾难性了。你们能相信博讯竟然说胡锦涛和温家宝被捕了吗？！”\n\n34. “Jin Zhizheng（省经侦）”一词意为“某省经济侦查员”，即上述公安部的一个部门。\n\n35. 2017年7月17日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“因此，魏石肯定会在监狱里度过余生。这是肯定的，我可以负责任地这样说。无论你说什么都不重要，因为他们已经完成了调查。”\n\n36. 2017年8月5日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“相比之下，来自博讯的魏石就是一块垃圾；那家伙能为了100美元卖掉他母亲，那个魏石，他真的能为了100美元卖掉他母亲；他一闻到钱味就会深吸一口气，他控制不住自己，他不一样。因此，明知魏石是特工、新诺是特工，但没有人做任何事；现在感觉好像每个人都是特工。”\n\n37. 2017年8月21日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“博讯，以及魏石、新诺和 Toad Li（蛤蟆李）是在美国的一个情报组织；他们还能继续欺骗吗？美国政府看不出来吗？他们还能装瞎多久？！因此，你们可以看到，会有多少间谍和特工被 Wengui（文贵）的魔镜抓住，这太有意思了。”\n\n38. 2017年8月28日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“Haemorrhoid Xia（痔疮夏）、魏石、新诺，他们公然进行网络钓鱼和收钱，他们违法犯罪，为什么不引用这个？”\n\n39. 2017年9月4日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“那么魏石、新诺都是罪犯和通缉犯！”\n\n40. 2017年9月6日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“摆脱了 Toad Li Weidong（蛤蟆李伟东）、新诺、魏石、Xia Yeliang（夏业良）的 Haemorrhoid Xia（痔疮夏），以及像 Sun Lijun（孙力军）和 Meng Jianzhu（孟建柱）这样的叛徒组成的野猪群和野狗群。”\n\n41. 2017年9月10日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“因此，Li Weidong（李伟东）、蛤蟆李，以及魏石、新诺等人，还有 Haemorrhoid Zhang（痔疮张）和痔疮夏，都是‘Lan-Jin-Huang [Blue/Gold/Yellow]（蓝/金/黄）’的结果。”\n\n42. “Operation Blue/Gold/Yellow（蓝/金/黄行动）”是债务人用来描述中华人民共和国（PRC）针对个人所采取的策略的术语——通过贿赂、敲诈及其他邪恶手段——以胁迫他们为中华人民共和国政府工作。\n\n43. 2017年9月10日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“就像痔疮夏、痔疮张、魏石、新诺、蛤蟆李伟东，以及这个 He Qinlian（何清涟）和一堆这类东西，所有这些都将像飞灰一样被消灭。让这些人成为送给我们的一份大礼；他们将让我们看到，这些沉默的力量正在威胁我们对民主和法律制度的追求。”\n\n44. 2017年9月19日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“在下游，有来自博讯的魏石和新诺，以及蛤蟆李伟东，利用公开的 Twitter 账户和虚假的 Wang Yanping（王燕平）身份在外部活动，许多黑客攻击你和明镜的每一个人。”\n\n45. 2018年2月4日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“我能去博讯吗？我当然不能去博讯，否则我一去博讯就会被抓；我迟早会在不知不觉中死掉。”\n\n46. 债务人在该 YouTube 视频稍后继续称：“Chen Jun（陈军），你现在需要回答以下问题：你与魏石是什么关系？你与新诺是什么关系，你与 Yuan Jianbin（袁建斌）又是什么关系？你是否与他们密谋陷害郭文贵？……当我们回头看时，你所说的一切都是袁建斌、魏石、Wu Zheng（吴征）和共产党散布的谣言。”\n\n47. 债务人在该2018年2月4日的视频中进一步称，再次指向陈军：“但是，如果他不讲真话，而是像博讯、魏石、李伟东或 Ye Liang（叶良）等人那样行事，那么我们就只能拭目以待……”\n\n48. 2018年2月10日，债务人在一段 YouTube 视频中称：“每个人都可以看出，陈军、袁建斌、魏石、新诺、吴征有一个共同点：那就是他们可以面不改色地撒谎。他们认为这个世界上的其他人都没有脑子；正是因为他们每次都靠谎言逃脱，这才是他们能够如此无知和傲慢的原因……袁建斌、魏石、新诺和陈军诈骗了谁的钱？是他们朋友的钱；而吴征诈骗政府的钱，Jack Ma（马云）从政府偷钱。”\n\n49. 鉴于原告作为一家正常运作的新闻服务机构取得成功的前提，是其独立于中华人民共和国政府及所有其他政府机构，这些指控对原告的职业声誉造成高度损害，因此本身即构成诽谤。\nC. 债务人的其他骚扰和恐吓行为。\n\n50. 除债务人就原告所作的高度公开诽谤性陈述外，债务人还针对 Meng（孟）个人开展了蓄意的骚扰和恐吓行动，试图使其遭受精神痛苦，并进一步破坏原告的业务努力。\n\n51. 如本文所述，债务人通过其代理人实施的极端且令人发指的行为，已使孟遭受严重精神痛苦。\n\n52. 2017年3月3日，债务人派遣三名男子前往纽约州法拉盛一名博讯员工的住所。\n\n53. 当日下午约6:40，这些男子敲响了该博讯员工住所的门。\n\n54. 该员工的女房东应了门，但拒绝开门。对此，这些男子踢门。该员工的女房东威胁要报警，三名男子随后离开。该事件使该员工的女房东感到痛苦并身体不适。\n\n55. 当日晚上9:40，孟的监控摄像头拍到一辆曾前往其住所的黑色汽车。该黑色汽车到访其住所，对于孟所在社区而言并不寻常，尤其是在当晚这个时间。\n\n56. 次日，即2017年3月4日，债务人在 Twitter 上承认，孟及其员工所遭受的骚扰是按债务人的指示进行的：“早上好，魏先生：你原本试图通过要么联系检察官，要么联系 FBI，然后又想提起诉讼来吓唬我……就连蒙古的一半牛都被你吓死了……至于你的行为？文贵再也等不及了，因为我已准备采取行动……昨天我的伙计们没有把你吓得尿裤子吗？\n\n这些检察官和警察会陪你进监狱；你最好向你在北京的组织求助！魏先生！一切才刚刚开始！”\n\n57. 债务人在发表该陈述时，发布了四张照片，照片中描绘数名男子站在一辆警车前。根据信息和相信，照片中描绘的男子是警察，或以其他方式与执法部门有关联。\n\n58. 当日稍后，债务人在 Twitter 上向孟发出挑战：“魏先生终于从鼠洞里爬出来了。当我来的时候，难道（你）没有被吓死吗？你给我的地址是假的；你昨天害怕得躲起来了。你甚至没有胆量接受起诉书和调查通知书，却还在这里胡说八道，现在又开始提我的护照。如果你有胆量，让我们带着护照到明镜进行直播。或者我今天可以在你想要的任何地方见你！你敢吗？出来走两步？”\n\n59. 孟希望结束债务人针对其实施的骚扰和恐吓手段，接受了债务人当面会面的提议。\n\n60. 2017年3月4日下午约4时，孟在纽约州法拉盛的 Sheraton Hotel（喜来登酒店）与债务人会面。债务人由十余名看似保镖的人员、一名律师和助理陪同。\n\n61. 在该次会面中，孟告诉债务人及其代理人，他们不应派人前往该博讯员工的住所，也不应踢他的门。\n\n62. 作为回应，债务人告诉孟，他派往该博讯员工住所的男子是警察（暗示其雇用了该等警察为其办事），并且他们“可以去任何人的家。”\n\n63. 债务人称，在该员工的女房东不愿开门时，他指示这些男子踢门。\n\n64. 根据信息和相信，债务人再次命令其代理人——其中部分或全部携带枪支——在清晨和深夜骚扰孟。\n\n65. 孟的监控摄像头拍到债务人的代理人数次返回孟的住所。\n\n66. 2017年3月6日，债务人的代理人跟踪孟至原告办公室附近的一家甜甜圈店。\n\n67. 在该事件中，债务人的代理人拍摄了孟及孟的汽车的照片，该等照片被发布在 Twitter 上（@YvetteWong0 于8/18/2017）。\n\n68. 2017年3月7日，债务人的代理人从孟的住所跟踪孟超过四十英里至博讯的办公室。孟向警方报告了该事件。\n\n69. 同日约下午10:30，Meng（孟）发现一名身份不明者坐在一辆白色汽车内监视孟的住所。孟因担忧自身安全而报警。警方调查后表示，其住所外的该名人员受雇监视孟的住所。\n\n70. 次日，即2017年3月8日上午，孟发现停在其住所外的白色轿车已被一辆厢式货车替代，车内亦有一名人员在监视孟的住所。\n\n71. 当孟拍摄其住所前的该辆厢式货车时，该车迅速驶离。该车随后返回同一地点。\n\n72. 根据所知及相信，债务人为推进其骚扰和恐吓活动，雇用了这些人员监视孟的住所。\n\n73. 2017年5月8日，孟得知债务人的代理人已取得孟的机密个人及商业银行信息，包括其银行交易记录。\n\n74. 债务人在Twitter和YouTube上公布了孟的银行账户信息。\n\n75. 债务人还曾试图招募第三方参与其对孟的攻击。具体而言，于2017年10月的多次场合，债务人指示其代理人和/或代表，包括但不限于一名名为Guo Baosheng（郭宝胜）的人，亲自接近并与孟的朋友、同事及商业伙伴进行口头交流，其中包括但不限于一名名为Yuan Jianbin（袁建斌）的人。\n\n76. 债务人的代理人和代表向孟的朋友、同事及商业伙伴提供金钱及其他诱因，以使其与孟保持距离并公开发表关于孟的负面言论，从而进一步诽谤孟。\n\n77. 由于孟的朋友、同事及商业伙伴对孟表现出的忠诚，其中一些行为未能得逞。\n\n78. 然而，在其他情形中，这些行为取得了成功，包括但不限于Zhao Yan（赵岩）、Ge Lifang（葛丽芳）及Ai Furong（艾芙蓉）；该等人员均按照债务人的指使，公开发表关于孟及Boxun（博讯）的负面言论，从而背叛了孟和博讯。\n\n79. 债务人的身体及精神恐吓行为——连同本文详述的诽谤性陈述——已对孟造成严重精神痛苦。\n\n80. 债务人对孟个人及职业关系的干扰，促成并进一步加重了其精神痛苦。\n\nII. 破产案件的启动。\n\n81. 2022年2月15日，债务人根据《美国法典》第11编第11章（“破产法典”）提交了自愿救济申请，从而启动本破产案件。\n\n82. 债务人列示的最大无担保债权人名单将各动议申请人确定为本案最大的非内部人债权人之一。（ECF Nos. 4, 20）。\n\n83. 原告的债权属于人身伤害债权，明确不属于破产法院可作出终局判决的事项，亦不属于破产法院可为分配目的进行估算的事项；破产法院亦无权审理该等债权。见28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (O), 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(5)。原告要求就其针对债务人的债权进行陪审团审判，且不同意由本院审理。\n\n罪名项 I——根据11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)就当然诽谤请求不可免责性作出的确认判决\n\n84. 原告重述并再次主张上述各段，如同其已在本文中完整载明。\n\n85. 根据破产法典，个人债务人无权就任何“债务人对另一实体或另一实体财产故意且恶意造成的损害”所产生的债务获得免责。11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)。\n\n86. 州法院起诉状中的第一项诉因载明原告针对债务人的当然诽谤故意侵权请求（“当然诽谤请求”）。州法院起诉状¶¶ 109-117。如上文及通过援引并入本文的州法院起诉状所述，债务人故意且恶意地反复诽谤原告，意图对其造成损害，并确已对原告造成损害。\n\n87. 债务人通过社交媒体账户、网站及前述各类其他文字材料中的发帖，虚假且反复声称，除其他事项外，孟系中华人民共和国（PRC）政府的受薪代理人，或者受该国政府和/或情报部门控制，并且其曾实施犯罪行为。债务人还曾针对博讯作出类似陈述。该等陈述已被不计其数的人阅读。\n\n88. 这些反复的虚假陈述损害了孟的声誉，并使许多人对孟作为记者的独立性以及博讯作为独立新闻来源的独立性产生怀疑。\n\n89. 这些陈述损害了孟在大量人士中的声誉，并使其将原告与不良新闻报道、虚假报道及存在利益冲突的动机联系起来。\n\n90. 债务人明知该等陈述为虚假陈述，既无权作出该等虚假陈述，该等陈述亦不受任何特权保护。\n\n91. 债务人恶意作出该等陈述，意图损害博讯、孟、孟的声誉及其业务，并诱使第三方不与其开展业务，尤其是停止消费博讯提供的独立新闻报道。\n\n92. 孟因被告作出的该等虚假陈述而直接遭受了广泛损害，并将因该等无法获得充分法律救济的违法行为继续遭受不可弥补的损害。对于当然诽谤请求，推定孟原告已遭受损害。\n\n93. 债务人导致当然诽谤请求的行为，构成破产法典第523(a)(6)条含义下对孟原告的故意且恶意损害。因此，如债务人在州法院诉讼中被认定应就当然诽谤请求承担责任，则债务人就当然诽谤请求所承担的责任（包括实际损害赔偿、推定损害赔偿及惩罚性损害赔偿，以及利息、费用和成本）不可免责。\n\n罪名项 II——根据11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)就诽谤请求不可免责性作出的确认判决\n\n94. 原告重述并再次主张上述各段，如同其已在本文中完整载明。\n\n95. 根据破产法典，个人债务人无权就任何“债务人对另一实体或另一实体财产故意且恶意造成的损害”所产生的债务获得免责。11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)。\n\n96. 州法院起诉状中的第二项诉因载明原告针对债务人的诽谤故意侵权请求（“诽谤请求”）。州法院起诉状¶¶ 118-127。如上文及通过援引并入本文的州法院起诉状所述，债务人故意且恶意地反复诽谤原告，意图对其造成损害，并确已对原告造成损害。\n\n97. 债务人通过社交媒体账户、网站及前述各类其他文字材料中的发帖，虚假且反复声称，除其他事项外，孟系中华人民共和国政府的受薪代理人，或者受该国政府和/或情报部门控制，并且其曾实施犯罪行为。债务人还通过社交媒体、网站及各类其他文字材料，虚假且反复声称博讯系中华人民共和国政府的受薪代理人，并且其曾实施犯罪行为。该等陈述已被不计其数的人阅读。\n\n98. 这些反复的虚假陈述损害了孟的声誉，并使许多人对孟作为记者的独立性以及博讯作为独立新闻来源的独立性产生怀疑。\n\n99. 这些陈述损害了孟在大量人士中的声誉，并使其将原告与不良新闻报道、虚假报道及存在利益冲突的动机联系起来。\n\n100. 债务人明知该等陈述为虚假陈述，既无权作出该等虚假陈述，该等陈述亦不受任何特权保护。\n\n101. 债务人恶意作出该等陈述，意图损害博讯、孟、孟的声誉及原告的业务，并诱使第三方不与原告开展业务，尤其是停止消费博讯提供的独立新闻报道。\n\n102. 原告因债务人故意作出的虚假陈述而直接遭受广泛损害，包括但不限于收入损失及其职业声誉受损，具体金额将在审判中确定；原告还将因该等无法获得充分法律救济的违法行为继续遭受不可弥补的损害。\n\n103. 债务人导致诽谤请求的行为，构成破产法典第523(a)(6)条含义下对原告的故意且恶意损害。因此，如债务人在州法院诉讼中被认定应就诽谤请求承担责任，则债务人就诽谤请求所承担的责任（包括实际损害赔偿、推定损害赔偿及惩罚性损害赔偿，以及利息、费用和成本）不可免责。\n\n罪名项 III——根据11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)就故意施加精神痛苦请求不可免责性作出的确认判决\n\n104. 原告重述并再次主张上述各段，如同其已在本文中完整载明。\n\n105. 根据破产法典，个人债务人无权就任何“债务人对另一实体或另一实体财产故意且恶意造成的损害”所产生的债务获得免责。11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)。\n\n106. 州法院起诉状中的第四1项诉因载明孟原告针对债务人的故意施加精神痛苦请求（“IIED请求”）。州法院起诉状¶¶ 140-148。如上文及通过援引并入本文的州法院起诉状所述，债务人故意且恶意地反复诽谤、威胁和恐吓原告，意图对其造成损害，并确已对原告造成损害。\n\n1 第三项诉因在不妨碍重新主张的情况下被驳回，但原告未重新主张该项诉因。\n\n107. 债务人开展了一场诽谤、骚扰和恐吓孟原告的活动。债务人通过前述社交媒体账户、视频陈述及文字材料，虚假且反复声称孟原告系中华人民共和国政府的受薪代理人，或者受该国情报部门控制，并且其曾实施犯罪行为。该等陈述已被不计其数的人阅读、观看和听闻。\n\n108. 债务人明知该等陈述为虚假陈述，而其反复发布有关孟的该等虚假主张构成极端且令人发指的行为。\n\n109. 此外，债务人实施了故意骚扰和恐吓孟的行为，包括派遣其代理人跟踪孟；监视其住所；以及调查孟的个人及商业银行交易。债务人针对孟的骚扰及恐吓活动构成极端且令人发指的行为。\n\n110. 债务人还聘用并支付其代理人报酬，以使其：(1) 向孟的朋友和同事作出关于原告的虚假陈述；(2) 对孟实施身体恐吓；以及(3) 接近孟雇员的住所并试图恐吓该人。\n\n111. 债务人作出该等陈述，并通过其代表实施恐吓行为，意图对孟造成严重精神痛苦。\n\n112. 由于该等虚假且令人发指的陈述，以及为伤害孟而恶意实施的故意行为，孟至少经历了以下严重精神\n\n痛苦、羞耻、焦虑、情绪痛苦、苦难、不便、精神痛苦、丧失生活乐趣及其他非金钱性损失。\n\n113. 因此，孟所受损害的金额将在审判中确定。\n\n114. 债务人导致故意施加精神痛苦请求（IIED Claim）的行为，构成《破产法》第523(a)(6)条所指对原告孟的故意及恶意损害。因此，如债务人在州法院诉讼中被认定就故意施加精神痛苦请求承担责任，则债务人就该请求所负的责任（包括实际损害赔偿、推定损害赔偿及惩罚性损害赔偿，以及利息、费用和成本）不得免除。\n\n请求的救济\n\n因此，原告谨请求法院作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 宣告债务人对孟就当然诽谤请求（Defamation Per Se Claim）所负的责任，如经州法院在州法院诉讼中确定，根据11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6)不得免除；\n\n(b) 宣告债务人对原告就诽谤请求（Defamation Claim）所负的责任，如经州法院在州法院诉讼中确定，根据11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6)不得免除；\n\n(c) 宣告债务人对孟就故意施加精神痛苦请求所负的责任，如经州法院在州法院诉讼中确定，根据11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6)不得免除；以及\n\n(d) 向原告授予法院认为公正及适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：June 20, 2022\n\n/s/ Kristen B. Mayhew\n\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休）\nMCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP（McElroy、Deutsch、Mulvaney & Carpenter 有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n30 Jelliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890\n(203) 319-4000\nkmayhew@mdmc-law.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里）（pro hac vice）\nDavid S. Forsh（大卫·S·福什）（pro hac vice）\nCALLARI PARTNERS LLC（Callari Partners 有限责任公司）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor\nNew York, NY 10020\n(212) 202-3050\nccallari@callaripartners.com\ndforsh@callaripartners.com\n\nRui Ma（马睿）的代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CIPA","Wang Yanping"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6245,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:15:35"}