{"id":"court_sdny_730_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":730,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"Subject: Letter to Judge Torres and Chief Judge Swain re: Failure to Docket §853(n) Petition","summary_zh":"动议 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #730。第三方申请人 Chengjun Fu 投诉法院书记官拒绝编入其 21 U.S.C. §853(n) 没收请愿书，主张该拒绝构成程序正当程序剥夺；同时质疑破产法院将第三方投资人财产不当编入被告人资产并遭没收。","summary_en":"Motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #730. Third-party claimant Chengjun Fu alleges the clerk's office refused to docket his §853(n) forfeiture petition in violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 49(d) and constitutional due process; disputes the bankruptcy court's characterization of third-party investor property as defendant's forfeitable assets.","body_en":"Subject: Letter to Judge Torres and Chief Judge Swain re: Failure to Docket §853(n) Petition\n\nTo: ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n\nCc: clerkofcourt@nysd.uscourts.gov\n\nHon. Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York\n\nCc: Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, Chief Judge, SDNY Clerk of Court, SDNY\n\nRe: United States v. Guo, 23 Cr. 118 (AT) — Failure to Docket Third-Party Petition under 21 U.S.C. §853(n)\n\nDear Judge Torres, Chief Judge Swain, and Clerk of Court:\n\nOn August 28, 2025, I submitted my §853(n) petition by email. After two business days, it had not been docketed. On August 30, 2025, I submitted a Motion to Direct the Clerk to File the §853(n) Petition. Again, after two business days, no docket entry was made.\n\nOn September 2, 2025, I telephoned the Clerk's Office (three times) to inquire. Due to my limited English proficiency, I was unable to communicate effectively; the staff hung up, stating they could not understand me. I respectfully urge the Court to ensure greater patience and professionalism when interacting with non-native English speakers. Given that many investors affected by this case are not fluent in English, I further request that the Court consider temporarily providing Mandarin-speaking staff to assist with intake and inquiries.\n\nThis practice directly conflicts with Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(d), which requires that \"the clerk must file a paper if it is delivered for filing.\" By refusing to docket, the Court is effectively preventing me from entering the §853(n) process at all.\n\nThe importance of docketing is underscored in United States v. Fafalios, 919 F. Supp. 276, 278 (S.D. Ohio 1996), where the court held:\n\n\"Section 853(n) provides the reasonable procedure through which third parties may assert interests in forfeited property. To prohibit third parties from participating, and to bind them to the factual basis of a defendant's guilty plea, contradicts both logic and basic due process.\"\n\nAs Fafalios makes clear, the §853(n) process is not a matter of grace; it is the constitutionally required safeguard for innocent third parties. Preventing docketing of my petition is indistinguishable from prohibiting participation altogether. This is a denial of due process.\n\nI further note that in the parallel bankruptcy proceedings, property belonging to third-party investors was improperly deemed to be part of the defendant's estate, without affording those investors the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Based on that flawed premise, the trustee then advanced claims grounded in contested or fraudulent creditor filings, effectively diverting investors' assets. The subsequent forfeiture process in this Court has compounded the problem, by treating such assets as forfeitable property of the defendant, even though they never lawfully belonged to him. This situation, if uncorrected, risks turning the courts themselves (including the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court and this Court) into unwitting instruments of fraud. Such deprivation of property rights without due process is contrary to the Constitution and the governing statutes.\n\nMy petition is directed solely to protecting my property rights against fraudulent or procedurally defective claims. Even if the Court finds that some arguments in my petition extend beyond the strict scope of §853(n), the proper course would be to docket my submission and then deny it by written order. To refuse docketing altogether eliminates transparency, creates no record for review, and leaves me without remedy.\n\nAccordingly, I respectfully request:\n\n- 1. That my §853(n) petition be docketed immediately, in compliance with Rule 49(d); or\n- 2. In the alternative, that the Court issue a written order stating the basis for refusing docketing,so that I may preserve my rights to seek review.\n\nIf my petition continues to be excluded from the docket without explanation, I will have no choice but to raise this issue in a complaint to the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, as well as to preserve appellate rights.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n付承军\n\nChengjun Fu Chongqing, Chongqing, China Email: dcs20240202@protonmail.com Phone: +19782160735","body_zh":"主题：致托雷斯法官与斯温首席法官的信，关于未能将 §853(n) 申请登记入卷事宜\n\n收件人：ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n\n抄送：clerkofcourt@nysd.uscourts.gov\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）美国联邦地区法官，Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n抄送：尊敬的 Laura Taylor Swain（劳拉·泰勒·斯温），SDNY（纽约南区）首席法官；SDNY 法院书记官\n\n事由：United States v. Guo（美国诉郭案），23 Cr. 118 (AT) —— 未能根据 21 U.S.C. §853(n) 将第三方申请登记入卷\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官、斯温首席法官及法院书记官：\n\n2025年8月28日，我通过电子邮件提交了我的 §853(n) 申请。两个工作日后，该申请仍未被登记入卷。2025年8月30日，我提交了一份《关于指令书记官将 §853(n) 申请归档的动议》。再次经过两个工作日后，仍未进行任何卷宗登记。\n\n2025年9月2日，我（三次）致电书记官办公室进行询问。由于我英语水平有限，未能进行有效沟通；工作人员挂断了电话，称听不懂我说的话。我谨恳请法院在与非英语母语者沟通时确保展现更大的耐心和专业性。鉴于许多受本案影响的投资者并不精通英语，我进一步请求法院考虑临时配备会讲普通话的工作人员，以协助立案与咨询工作。\n\n此种做法直接与 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(d) 相冲突，该规则要求“如果文书送交归档，书记官必须予以归档”。法院拒绝登记入卷，实际上完全剥夺了我进入 §853(n) 程序的机会。\n\n登记入卷的重要性在 United States v. Fafalios, 919 F. Supp. 276, 278 (S.D. Ohio 1996) 一案中得到了强调，该案法院裁定：\n\n“第 853(n) 条提供了合理的程序，第三方可通过该程序主张其在被没收财产中的权益。禁止第三方参与、并强行使其受被告人认罪答辩的事实基础所约束，既违背逻辑，也违反了基本的正当程序。”\n\n正如 Fafalios 案所明确指出的，§853(n) 程序并非一种恩赐；它是宪法规定的对无辜第三方的保障。阻止我的申请登记入卷，无异于完全剥夺我的参与权。这是对正当程序的剥夺。\n\n我进一步指出，在平行的破产程序中，属于第三方投资者的财产被不当地认定为被告人遗产的一部分，而未向这些投资者提供宪法所保障的正当程序。基于这一存在缺陷的前提，破产管理人随后依据受争议的或欺诈性的债权人申请提出了主张，实际上转移了投资者的资产。随后在本院进行的没收程序将这些资产视为被告人应予没收的财产，尽管这些资产在法律上从未属于他，从而加剧了这一问题。如果这种情况得不到纠正，法院自身（包括 Connecticut Bankruptcy Court（康涅狄格州破产法院）和本院）可能会沦为不知情的欺诈工具。这种在没有正当程序的情况下剥夺财产权的行为违反了宪法及相关管辖法规。\n\n我的申请完全旨在保护我的财产权免受欺诈性或程序存在瑕疵的主张侵害。即使法院认为我申请中的某些论点超出了 §853(n) 的严格范围，正确的做法也应当是将我提交的文件登记入卷，然后通过书面裁定予以驳回。完全拒绝登记入卷消除了透明度，导致无法形成可供审查的记录，并使我无法获得救济。\n\n因此，我谨请求：\n\n- 1. 立即根据 Rule 49(d) 将我的 §853(n) 申请登记入卷；或者\n- 2. 作为备选方案，法院出具一份书面裁定，说明拒绝登记入卷的依据，以便我保留寻求审查的权利。\n\n如果我的申请在没有任何解释的情况下继续被排除在卷宗之外，我将别无选择，只能向 Judicial Conference of the United States（美国司法会议）以及 Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility（美国司法部专业责任办公室）提出控告，并保留上诉权利。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n付承军\n\nChengjun Fu（付承军） 中国重庆市 电子邮件：dcs20240202@protonmail.com 电话：+19782160735","key_entities":["853(n)","Torres","CIPA","Guo","Je","Analisa Torres","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":646,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:11:40"}