{"id":"court_sdny_743_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":743,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":null,"title":"TO: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York The Honorable Analisa Torres, U.S. District J","summary_zh":"补充请愿 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #743。第三方申请人 Domenico Tang 提交补充请愿，指控存在系统性欺骗法庭行为，包括律师 Geyer 受已认定的共谋者 Himalaya Farm Alliance 控制、控方隐瞒被告人反对暴力抗议的证据、不当使用历史资产作为诈骗证据、以及共谋者通过伪造狱中通话记录和探监记录持续干扰诉讼。","summary_en":"Supplemental Petition — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #743. Third-party claimant Domenico Tang alleges systemic fraud upon the court, including: Attorney Geyer's representation orchestrated by co-conspirator Himalaya Farm Alliance, prosecutorial Brady violations and concealment of evidence showing defendant opposed violent protests, improper use of historical assets as evidence, and ongoing interference by alleged co-conspirators through fabricated communications and impersonation.","body_en":"# **TO: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York The Honorable Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge**\n\n**RE:** United States of America v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al. **Case No.:** 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n# **SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION OF THIRD-PARTY CLAIMANT DOMENICO TANG (DOC. 738)**\n\n### **I. Introduction**\n\n- 1. I, Domenico Tang (\"Petitioner\"), appearing pro se, previously filed a Third-Party Petition on 2025,09,09 (Doc. 738, \"Initial Petition\").\n- 2. This filing serves as a supplement to the Initial Petition. Since that filing, Petitioner's further research into the public record has uncovered additional evidence and analysis that substantiates the core argument of the Initial Petition: that this case is tainted by a systemic fraud upon the court.\n- 3. This supplement is intended to bring these new findings to the Court's attention to ensure a just adjudication of Petitioner's property interests based on the most complete information available.\n\n#### **II. Newly Discovered Evidence and Argumentation**\n\n## **A. Supplemental Argument 1: Allegation of Co-Conspirator Control Behind Attorney Geyer's Representation**\n\n- 1. The Initial Petition argued that Attorney Geyer's representation constituted a \"bait-and-switch\" fraud. New evidence further reveals this representation was initiated by an organization the government itself has identified as a coconspirator.\n- 2. In court document 202, Trustee Luc Despins noted that a person named **\"Little Sara,\"** a key leader of the **Himalaya Farm Alliance,** publicly introduced Attorney Geyer to investors. This proves that Geyer's representation was orchestrated by a conflicted organization, not by the investors themselves.\n- 3. **Conclusion:** This chain of conduct—a co-conspirator organization introducing a lawyer, who then uses a false pretense of \"vindicating rights\" to gain authorization, only to re-characterize his clients as \"victims\"—strongly suggests a **conspiracy among the Himalaya Farm Alliance, Attorney Geyer, and potentially the prosecution to manipulate the judicial process.** The prosecution has a duty to inform the Court whether it was aware of this relationship and whether it conducted the necessary Bradyinquiry.\n\n# **B. Supplemental Argument 2: Further Proof of Brady Violations and Fraud Upon the Court**\n\n- 1. The Initial Petition identified several Brady violations. Further analysis reveals more exculpatory evidence deliberately concealed by the prosecution:\n\t- o **Concealment of Defendant's Opposition to Protests:** While accusing the defendant's supporters of obstruction of justice, the prosecution concealed video evidence where the defendant **expressly and publicly spoke out against any form of harassment or violent protest.**\n\t- o **Reiteration of the \"Mansion Timeline\" Fraud:** One of the most egregious examples of the prosecution's effort to mislead is its repeated use of the New Jersey mansion as evidence of spending investor funds. The publicly verifiable fact is that this mansion was purchased in **2015**, five years before the alleged schemes began in 2020. The prosecution's knowing use of this chronologically false information to build its narrative constitutes a fraud upon the court.\n\n## **C. Supplemental Argument 3: Allegation of Unchecked Judicial Interference by Co-Conspirators Outside MDC**\n\n- 1. The prosecution has acknowledged in its own filings that \"co-conspirators\" remain active outside the MDC. However, the prosecution has ignored their ongoing and serious interference with the judicial process of this case.\n- 2. **Specific Conduct:** These individuals are using allegedly false or unverified \"jail calls\" and \"visitation notes,\" and even impersonating the defendant's daughter, to disseminate information and organize activities online, which constitutes a **serious obstruction of justice.**\n- 3. **Prosecutorial Dereliction of Duty:** With the defendant detained for over two years, the only channel for investors to receive information is controlled by these same alleged \"co-conspirators.\" The prosecution, with its vast investigative resources, has sat idly by while its own identified \"co-conspirators\" potentially defraud investors and interfere with this case. This is a gross dereliction of duty that calls the prosecution's neutrality and impartiality into serious question.\n- 4. **More seriously, the Alliance is suspected of fabricating, altering, or taking out of context the defendant's external communications from MDC (including telephone and visitation records), as well as by impersonating his family members (such as his daughter), to defraud and mislead investors,**\n\n**and to further frame the defendant. To clarify the facts and stop these coconspirators from continuously interfering with the judicial process of this case, it is necessary to verify the defendant's authentic external communications.**\n\n#### **III. Reaffirmation and Supplement to Prayer for Relief**\n\n- 1. Based on the foregoing supplemental evidence and argumentation, Petitioner reaffirms and strengthens all requests for relief made in the Initial Petition.\n- 2. Petitioner adds the following specific requests, asking the Court to order:\n\t- o **That Attorney Geyer, Luc Despins, and other third parties suspected of misconduct provide a detailed explanation** of their agency process, creditor-claim-review procedures, and their communications with the Himalaya Farm Alliance and the prosecution.\n\t- o **That the prosecution submits all Brady material it possesses but has not yet disclosed,** particularly the videos showing the defendant opposing violent protests, and any information regarding its investigation into the ongoing activities of the Himalaya Farm Alliance.\n\t- o **That the Defense and the Himalaya Farm Alliance disclose all external communication records, telephone logs, and visitation records** that purport to have originated from the defendant during his detention at MDC, for the Court to verify their authenticity and to ascertain whether the Alliance has engaged in fabricating information to interfere with the judicial process.\n\n### **IV. Conclusion**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court accept this supplement and consider it in conjunction with the Initial Petition to fully understand the systemic procedural injustice present in this case.\n\n**Date:** 2025,09,10","body_zh":"致：United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院）Analisa Torres（安娜丽莎·托雷斯）美国联邦地区法官阁下\n\n关于：United States of America（美利坚合众国）诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人 案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n第三方请求人 DOMENICO TANG（唐多梅尼科）请求书之补充文件（DOC. 738）\n\nI. 引言\n\n- 1. 我，Domenico Tang（唐多梅尼科）（“请求人”），亲自应诉（pro se），此前于 2025,09,09 提交了一份第三方请求书（Doc. 738，“原请求书”）。\n\n- 2. 本份提交文件用作对原请求书的补充。自该次提交以来，请求人对公共记录的进一步调查发现了额外的证据和分析，证实了原请求书的核心主张：即本案受到了对法院系统性欺诈的侵害。\n\n- 3. 本补充文件旨在提请法院注意这些新发现，以确保在掌握最完整信息的基础上对请求人的财产权益作出公正审判。\n\nII. 新发现的证据与论证\n\nA. 补充论点 1：指控 Geyer 律师代理行为背后存在共谋者控制\n\n- 1. 原请求书主张 Geyer 律师的代理构成了“偷梁换柱”欺诈。新证据进一步揭示，该代理是由政府自身认定为共谋者的一个组织发起的。\n\n- 2. 在法庭文件 202 中，受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）指出，一名名为“Little Sara（小萨拉）”的人员——Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）的关键领导人——公开向投资者介绍了 Geyer 律师。这证明 Geyer 的代理是由一个存在利益冲突的组织策划的，而不是由投资者自身策划的。\n\n- 3. 结论：这一连串行为——共谋者组织引荐一名律师，该律师随后以“维权”的虚假借口获取授权，结果却将其客户重新定性为“受害者”——强烈表明 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）、Geyer 律师以及可能包括检方在内存在串通以操纵司法程序的阴谋。检方有责任告知法院其是否知晓该关系，以及是否进行了必要的 Brady 调查。\n\nB. 补充论点 2：关于 Brady 违规和对法院欺诈的进一步证据\n\n- 1. 原请求书指出了若干 Brady 违规行为。进一步分析揭示了更多被检方故意隐瞒的开脱罪责证据：\n\n- o 隐瞒被告反对抗议的证据：检方在指控被告支持者妨碍司法的同时，隐瞒了被告明确且公开反对任何形式的骚扰或暴力抗议的视频证据。\n\n- o 重申“豪宅时间线”欺诈：检方企图误导的最恶劣事例之一是其反复使用新泽西豪宅作为挪用投资者资金的证据。公开可查证的事实是，该豪宅购于 2015 年，比涉嫌方案于 2020 年开始早了五年。检方明知故用这一时间上有误的信息来构建其指控陈述，构成了对法院的欺诈。\n\nC. 补充论点 3：关于 MDC 外部共谋者未受制止的司法干预之指控\n\n- 1. 检方在其自身的提交文件中已承认“共谋者”在 MDC（大都会拘留中心）外部仍然活跃。然而，检方对其持续且严重干扰本案司法程序的行为视而不见。\n\n- 2. 具体行为：这些人据称利用虚假或未经证实的“狱中通话”和“探视记录”，甚至冒充被告的女儿，在网络上散布信息并组织活动，这构成了对司法的严重妨碍。\n\n- 3. 检方玩忽职守：在被告被拘留两年多的情况下，投资者接收信息的唯一渠道被这些被指控的“共谋者”所控制。拥有庞大调查资源的检方，却对其自身认定的“共谋者”可能诈骗投资者并干扰本案的行为坐视不管。这是严重的玩忽职守，令人对检方的中立性和公正性产生严重质疑。\n\n- 4. 更为严重的是，该联盟涉嫌伪造、篡改或断章取义被告来自 MDC 的对外通信（包括电话和探视记录），以及通过冒充其家庭成员（例如其女儿），来欺诈和误导投资者，\n\n并进一步陷害被告。为查明事实并制止这些共谋者持续干扰本案的司法程序，有必要对被告真实的对外通信进行核实。\n\nIII. 重申与补充救济请求\n\n- 1. 基于前述补充证据和论证，请求人重申并强化在原请求书中提出的所有救济请求。\n\n- 2. 请求人增加以下具体请求，请求法院命令：\n\n- o 涉嫌不当行为的 Geyer 律师、Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）及其他第三方，就其代理流程、债权人债权审查程序及其与 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）和检方的沟通提供详细说明。\n\n- o 检方提交其持有但尚未披露的所有 Brady 材料，特别是显示被告反对暴力抗议的视频，以及关于其对 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）持续活动的调查的任何信息。\n\n- o 辩方和 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）披露声称源自被告在 MDC 拘留期间的所有对外通信记录、电话日志和探视记录，以便法院核实其真实性，并查明该联盟是否从事了伪造信息以干扰司法程序的行为。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n基于前述理由，请求人谨请求法院接受本补充文件，并将其与原请求书结合审酌，以充分了解本案中存在的系统性程序不公。\n\n日期：2025,09,10","key_entities":["Geyer","Himalaya","Brady","Despins","Luc Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":202,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":738,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":918,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:24:22"}