{"id":"court_sdny_788_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":788,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2026-01-14","title":"1:23-cr-00118-AT-1 In re: Chunk Chyi (real fame: Chunhong Qi)","summary_zh":"令状申请书 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118。犯罪受害人Chunk Chyi（真名Chunhong Qi）向美国第二巡回法院提交令状申请，要求法官Torres根据28 U.S.C. §455(a)回避。申请人声称法官对其作为自诉当事人提出程序质疑发出了提交限制，且该限制基于完全错误的事实前提，要求法院命令法官回避并对被压制的提交进行调卷。","summary_en":"Petition for Writ of Mandamus —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), SDNY case 1:23-cr-00118. Crime victim Chunk Chyi (real name Chunhong Qi) filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, requesting that Judge Torres recuse herself under 28 U.S.C. §455(a). Petitioner alleges that the judge issued filing restrictions against him as a pro se petitioner raising procedural concerns, and that such restrictions were based on demonstrably false factual premises, seeking an order directing the judge's recusal and docketing of his suppressed filings.","body_en":"1:23-cr-00118-AT-1\n\n## **In re: Chunk Chyi (real fame: Chunhong Qi)**\n\nJan 14, 2026\n\n181 E. Tasman Dr. Suite 20. PMB#364\n\nSan Jose CA 95134\n\nbaoliao2019@gmaiI.com\n\n+1 (510)371-5615 r-\n\n## **To**:\n\nClerk of Court\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit <sup>O</sup>\n\nThurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse\n\n40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007\n\nDear Clerk of the Court:\n\nPlease find enclosed materials for filing petition:\n\n- **PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS**\n- **Exhibit A (SDNY Order 528)**\n- **Exhibit B (SDNY Order 596)**\n- **Exhibit C Second circuit Order for case 25-2726**\n- **Exhibit D Second circuit case 25-2726 Dkt. 26, Exhibit D, Expanded Supplement Mandamus Petition**\n- **Exhibit E Second circuit case 25-2726 Dkt. 29, LETTER advising the Court of recent developments**\n- **Exhibit F Evidence showing order 596 is based on false factual premises**\n- **A money order for 600 filing fee**\n- **Certificate of service**\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nChunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong QI), Executed on January 7, 2026 *- ;~».* 'C hmuLr -' t ,%5.¢ .\n\n*r* **7** 'LJ- **.49\" w i 1** of: \">c\\*> cg 935 Oc: Q-n **<sup>I</sup>** DU r f 1 CO Y j < m w:> W-o -CE\"' \\_ my --(FT -- Pr' **<.n** -\n\non\n\n## **UNITED STATES COURT oF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ef'- .uv .n67c**\n\n**11 iT\\**\n\n37\" z G\n\n<9 .kg4 <sup>m</sup> 4? G\n\n¢Jll **. J**\n\n*# ,*\n\n*'i*\n\n'33'8L-\n\n*57- '35 ,fa Werp-f\\*\n\n*35?* 90\\$0*\\*cm*'Pr'*w*\n\nIn re: Chunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi), Victim in *United States v. Kwok, et al. ,* 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n# **PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS**\n\n## **I. Introduction**\n\nI, Chunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi), a crime victim appearing pro se under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. §3771, respectfully petition this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Torres to recuse from all proceedings in this matter.\n\nI was the first person in this case to intervene as a pro se petitioner to expose procedural failures and injustices, raising concerns about prosecution procedural problems, improper creditor registration, trustee potential misconduct, and potential judicial bias. I flagged these issues several months ago. Since then, another independent pro se petitioner Ryan Bai's subsequent filings-including his SDNY motion (Dkt. 733), original Mandamus Petition (2nd Cir. 25 - 2726), and a recently docketed Expanded Supplemental Mandamus Petition and a following letter (25-2726 Dkt. 26, 29) (Exhibit D, E) , as well as a court order from this Court regarding Ryan's original Mandamus Petition (SDNY Dkt. 767)-have confirmed the validity of the core issues I identified. What I previously flagged as procedural problems, trustee potential misconduct, judicial bias has now been corroborated by independent filings, this Court's order and verified evidence. In essence, the record now shows that the warnings I sounded months ago were prescient and accurate.\n\n### **Issue Presented:**\n\nWhether a district judge must recuse under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) where the judge issued filing restrictions against a pro se petitioner raising procedural challenges based on demonstrably false factual premises, failed to provide the notice and opportunity to be heard required under *Moates v. 8a/kley,* 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998), coerced the petitioner into assuming a disclaimed procedural status, and preserved the resulting coerced filing as part of the official record without cure or disclaimer.\n\n## **II. Background**\n\nPreviously, I filed a mandamus petition in this Court after intervening as a victim in SDNY under Dkt. 679. At that time, I submitted multiple victim motions, but the district court **suppressed and ignored my filings,** effectively denying me the procedural protections guaranteed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In response, I sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to docket my suppressed motions. That petition was returned by this Court on November 19, 2025, without being docketed or considered.\n\nThis petition, however, is entirely different. Recent developments-including Ryan Bai's mandamus filings in Case 25-2726 and his December 26, 2025 docket referencing my Dkt. 507, which exposed judicial **bias-corroborate the concerns l previously raised in SDNY.** Ryan's Expanded Supplemental Mandamus Petition (Exhibit D) further supports the existence of systemic procedural failures and retaliatory effects experienced by victims who raised procedural irregularities. This closely mirrors my own experience before Judge Torres. Taken together, these independent developments substantiate the accuracy of my earlier filings and support a reasonable inference of ongoing risk to victims and an appearance of judicial bias in this matter.\n\n### **Statement Regarding Prior Pro Se Filings**\n\nThis petition is submitted with full awareness that my earlier filings in the Southern District of New York were made pro se and under objectively constrained circumstances, including limited access to information and the absence of legal assistance. To the extent those filings lacked technical polish , such limitations were procedural in nature and did not affect the substance of the concerns raised.\n\nSubsequent independent filings and court records have confirmed the accuracy and relevance of those concerns. This petition reflects my continued good-faith effort to present the same issues in a procedurally focused and legally structured manner, with full respect for the Court's rules and authority.\n\n### **III. Disputed Order Dkt. 528, and Improper Order Dkt. 596, Latter of Which Is Based on a Completely False Factual Premise**\n\n### **A: Disputed Order 528:**\n\nAs reflected in Order No. 528, I filed SDNY Dkt. Nos. 505, 507, 508, 510, 513, 517, 519, 522, and 524 as a petitioner, for the purpose of bringing to the Court's attention a series of procedural irregularities in this case. At the time of those filings, due to my limited English proficiency and limited legal training, my language and presentation were imperfect. I subsequently acknowledged these limitations and expressed regret for any lack of clarity or unintended tone in my later submissions. However, the inherent limitations of a pro se petitioner do not excuse, and cannot be used to obscure, the procedural deficiencies reflected in Order 528 and Order 596.\n\n#### **Procedural Shielding and Vexatious Label:**\n\nIn the above filings, I raised critical procedural concerns regarding the forfeiture proceedings, specifically questioning the conduct of Attorney Greyer, Trustee Luc, and the Prosecution:\n\nIn Dkt. 508, I moved to remove Attorney Greyer as counsel based on allegations of fraud upon the individuals he purported to represent. At the time, Greyer acted as the representative for thousands of crime victims, while simultaneously occupying the position of an interested third party whose own conduct was directly implicated in the procedural irregularities at issue. In Dkt. 510, l questioned the procedural integrity of the remission process itself.\n\nIn Dkt. 519, I again sought Greyer's removal. These concerns were subsequently corroborated by independent filings. In Dkt. 709, Beibei Zhu alleged misconduct by Attorney Greyer and sought \\$100,000 in claims arising from that conduct, and in Dkt. 712, Greyer's counsel terminated the\n\nrepresentation of Ms. Zhu. In Dkts. 522 and 524, I raised additional procedural concerns regarding Trustee Luc's handling of creditor registrations in the related bankruptcy proceedings. Similar creditor registration issues were later raised independently by Ryan Bai in SDNY Dkt. 733 and in his Second Circuit mandamus proceedings (SDNY Dkt. 765, Second Circuit Order, SDNY Dkt. 767), which gave rise to fraud-upon-the-eourt concerns. **The Second Circuit did not reject the substance of those allegations, but instead instructed that any Rule 60(d) relief be sought after sentencing.**\n\nDespite the substantive significance of these filings which are closely relevant to the proceedings, Judge Torres' Order No. 528 largely avoided adjudicating my procedural claims. Instead, the Court characterized the filings as \"improper,\" beyond the scope of the criminal prosecution, or potentially harassing, and denied the motions on these grounds. By emphasizing procedural labels and my filing behavior, the Court shifted attention away from the substantial procedural issues that the filings revealed, effectively shielding the underlying concerns from review. The vexatious / improper characterization sewed to mask the merits of my claims, precluding meaningful adjudication of valid procedural objections and limiting access to the Court's remedial processes. This constitutes an example of procedural shielding: the Court used disciplinary or procedural labels as a substitute for adjudicating legitimate procedural claims, thereby circumventing review of substantial issues concerning the remission process, counsel misconduct, and creditor registration.\n\n### **B: Improper Order 596 Based on False Factual Premise**\n\nOrder 596 was issued less than **twenty-four hours** after the entry of Order 528. In that order, the district court reiterated that any \"improper filings\" could result in the imposition of a court injunction. Relying on the fact that I and Beibei Zhu submitted several filings within the twenty-four-hour period following Order 528, the court then imposed a pre-filing review requirement on me and Beibei Zhu, under which any future submissions must be reviewed and approved before they may be docketed.\n\nOrder 596 thus conditions access to the docket on prior judicial screening and operates as a functional filing restriction which applied to me and Beibei Zhu.\n\n**However, I only recently discovered that the factual premise underlying this order-particularly the pre-screening restriction imposed on me-is demonstrably based on a false factual premise.**\n\nSpecifically, Order 596 rests on the assumption that my filings (later docketed as Dkt. 554, 555, 556, and 557) were submitted after Order 528 was issued and docketed. **That assumption is materially false. As** reflected in Exhibit F, l transmitted these filings to the Southern District of New York on **April 3, 2025, China time.** By contrast, the **public upload time of Order 528 was April 3, 2025 at 4:30 PM Eastern Time,** as shown in Exhibit F which l captured from Courtlistener, **the upload time of Order 528 corresponds to April 4, 2025 at 4:30 AM in China time.**\n\n**Accordingly, my submissions at Dkt. 554, 555, 556, and 557 were sent before Order 528 was publicly docketed or made accessible,** making it temporally impossible for those filings to have violated Order 528 or to have been submitted \"in the twenty-four hours following\" that order.\n\nOrder 596 thus rests on a false factual premise-namely, that I engaged in post-Order-528 filings in defiance of a court directive. **Because that premise is incorrect, the pre-screening restriction imposed on me lacks any factual foundation.**\n\n### C: **Unlawful Suppression of Filings Based on a False Factual Premise**\n\nAs I mentioned in the beginning, I sought a previous mandamus relief in November because my CVRA motions were suppressed by the SDNY. Because the pre-screening regime imposed by Order 596 was based on a false factual premise, the Court's continued refusal to docket my post-679 filings constitutes an ongoing violation of procedural due process and an abuse of judicial discretion, violation **of** my **CVRA** rights, amounting to unlawful suppression of access to the court.\n\n### **D: Procedural Due Process Violations and Improper Vexatiousness Determination (Order 596)**\n\nOrder 596 imposes a de facto filing restriction by subjecting all future filings to judicial pre-screening. Although the order avoids labeling the restriction as an\n\n\"injunction,\" its functional effect is indistinguishable from one. Order 596 not only based on false factual premises, but also violates binding Second Circuit precedent: a district court may not impose such a restriction without providing the affected litigant with advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. *Moates v. Barkley,* **147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998).** Order 596 provided neither. The absence of notice and opportunity to be heard renders the order procedurally infirm.\n\nThis due process failure was compounded by the compressed temporal escalation between Orders 528 and 596. Order 596 was issued less than twenty-four hours after Order 528, depriving me of any realistic opportunity to become aware of the prior order. Due process requires not merely theoretical notice, but notice that is meaningful in practice. **Even assuming arguendo that the factual premise of Order 596 were valid,** the Court's compressed escalation nevertheless resulted in filings made before I had actual, practicable notice of Order 528 being retroactively treated as grounds for heightened restrictions-creating **a procedural trap that violates fundamental fairness and due process.**\n\nIn addition, Order 596 fails to apply the required principles of narrow tailoring and least restrictive means. The Second Circuit requires that any filing restriction be individualized, proportionate, and narrowly tailored to address the specific conduct at issue. Order 596 contains no analysis of less restrictive alternatives, such as limiting subject matter, clarifying permissible filing categories, or addressing specific filings individually. Instead, the court imposed the most severe available mechanism-universal pre-screening of all future filings-without any proportionality analysis.\n\nThe order is also overbroad and non-individualized. It applies a blanket screening regime to all future filings, without distinguishing among types of submissions, legal bases, or subject matter. The order does not identify which specific filings necessitated such a sweeping restriction, nor does it confine the restriction to conduct plausibly related to the perceived problem. Such overbreadth chills legitimate access to the court and exceeds what is necessary to protect docket integrity.\n\nFinally, Order 596 lacks sufficient factual findings to support a determination of vexatiousness. The order relies on conclusory assertions that l \"abused the public's right of access\" and engaged in \"vexatious\" conduct, without making\n\nI\n\nfiling-specific findings, explaining why ordinary denial was inadequate, or demonstrating how the conduct satisfied the Second Circuit's threshold for vexatious litigation. Conclusory characterizations cannot support such an extraordinary remedy. Absent detailed, individualized findings, the imposition of a filing restriction cannot stand.\n\n### **IV. False Factual Premises Underlying Order 596 and the Escalating Procedural Violations Triggered by Orders 528 and 596**\n\nOrder 596, based on demonstrably false factual assumptions, imposed mandatory pre-filing review and contemplated injunctions against me. Under these coercive conditions, I had no practicable way to preserve access to the Court other than filing Motion 679 and assuming a procedural posture I had repeatedly disclaimed-namely, that of a \"crime victim.\" This was a compelled response to the Court's own directives, not a discretionary choice, and it triggered a cascading series of procedural distortions that amplified the challenges and inconsistencies in the official record.\n\n### **A. Judicial Coercion and Internally Inconsistent Record**\n\nOrders 528 and 596 produced a court-created contradiction: Order 528 relied on my disclaimers of victim status (Dkts. 513, 517), yet the pre-screening threat in Order 596 compelled my victim-status filing in Motion 679. This inconsistency reflects judicial coercion, not litigant vacillation, and contaminated the factual foundation for subsequent review.\n\n### **B. Due Process Violations and chilling Effect**\n\nPre-filing restrictions and vexatious labels exerted pressure to alter my legal posture, suppressing legitimate procedural objections. This coercion chilled participation and signaled to other pro se participants that procedural engagement could trigger punitive measures, undermining fundamental fairness.\n\n#### **Failure to Cure Record Distortion and Resulting Appearance of Partiality c.**\n\nMotion 679 expressly notified the Court that my assumption of victim status was coerced and expressly disclaimed. Upon docketing Dkt. 679, the Court was therefore on notice of the coercive circumstances under which the filing was made and of the resulting inconsistency in the record. Nevertheless, the Court failed to correct the record, disclaim reliance on the coerced filing, or vacate the coercive predicates that produced it. By leaving the compelled procedural posture embedded in the docket, the Court preserved a record that appears neither neutral nor reliable. Where a court is expressly notified that a litigant's procedural posture was assumed under coercion, the court bears an affirmative obligation either to cure the resulting distortion of the record or to disclaim reliance on such compelled filings. The failure to do so transforms judicial inaction into participation in the coercive effect itself, thereby compounding the harm and giving rise to an appearance of partiality under 28 U.S.C. §455(a), while exacerbating the chilling effect on legitimate participation.\n\n### **D. Judicial Paradox: From Challenge to Compelled Victim**\n\nNarrowly tailored procedural challenges raised in Dkt. 513 and Dkt. 557, concerning the accuracy and integrity of the victim list, were summarily terminated. Yet, through subsequent coercive directives, the Court transformed my pro se procedural challenge into compelled participation within the very victim category it had declined to scrutinize. This paradox undermines procedural integrity.\n\n### **E. Cumulative Abuse of Procedure and Discretion**\n\nOrders 528 and 596 triggered a chain of coercion and procedural distortion. Threats of injunctions, pre-screening based on false premises, and lack of individualized proportional analysis forced me to assume victim status, creating internally contradictory entries and chilling lawful participation.\n\n### **F. Evidence of Judicial Bias and Selective Enforcement**\n\nAs shown in Ryan's Supplemental Mandamus (25-2726, Dkts. 26, 29), thirdparty filings by counsel were accepted, while pro se victim motions were suppressed or restricted. Despite acknowledging my Motion 507, the Court did not address bias concerns. This pattern demonstrates selective docketing, unequal treatment, and inconsistent enforcement against unrepresented participants.\n\n### **v. Reasons for Filing and Relief Requested**\n\n### **Standards for Mandamus Relief and Continuing Risk of Procedural Coercion**\n\nMandamus relief is warranted under the well-established *Cheney* standard, which requires (1) that the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought, (2) that the issuing court has a nondiscretionary duty to act, and (3) that no other adequate means exist to obtain the relief.\n\nThe existence of Order 596(Exhibit B) exerted significant procedural pressure, forcing me to alter my status in order to continue participating safely in the proceedings, detailed in Dkt. 679. The existence of the order placed me in a position where my continued participation carried a reasonably foreseeable political risk due to my residence in mainland China. Subsequent filings, including Ryan Bai's submissions in this Court (25-2726), further illustrate a documented pattern reflected on the SDNY docket in which the personal identifying information of pro se participants who raised procedural concerns was publicly disclosed, creating foreseeable safety and retaliation risks.\n\nTaken together, these circumstances demonstrate that:\n\n- 1. I have a clear and indisputable right to relief, as my statutory rights under the CVRA were effectively constrained,\n- 2. The Court has a nondiscretionary duty to act, given the coercive effect and the procedural irregularities that forced me into involuntary victim status,\n- 3. No other adequate remedy exists within the district court, as prior attempts to assert these rights pro se have been systematically blocked or suppressed .\n\n**Recusal is independently required under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) because the district judge has become a material participant in the disputed procedural history. The relief sought necessarily requires review of the factual**\n\n**premises, coercive effects, and procedural consequences of Orders 528 and 596--orders issued by Judge Torres herself.**\n\nAs described above, Orders 528 and 596 did more than manage the docket. Through threats of filing injunctions and mandatory pre-screening, the court employed coercive measures that forced a pro se participant to assume a procedural posture-crime victim status-that he had repeatedly and expressly disclaimed, as the only practicable means of preserving safety and continued access to the court. A reasonable observer would question the neutrality of a judge whose **own** coercive actions materially shaped a party's procedural identity and the resulting record.\n\nThat appearance of partiality is reinforced by a documented pattern of selective enforcement. As shown in Ryan Bai's Expanded Supplemental Mandamus Petition and related filings (Case No. 25-2726, Dkts. 26, 29), as mentioned in section IV, 7, third parties represented by counsel were permitted to file motions and raise procedural objections, while pro se victim motions were suppressed or subjected to restrictive directives. Although statutory protections for nondefendants under 18 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA serve analogous protective purposes, filings under § 853(n), including ECF No. 777, were accepted, while CVRA-based victim motions were blocked.\n\nTaken together, the court's reliance on demonstrably false factual premises, its coercive imposition of an unwanted procedural role, and its selective enforcement of docket access and statutory protections actively contaminated the judicial record itself. Faced with explicit threats of exclusion and pre-screening, I was compelled to file Dkt. 679 and to assume a procedural status I had consistently disclaimed. Although no further sanctions followed, the court-having docketed Dkt. 679 and thus being fully aware that the submission was made under coercive conditions-failed to cure, correct, or clarify the resulting record.\n\n**By leaving in place a record entry generated under coercive conditions and grounded in false premises, the court transformed a contested procedural dispute into a self-generated record artifact. Such record contamination is not a collateral defect, it undermines the accuracy, neutrality, and reliability of the record on which appellate review necessarily depends. Where a court creates the conditions that force a litigant's filings and then**\n\n**preserves those filings as authoritative components of the record, a reasonable observer would question whether impartial adjudication has been maintained. Under 28 U.S.C. §455(a), recusal is therefore required to restore public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.**\n\n### **VI. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the following relief:**\n\n- 1. Immediate relief vacating, suspending, or otherwise nullifying, as applied to me, the operative and coercive effects of Orders 528 and 596 (Exhibits A and B), including any pre-screening requirements, filing restrictions, or characterizations of vexatiousness directed at me, to the extent such orders were predicated on false factual premises or operate to compel a procedural posture l expressly disclaimed, interfere with my participation in the proceedings, or expose me to ongoing foreseeable risk.\n- 2. Any additional relief the Court deems necessary to ensure that my statutory rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 is fully protected and that my participation in the proceedings is not further compromised by selective enforcement, intimidation, or coercion.\n- 3. **Recusal of Judge Torres from all proceedings related to United States v. Kwok, et al., 1 :23-CR-118-1 (AT), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455, due to demonstrated judicial bias, selective enforcement, and coercive treatment of pro se petitioners, including the issuance of Order 596 premised on false factual assumptions, the coercive transformation of a litigant's procedural status, and the resulting judicially manufactured and internally inconsistent record that suppresses and distorts statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).**\n\nRespectfully submitted, Chunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi) January 7, 2026 +1(510)371-5615 baoliao2019@gmail.com US mailing address: 181 E. Tasman Dr. Suite 20. PMB#364, **San** Jose, CA95134 *f*U *f L/*\n\n## **Exhibit A**\n\n**SDNY Order 528**\n\n**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT** SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n-against-\n\nMILES Guo, KIN **MING** JE, **and YVETTE WANG, ORDER REGARDING**\n\nDefendants.\n\n**ANALISA TORRES,** District Judge:\n\nThis order concerns certain nonparty filings and email correspondence the Court has received in connection with this case.\n\nThere are four parties to this case: the United States of America, Miles Guo, Kin Ming Je, and Yvette Wang. No other party has standing to intervene in this case or to file any motion, letter, document, **or** request **other** than a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), *see United States v.* Kozeny, No. 05 Cr. 518, 2011 WL 1672473, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011), or a motion under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), which applies only to persons \"directly and proximately harmed\" by a defendant's commission of a federal offense, 18 U.S.C. §377l(e)(2)(A); see id §377l(a), (d)(3), (d)(6).\n\nBy letter dated April I, 2025, a nonparty identified as Bei Bei Zhu filed a \"Motion to Intervene Pro Se.\" ECF No. 526 (capitalization altered). The nonparty seeks to intervene to \"[a]ccess relevant evidence and court filings.\" Id at 2. Access to evidence or **court** filings is not a valid basis to intervene in a criminal case because all court filings and evidence in the record, **except** materials properly under seal, are available to the public. The nonparty further seeks to intervene to \"[p]rovide evidence that [their] rights have been violated\" and to assert claims related to \"potential victim compensation or asset recovery.\" Id To the extent the nonparty has any such claims, the nonparty may pursue such claims by complying with the procedures set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853 or **the** CVRA, which the nonparty has not done here. Finally, the nonparty seeks to intervene to offer \"testimony or evidence\" related to the criminal charges at issue. Id As a nonparty to a criminal case, Bei Bei Zhu lacks standing to intervene for the purpose of offering unsolicited testimony or evidence. Accordingly, the motion at ECF No. 526 is DENIED. \\\n\nThe same nonparty has also filed a motion to \"unseal the list of victims\" in this case. ECF No. 527. In the motion, the nonparty claims to have \"never received a victim notification\" under the **CVRA** and wishes to know whether the nonparty \"appears in [the Government's] victim list.\" Id at l. Accordingly, the Court directs the Government to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, to communicate with the nonparty directly. **To the extent the** nonparty seeks to unseal all sealed or redacted court filings concerning victims' identifying information, the motion is **DENIED** for lack of standing and, alternatively, on the merits.\n\n| USDC<br>SDNY         |          |\n|----------------------|----------|\n| DOCUMENT             |          |\n| ELECTRONICALLY FILED |          |\n| DOC<br>#:            |          |\n| DATE FILED:          | 4/3/2025 |\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n## **LETTERS AND MOTIONS Defendants. FROM NONPARTIES**\n\n*I*\n\nAnother nonparty identified as Chunk Chyi has filed near-daily letters on the docket for **the last two weeks. See ECF Nos.** 505, 507, 508, **510, 513, 517, 519,** 522, 524. with the exception of ECF No. 505, which may be liberally construed as a pro se petition under § 853(n), the filings by Chunk Chyi are improper. Chunk Chyi has repeatedly disclaimed victim status, see, e.g., ECF **Nos.** 513, 517, and numerous of Chunk Chyi's filings concern private matters beyond the scope of this criminal prosecution, *see,* **e.g.,** ECF **Nos.** 508, 519, 524. Additionally, certain filings by Chunk Chyi could be construed as threatening or harassing to the Government and the victims of Defendants' crimes. See, **e.g.,** ECF Nos. 517, 522. Accordingly, the nonparty motions at ECF Nos. 508, 510, 519, 522, and 524 are **DENIED.** Any further filings by Chunk Chyi or **any** alias or representative of Chunk Chyi in violation of this Order or applicable Court rules may be construed as frivolous, vexatious, or harassing, and may subject the filer to a permanent filing injunction.\n\nFinally, the Court has received numerous unsolicited, nonparty email communications made directly to the Chambers email account over the last several months. Such communications are prohibited. Any communications with the Court must be directed to the Clerk of Court and/or the Pro Se Intake Unit, and must be filed in accordance with Court rules.\n\nThe Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at **ECF** Nos. 508, 510, 524, 526, and 527, and to mail or email a copy of this order to nonparties Bei Bei Zhu and Chunk Chyi.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 3, 2025\n\nNew York, New York\n\n[Signature]\n\n---\n\nANALISA TORR\n\nANALISA TORRES United States District Judge\n\n## **Exhibit B**\n\n**SDNY Order 596**\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n-against-\n\nMILES GUO, KIN **MING** JE, and YVETTE WANG, **ORDER REGARDING**\n\nDefendants.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nBy order dated April 3, 2025, the **Court** explained the limited circumstances in which a nonparty may file a letter, motion, or other filing in a criminal case. ECF No. 528. The Court discussed specific filings by individuals who have identified themselves as Chunk Chyi and Bei Bei Zhu. Id The Court explained why these individuals' filings were improper and, in some instances, could be construed as threatening, harassing, or-at a minimum-vexatious. See id The Court advised that further improper filings could subject the filers to a permanent filing injunction. *See id*\n\nIn the twenty-four hours since the Court's order was docketed, Chunk Chyi and Bei Bei **Zhu have filed** six additional improper filings. See ECF Nos. 553-57, 582. Accordingly, the Court finds that Chunk Chyi and Bei Bei Zhu are vexatious nonparties who have abused the public's right of access to the Court in clear violation of Court orders. The Court **ORDERS** that any further filing by Chunk Chyi or Bei Bei Zhu, or any aliases or representatives thereof, shall be screened and docketed only if the **Court**determines that the filing is made in accordance with applicable court mies, in good faith, and with a proper basis under the law.\n\nThe requests filed by nonparty Carolyn Sun **at ECF Nos. 559 and 568 are DENIED** for the reasons stated in the Court's April 3 order.\n\nThe Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF **Nos.** 519, 557, 559, and 582.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 4, 2025\n\nNew York, New York ANALISA TORRE\n\nANALISA TORRES United States District Judge\n\nUSDC SDNYDOCUMENTELECTRONICALLY FILED\n\n| DOC #:      |          |\n|-------------|----------|\n| DATE FILED: | 4/4/2025 |\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n## **LETTERS AND MOTIONS** Defendants. **FROM NONPARTIES**\n\n# **Exhibit C**\n\n**Second Circuit Order on 25-2726**\n\nS.D.N.Y. - N.Y.C. 23-cr-I18 **Torres, J.**\n\n### United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND **CIRCUIT**\n\nAt a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the city of New York, on the 26thday of November, two thousand twenty-five.\n\nPresent:\n\nDennis **Jacobs,** Joseph F.**Bianco,** *Circuit Judges,* **Victor** A. Bolden, *District Judge. \\**\n\nIn Re: Ranyue Bai, 25-2726\n\n25-2726\n\n*Petitioner.*\n\nPetitioner, pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to cease suppressing his future filings, docket his submitted but undocketed motions, and rule on his pending Rule 60(d)(3) motion. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner has not demonstrated that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable, and that granting the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. *See Cheney v. US. Dist. CI. for D.*c., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).\n\nIn view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address expeditiously, Petitioner's mandamus petition as to docketing his submissions is denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time .\n\n### CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 11/26/2025\n\n<sup>\\*</sup> Judge Victor A. Bolden, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.\n\nLikewise, the denial as to his Rule 60(d)(3) motion is without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to take action within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal *case. See Cheney,*542 **U.S. at** 380-81*, United States v. Magassouba,*544 F.3d 387, 4] I n.16 (2d Cir. 2008).\n\n> FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court\n\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\nUNITED STATES SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS\n\nA True Copy\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\n## **Exhibit D**\n\n#### **.. 4 <sup>i</sup>Mi...** - J'4l.h **25-2726 Dkt. 26 Expanded Mandamus Petition** *ill* <sup>1</sup>**1**:1 1 **1 Iement**\n\n**I**\n\n## **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**\n\nCase No. 25-2726\n\nIn re Ryan Ba Petitioner\n\n### **SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR EXPANDED MANDAMUS RELIEF DUE TO SDNY'S RETALIATORY PII DISCLOSURE**\n\nTo the Clerk of Court and the Honorable Judges of the Second Circuit:\n\n### **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nI, Ryan Bai \\_ a crime victim appearing pro se under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. §3771, respectfully move this Honorable Court to expand the scope of my pending mandamus petition (docketed October 28, 2025), in light of the Southern District of New York's retaliatory disclosure of my personally identifiable information (\"PII\") in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 765. SDNY's retaliatory public tiling has impaired this Court's ability to conduct independent mandamus review, by exposing the **CVRA** victim-petitioner **and** chilling protected participation, thereby interfering with this Court's jurisdiction.\n\nThis filing seeks not to reopen the merits of any criminal conviction, but to invoke this Court's supervisory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to remedy a structural collapse of due process and protect the integrity of ongoing proceedings.\n\n### **II. BACKGROUND**\n\nAfter the SDNY repeatedly refused to docket my two prior victim motions, I sought mandamus relief in this Court. The Second Circuit docketed my original mandamus petition on October 28, 2025.\n\nHowever, on October 29, the Southern District of New York (\"SDNY\") publicly filed the unredacted version of my original mandamus petition as Dkt. 765, disclosing **my real** name, home address, email address, and phone number. As soon as I discovered this filing, l immediately submitted an emergency request to\n\nthe SDNY Pro Se Intake (attached as Exhibit C), asking the district court to remove Dkt. 765 from public access and replace it with a properly redacted version to protect my personally identifiable information (\"Pll\"). On the same day, because I did not know how SDNY obtained the unredacted petition, I also filed an emergency motion in this Court requesting that my original mandamus petition be placed under seal and substituted with a redacted version, in order to mitigate any further risk.\n\nFollowing my filing, the Clerk's Office of this Court assisted me in completing the necessary steps, and the motion was granted on November 18, 2025. l am grateful for the prompt actions taken by the Clerk and the Court to protect a crime victim's privacy interests.\n\nIn contrast, more than fourteen days have passed since the emergency motion was submitted to the SDNY, yet the district court has taken no action to safeguard my information. As a result of SDNY's public disclosure, my personal information has already been cited and circulated on social media, causing me irreparable personal harm.\n\nThis act was entirely discretionary - the Second Circuit had issued no order instructing SDNY to file my petition. When I verified with the Second Circuit Clerk's Office on October 29, they confirmed no directive had been transmitted. Therefore, SDNY's act of docketing my unredacted mandamus filing was **a selfinitiated, retaliatory act.**\n\nOn November 19, 2025, SDNY took an even more anomalous step by uploading Dkt. 766, a redacted version of my mandamus petition that had been submitted solely as an attachment to my emergency motion in this Court. That attachment was never docketed on the docket of this Court, yet SDNY nevertheless uploaded it to SDNY docket while refusing to remove or seal Dkt. 765, the unredacted filing exposing my PII. This sequence demonstrates selective and retaliatory docketing rather than clerical **error.**\n\n#### **Ill. EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION**\n\n**1. Retaliatory Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information by the SDNY**\n\nFollowing my earlier victim filings (Dkt. 744 and Dkt. 733), SDNY **barred all non-ECF third-party victim** filings, claiming it was \"to protect privacy.\" Yet the Court then uploaded my unredacted mandamus petition, exposing precisely the personal data it was obligated-and had previously claimed-to protect.\n\nPrior to fIling this mandamus petition, I was required to mail a service copy of the petition to the SDNY, meaning the district court already **possessed a properly redacted version** suitable for public docketing. Rather than using that version, the SDNY deliberately retrieved the original unredacted filing from other resources and uploaded it to the district court docket. Such an act goes far beyond mere clerical oversight, it constitutes a retaliatory disclosure in direct response to the petitioner's lawful filings that had raised procedural irregularities and misconduct within the district court. This retaliatory action not only violated privacy protections under Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 but also caused irreparable harm by making sensitive personal information permanently accessible to the public, therefore violates my CVRA, 18 U.S.C. §3771.\n\nDespite already being in possession of a redacted version of my mandamus petition, SDNY nevertheless uploaded the redacted petition that I submitted as part of my emergency motion in this Court to SDNY docket as Dkt. 766. **This means the SDNY accessed, extracted, and selectively docketed materials that I mailed to the Court of Appeals. Such conduct has no basis in any federal rule and constitutes a direct intrusion into the appellate process.**\n\nEven more troubling, while uploading the redacted version, the SDNY has still refused to remove the unredacted version (Dkt. 765) as of December 19, 2025, despite having full knowledge **that** a redacted version exists.\n\n**This dual action-(1) refusing to remove the harmful filing for more than 14 days and (2) selectively uploading filings intended for appellate review, despite already possessing a redacted version-demonstrates that the SDNY's docketing conduct is not an accident or oversight, but a pattern of retaliation, selective docketing, and interference with the appellate record.**\n\n2. **Pattern of Retaliatory Exposure**\n\n#### This is **not the first instance of such conduct.**\n\n**o** In this case, Dkts. 723, 730, and 731 were all filed by the same pro se petitioner. Dkts. 730 and 731 were motions to compel docketing of Dkt. 723, which had not been timely uploaded by the SDNY. Notably, in Dkt. 731, the petitioner explicitly invoked privacy protection rules, stating:\n\n\"Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 **and** Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, Petitioner further requests that personal identifiers (such as passport numbers, government-issued ID, and detailed residential address) be redacted from the public docket, while the complete unredacted version remains under seal.\"\n\nNevertheless, in Dkt. 732, the SDNY inexplicably uploaded a duplicate copy of the petitioner's Dkt. 723 filing - this time in unredacted form, thereby publicly exposing all of his personal identifying information, including his residence in mainland China. This filing served no legitimate procedural purpose, it merely replicated the substance of Dkt. 723 while removing the privacy protections the petitioner had expressly requested under Rule 49.1 / 5.2. This action constitutes a clear act of retaliation by the district court in response to the petitioner's prior filing (Dkt. 723), which raised concerns about procedural irregularities and judicial misconduct in the handling of the case. By intentionally re-uploading the same motion without redaction, the court not only disregarded its duty to safeguard personal information but **also** subjected the petitioner to grave and foreseeable risks, particularly given the sensitivity of this case and its potential implications in the People's Republic of China.\n\no SDNY mailed filings directly to Chinese citizens Chunk Chyi and Beibei Zhu, then publicly docketed the returned envelopes containing their home addresses-a reckless act that could endanger lives.\n\n**The pattern shows SDNY does not merely neglect privacy obligationsit selectively enforces privacy rules depending on whether the filer criticizes procedural irregularities.**\n\n**3. A. Risk to Thousands of CVRA Victims (If the government's representations are to be believed)**\n\nThe government repeatedly emphasizes that this case involves thousands of victims in Dkt. 7, 26, 192 etc. Yet, the Southern District Court's retaliatory actions-particularly the public disclosure of unredacted victim information in Dkt. 765-demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety and privacy of these individuals. If such retaliatory conduct is tolerated, the personal information of potentially thousands of CVRA-protected victims is placed in extreme jeopardy. l am compelled to advocate not only for personal protection but also to safeguard the interests and rights of all victims whose identities and sensitive information are at risk. This systemic failure underscores the urgent need for super/isory mandamus to prevent further harm and to restore **the** integrity of **the** judicial process.\n\n#### **IV. JUDICIAL BIAS**\n\n#### 1. **Disparate Treatment of Pro Se Filings**\n\nFollowing Dkt. 745, the Court barred all filings by third-party pro se victims from being uploaded to the public docket, while permitting submissions by attorneys through the ECF system. This distinction constitutes unequal treatment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and undermines the principles of equal access to the courts. By creating a system that privileges attorney-filed submissions over pro se filings, the Court exhibited a clear bias against pro se victims.\n\n#### 2. **Appearance of Judicial Impropriety Under Liteky I Caperton**\n\nThe Court has previously recognized that the public disclosure of personal addresses constitutes a serious threat to the judicial process. For example, in Dkt. 7, the prosecution alleged that supporters of the defendant posted the private home addresses of the Chapter 11 Trustee, the Trustee's family, and other related parties, calling for protests at these locations. in Dkt. 51, Judge Torres cited such postings as evidence of obstruction of justice and intimidation of officers of the Court, and used this as a factor in the defendant's bail denial. Yet, in **direct** contradiction **to this** precedent, the Court itself has publicly posted the private addresses of a victimmyself-and other self-represented petitioners in Dkts. 732 and 765. By treating my filings in a manner that the Court has explicitly condemned in others, the Court demonstrates a clear pattern of bias against pro se petitioners and victims, applying double standards in the administration of\n\njustice and disregarding the privacy protections mandated by Rule 49.1 / 5.2.\n\nFurthermore, Caperton v. A.T. **Massey** Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), establishes that the probability of bias requiring recusal is heightened when a party is subjected to systemic disadvantage that could influence the outcome. By publicly disclosing my personally identifiable information while previously criticizing similar disclosures by other parties (Dkt. 51), the Court applied a double standard, fostering the appearance of impropriety and undermining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.\n\ns. **Selective Docketing and Ignored Allegations of Judicial Bias** In Dkt. 507, Chunk Chyi raised a formal challenge alleging judicial bias. while the Court referenced Dkt. 507 in its subsequent Order 528, it provided no substantive response, explanation, or ruling regarding the recusal request. By ignoring these allegations, the Court deprived the flier of a fundamental procedural right **to a** fair **and** impartial tribunal, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.\n\nMoreover, under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a judge must avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. The failure to address a recusal request-particularly when the filer explicitly raises concerns about bias-creates a reasonable appearance that the proceedings may not be impartial. This selective consideration undermines public confidence in the judiciary and contaminates the procedural record, thereby impairing both ongoing and appellate review.\n\n### **v. SDNY'S ACTIONS THAT MISLED AND INTERFERED WITH THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S REVIEW**\n\nThe SDNY docketed my original mandamus document not only violated my CVRA, but also interfered with the procedural safeguards and assumptions under which this Court conducts mandamus review, creating both practical and legal complications for independent evaluation.\n\n**. Corruption of the Appellate** Record: Mandamus review presupposes that filings are secure, authentic, and free from unauthorized manipulation.\n\nSDNY's unilateral public disclosure of an appellate filing injected an extrinsic and unauthorized element into the mandamus record, undermining the integrity of the materials before this Court. Specifically, by docketing my appellate mandamus petition whale simultaneously refusing to docket or acknowledge my properly submitted district-court motions (Exhibits A and B), SDNY created an irreconcilable procedural ambiguity. The record is left in a contradictory posture: the filing is publicly visible as though it had been accepted by the district court, yet it was never lawfully submitted to--or authorized for docketing in-that court. This is not a neutral clerical irregularity. It distorts the procedural history of the case and interferes with this Court's ability to conduct independent mandamus review over matters committed exclusively to its appellate jurisdiction.\n\nThe unauthorized public filing of my original mandamus petition by the Southern District of **New** York **is not the first incident of procedural interference** with this Court. In Dkt. 733, I demonstrated that the prosecution relied on tainted creditor registration evidence, which led to the district court's denial of the defendant's bail. The defendant appealed, and this Court, in Dkt. 87, likewise denied the appeal:\n\n*\"Ho Wan Kwok appeals a district cord order denying him pre-trial release on the basis that he posed a serious risk of flight and obstruction ofjustice, that he posed a danger to the community...\"*\n\nAs detailed in Dkt. 733, the \"obstruction of justice\" finding incorporated the tainted evidence submitted by the prosecution. Further, as explained in Section **IV(2)** of this Supplemental Petition regarding Judicial Bias, the district court's retaliatory public disclosure of my address contaminates Judge Torres' prior reliance in Dkt. 51 on similar disclosures by supporters of Ho Wan Kwok to justify obstruction of justice, which may have also influenced this Court's denial of the defendant's appeal in Dkt. 87.\n\nThus, SDNY's actions have repeatedly interfered with this Court's independent review, affecting both the factual and procedural integrity of the appellate record.\n\n#### **VI. CRONIC STRUCTURAL ERROR**\n\nThe defendant terminated his counsel in Dkt. 700, stating that the representation provided \"not even the basics\" and expressing that **\"I** am very disappointed.\" This\n\ncircumstance illustrates why, as a victim, I was able to identify the fraud upon the court allegedly committed by the prosecutors and Trustee Luc, and subsequently submit Dkt. 733, while the defendant's three successive counsel failed to detect it. This alone demonstrates that the defense process has **systemically collapsed.** As referenced in Exhibit B to the Mandamus petition, from both the perspective of judicial fraud and attorney failure, the severity of the irregularities in this case far exceeds the scope addressed in landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), and Washington v. District of Columbia, 802 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1986). I have detailed in Exhibit B attached to the Mandamus petition that the specific comparisons between this case and Hazel-Atlas, Hartford-Empire Co., and Washington, highlighting how the misconduct and systemic failures here surpass those historic precedents. The irregularities in this case-including systemic failure of defense counsel, alleged prosecutorial fraud, and the mishandling of victim and evidentiary disclosures-surpass the magnitude of these historic precedents. Therefore, this case poses the risk of becoming one of the largest instances of judicial fraud in American history.\n\n#### **VII. RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\nI invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the All Writs Act, which authorizes this Court to \"issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.\" l submit that the relief requested herein-necessary to protect CVRA victims, correct procedural defects, and prevent further retaliation-is precisely the type of writ contemplated by § 1651*(a),*\n\nMoreover, I invoke the principle that mandamus relief may be broadened to address subsequent harms caused by the district court's retaliatory actions. As the Supreme Court noted,\n\n\"Mandamus is not limited to the original relief sought, if the district court's subsequent actions create new harm, the writ may be broadened to correct it.\" - Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81\n\nSimilarly, the ninth Circuit has confirmed that:\n\n\"When a district court retaliates against a **CVRA** victim for exercising statutory rights, the victim may seek mandamus to vacate the underlying order and obtain broader relief.\" - Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017-18\n\nTo prevent further retaliatory doxxing of CVRA victims, the only effective remedy under §1651(a) is to vacate all tainted orders and recuse the presiding judge.\n\nThus, the SDNY's retaliatory actions in leaking Dkt. 765 trigger my right to respectfully seek an expanded mandamus remedy as follows:\n\n- 1. Direct the Southern Distriet of New York (\"SDNY\") to immediately remove or seal Dkt. 765, Dkt. 732, and any other filings containing unredacted victim information from all publicly accessible court systems, including but not limited to PACER, CourtListener, and similar platforms, and to upload the two redacted original motions (Exhibit A and B in the mandamus petition) that l previously submitted via the SDNY Pro Se email but suppressed from the docket,\n- 2. Direct the SDNY to docket all proper third-party pro se documents,\n- 3. In light of the Cronic structural collapse described herein, issue supervisory directions to stay or vacate enforcement of the bail denial order, the preliminary forfeiture order, the conviction orders and the sentencing proceedings as well as any other tainted procedures resulting from these procedural defects, pending independent review.\n- 4. Order the recusal of Judge Analisa Torres pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), due to the appearance of bias and conflict of interest,\n- 5. Issue such further supervisory instructions as may be necessary to restore judicial integrity and prevent further retaliation against **CVRA** victims.\n- 6. In order to avoid being retaliated by the SDNY again but also showing necessary document content on the docket, upload the redacted version of this Supplemental Petition\\_redacted.pdf and Exhibit C\\_public.pdf to the public docket to the case 25-2726, and retain the fully signed, unredacted versions under seal as part of the Court's internal record.\n\n7. Direct SDNY to docket the redacted version of this Supplemental Petition to SDNY docket, to ensure consistency with Dkt. 765 and to prevent further selective docketing that impairs this Court's supervisory review.\n\n![](_page_30_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n1\n\n## **Exhibit E**\n\n### **Case 25-2726 Dkt. 29 LETTER advising t of recent developments url**\n\n'-\\_ \",;5» `. ,\n\n## **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**\n\n**Case: 25-2726 SDNY case: 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)**\n\n**In re: Ryan Bai (real name: Ranyue Bai), Petitioner**\n\n### **Letter Advising the Court of Recent Developments Relevant to Previous Expanded Supplemental Mandamus Petition**\n\n**To the Clerk of Court and the Honorable Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:**\n\nI respectfully submit this letter in support of my pending petition for an Expanded Supplemental Mandamus Petition filed on the docket (case 25-2726 Dkt. 26, Exhibit D) on December 22, 2025. This letter is submitted solely to advise the Court of recent district court developments relevant to the pending mandamus review, including a district court order issued on December 22, 2025 (SDNY Dkt. **782)** and a related pre-petition docket development reflecting the district court's handling of non-defendant third-party filings (SDNY Dkt. 777), and to explain the relevance of these developments to the issues presently before this Court.\n\nI submit this letter only to advise the Court of this intervening development and its relevance to the Court's ongoing mandamus review. **I do not seek additional relief through this letter and defer entirely to the Court's discretion regarding its consideration.**\n\nThe district court's order is itself significant for an additional reason relevant to this Court's mandamus review. By expressly contemplating the appointment of a special master to manage third-party claims, the district court has acknowledged a breakdown in its ability to timely and neutrally process the interests of nondefendant third parties within the ordinary judicial framework.\n\nThat acknowledgement confirms that my previous mandamus allegations concerning systemic failure in the handling of third-party victim filings are not\n\nspeculative or hypothetical. Rather, the district court has now expressly recognized-through its own order-that its existing procedures have proven inadequate to address the volume, complexity, or sensitivity of third-party claims arising **from this case.**\n\nThe December 22, 2025 order contemplates the possible appointment of a special master to address certain third-party claims arising in connection with forfeiture administration. I do not dispute the district court's authority to manage ancillary forfeiture proceedings. **However, the order does not address the court's independent, mandatory, and non-delegable obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. §3771 .**\n\nSpecifically, the order does not address the continued public availability of unredacted filings containing my personally identifiable information, including Dkt. 765-an issue squarely raised in the pending Expanding Mandamus Petition. As of the date of this letter, that filing remains publicly accessible. **The resulting harm to a CVRA-protected victim is ongoing and irreparable.**\n\nNotwithstanding the issues expressly raised in the Expanded Supplemental Petition, the December 22 order takes no action to remedy the continuing disclosure of victim information or to mitigate the associated privacy and safety risks. As a practical matter, the order leaves unresolved the CVRA violations presented to **this Court, while shifting attention to ancillary administrative mechanisms that cannot substitute for the district court's own statutory duties to protect victims.**\n\nThe December 22, 2025 order must also be evaluated in light of the district court's prior findings on obstruction of justice. As detailed in my Expanded Mandamus Petition, the court relied on exposure of private addresses and personal information of the bankruptcy trustee and related individuals by defendant supporters as a basis to deny bail (SDNY Dkt. 7, 26, 51)-a rationale later affirmed by this Court (SDNY Dkt. 87).\n\nAgainst this backdrop, the unauthorized public docketing of Dkt. 765-exposing me and containing my unredacted home address and personal informationsubjects me to the very retaliatory risks previously recognized. Its continued availability inflicts ongoing harm and contaminates the procedural record underlying both the district court's obstruction findings and this Court's appellate review. **The December 22 order does not resolve this inconsistency,**\n\n**shifting focus to a prospective special master for forfeiture claims leaves unaddressed the ongoing disclosure and cannot substitute for the district court's immediate, non-delegable duty to protect victim information.**\n\n**Prior Docket Developments Illustrating Disparate Treatment of Non-Defendant Victims :**\n\nOn December 17, 2025, the district court docketed ECF No. 777, a petition filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n) by a non-defendant investor-victim, represented by counsel, seeking adjudication of his property interest in forfeited assets. That filing was promptly accepted and made publicly available on the docket. By contrast, multiple filings submitted by CVRA-protected victims have not been docketed or have remained unaddressed for extended periods.\n\nThis disparity is not attributable to administrative incapacity. Section 853(n) petitioners and CVRA victims are both non-defendants asserting statutorily protected interests arising from the same criminal conduct. Yet the district court has afforded full procedural access and docket visibility to § 853(n) claimants, while CVRA-based submissions seeking protection from ongoing harm remain unremedied. **The differential treatment reflects a categorical privileging of forfeiture-administration claims over mandatory victim-protection obligations.**\n\nThe acceptance of ECF No. 777 confirms that the district court remains fully capable of docketing non-defendant victim filings when it elects to do so. The continued failure to docket, address, or remediate CVRA-based submissions after this Court's involvement confirms that the issue is not delay, but selective enforcement of access and protection.\n\nAccordingly, these recent developments strengthen the showing that the Expanded Mandamus relief is necessary to halt ongoing statutory violations, restore parity among victims, and to ensure that the issues presented to this Court are reviewed on a complete and uncontaminated procedural record.\n\nRespectfully submitted, Ryan Bai December 23 2025\n\nRm\n\n# **Exhibit F**\n\n## **Evidence showing order 596 is based on false factual premises**\n\n**SDNY upload time for Order 528 is Apr 3, 2025 4:30 PM EST, corresponds to Apr 4, 2025 4:30 AM in China Time.**\n\n**All my documents were sent on Apr 3, 2025 China time, latter docketed as Dkt. 554, 555, 556, 557**\n\nThis shows that all my documents were sent before the upload time of Order 528. Order 528 thus based on false factual premises.\n\n![](_page_36_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n10:04GmailGmail 应用变得更强大易用\n\n安全快捷的电子邮件服务, 助您有条不紊地处理大小事务\n\n打开\n\n已发...\n\nLetter to all victims to Case No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n喜和baoliao2019@gmail.com\n\n隐藏详细信息\n\n| 收件人: | ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov |\n|------|-------------------------|\n| 日期:  | 2025年4月3日, 06:21        |\n\nPDFLetter to all victims.pdf回复转发©2025 Google\n\n10:06 ... VPN HD 5G 83\n\n# Gmail\n\nGmail 应用变得更强大易用\n安全快捷的电子邮件服务, 助您有条不紊地处理大小事务\n打开\n\n已发...\n\nMotion to Compel Prosecution to Disclose Known Victims to Case No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n**喜和**\nthanks to court staff, thanks to the Judge, thanks to GREAT USA.\n\n**喜和**\n---------- Forwarded message ---------- 发件人: 喜和 [baoliao2019@gmail.com](mailto:baoliao2019@gmail.com) Date: 2025年4月3日\n\n**喜和**\nSubject: Fwd: Motion to Compel Prosecution to Disclose Known Victims to Case No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n**喜和**\nbaoliao2019@gmail.com\n隐藏详细信息\n\n| Labels | Values                  |\n|--------|-------------------------|\n| 收件人:   | ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov |\n| 日期:    | 2025年4月3日, 05:39        |\n\n---------- Forwarded message ----------\n发件人: 喜和 [baoliao2019@gmail.com](mailto:baoliao2019@gmail.com)\n\n< 6 = O <\n\n| 10:03 4 |                                                                                                                                                                        | in                      | <§> MSGe!\" 561111En |    |        |\n|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----|--------|\n| o       | Gmail                                                                                                                                                                  |                         |                     | II | G      |\n| M       | Gmail l§m§1§El§x3m<br>§E§i34&8€J%¥H1IH4=EE9§, 5111895875<br>s 41tax/J\\;%                                                                                               |                         |                     |    | H<br>F |\n| ea      |                                                                                                                                                                        |                         | B                   |    | v      |\n| (AT)    | my letter to Geyer to Case No. 1:23-cR-118-1                                                                                                                           |                         |                     |    |        |\n|         | Et!!<br>baoliao2019@gmaiLcom<br>8§i¥é8If3'3                                                                                                                            |                         |                     | 4\\ |        |\n| iBZl¢A; | E                                                                                                                                                                      | ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov |                     |    |        |\n| 3392    | 2025fE4J9 3E1, 13:33                                                                                                                                                   |                         |                     |    |        |\n|         | thanks to great America!                                                                                                                                               |                         |                     |    |        |\n| M       | My letter to Geyerzpdf                                                                                                                                                 |                         |                     |    |        |\n|         | 30<br>»rsu¢A Hi<br>20258241936                                                                                                                                         | i¥t§                    |                     | 4\\ |        |\n| <       | . Forwarded message .-<br>ERA: 840 <baoliao2019@gmailcom><br/>Date: 2025849 say<br/>w<br/>Subiect: my letter to Gever to Case No. 1123-CR-118-1</baoliao2019@gmailcom> | 13:33<br>@              | =                   |    | O      |\n|         | -                                                                                                                                                                      | D                       | <                   |    |        |\n\n### **Order - Document #528**\n\n#### **District Court, S.D. New York**\n\n#### **Doeket Number: 1 :23-cr-00118**\n\n**Citation: United States v. GUO, 1:23-cr-00118, (S.D.N.Y. Apr 03, 2025) ECF No. 528 Date Filed: April 3rd, 2025, 1:27 p.m. EDT Uploaded: April 3rd, 2025, 4:30 p.m. EDT**\n\n![](_page_40_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n#### Description\n\n**ORDER REGARDING LETTERS AND MOTIONS FROM NONPARTlES as to Miles Guo, Kin Ming Je, Yvette Wang. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 4/3/2025) (See ORDER as set forth) (Copies mailed by the Clerk's Office on 4/3/2025 to Bei Bei Zhu, Cherry Blossom Road, Xi, a City, Shaanxi Province 19802907101 and Chunk Chyi, Building 1, Yard 4, South Third Ring Road West, Fengtai District, Beijing, China 86-10-67526586) (lnl) (Entered: 04/03/2025)**\n\n**PDF TEXT**\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br><span>SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK</span><br><span>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</span><br>-against- | USDC SDNY<br>DOCUMENT<br>ELECTRONICALLY FILED<br>DOC #:<br>DATE FILED: 4/3/2025 |\n| MILES GUO, KIN MING JE,<br>and YVETTE WANG,                                                                                      | 23 Cr. 118 (AT)<br><b>ORDER REGARDING</b><br><b>LETTERS AND MOTIONS</b>         |\n\n# **Certificate of Service**\n\n### **In re: Chunk Chyi, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SDNY case: United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)**\n\nI hereby certify that on January 7, 2026, the following materials were sered:\n\n- 1. **Petition for Writ of Mandamus (enclosed)**\n- 2. **Exhibit A - SDNY Order, Dkt. 528 (publicly available court order)**\n- 3. **Exhibit B - SDNY Order, Dkt. 596 (publicly available court order)**\n- 4. **Exhibit C - Second Circuit Order in Case No. 25-2726 (publicly available court order, SDNY Dkt. 767)**\n- 5. **Exhibit D - Case No. 25-2726, Dkt. 26 (publicly docket filing)**\n- e. **Exhibit E - Case No. 25-2726, Dkt. 29 (publicly docket filing)**\n- 7. **Exhibit F - Evidence Showing Order 596 Is Based on a False Factual Premise (enclosed)**\n\n**Exhibits A through E were sewed by reference, Exhibit F was served by mail together with the Petition.**\n\n> L - J ;===:\n\n> > \\*9 **m**-J\n\n**4: Lf) '\\*¢°> 'We a: 13:29 \\_\\_:\\***\n\n**<sup>Q</sup> Q-n - 1~><°'u** \\_-\\_\\_' : \" U -or\"\\'\\ > r*m*\n\n**I**\n\n:uin c m < in13\n\nService was effected via mailing on the following recipients:\n\n### **The Honorable Analisa Torres** r-SL.\"\n\nUnited States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New **York, NY** 10007-1312\n\n**Ryan B. Finkel** Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007\n\nRespectfully submitted ,\n\nChunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi), Executed on January 7, 2026 *we* **/ <sup>I</sup>** *x f* M\n\nPRESS FIRMLY TO SEAL\n\n**\\ <sup>V</sup>**\n\n![](_page_42_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n*PRESS FIHMLYTO SEAL* **FSC** *PRESS FIHMLYTO* **SEAL**\n\n**1**\n\n**PRIORITY MAIL FLAT RATE ENVELOPE PAI=\\£O POSTAGE REQUIRED**\n\n**un \\_ \\_**\n\nUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE\n\nPRIORITY® Retail\n\n| <p>■ Expected delivery date specified</p> <p>■ Domestic shipments include \\$10</p> <p>■ USPS Tracking® service included</p> <p>■ Limited international insurance.</p> <p>■ When used internationally, a cus</p>                                                      | <div style=\"font-size: 48pt; float: left;\">P</div> <p>US POSTAGE PAID</p> <p><b>\\$11.90</b></p> <p><b>PRIORITY MAIL®</b></p>                                                                              | <p>Origin: 94401</p> <p>01/08/26</p> <p>0544010251-01</p> <p>0 Lb 8.20 Oz</p> <p>RDC 03</p> | <p><b>FROM:</b></p> <p>Chunk Chyi</p> <p>c/o Rangyue Bai</p> <p>181 E. Tasman Dr, Suite 20</p> <p>PMB #364</p> <p>San Jose, CA 95134</p>                                |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| <p>*Insurance does not cover certain items. F</p> <p>Domestic Mail Manual at htt> <p>** See International Mail Manual at htt> <p><b>FLAT RATE ENV</b></p> <p>ONE RATE ■ ANY WEIGHT</p> <p><b>TRACKED ■ INSURED</b></p> <p>PS00001000014</p> | <p>EXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 01/12/26</p> <p style=\"text-align: right;\">C099</p> <p>SHIP TO:</p> <p>40 FOLEY SQ</p> <p>NEW YORK NY 10007-1502</p> <p>USPS TRACKING® #</p> <p>9505 5143 0278 6008 0260 74</p> |                                                                                             | <p>TO: USM4L</p> <p>SDNY</p> <p>Clerk of Court</p> <p>United States Court of Appeals for the</p> <p>Second Circuit</p> <p>40 Foley Square</p> <p>New York, NY 10007</p> |","body_zh":"1:23-cr-00118-AT-1\n关于：Chunk Chyi（齐春红，曾用名：Chunk Chyi）\n\n2026年1月14日\n\n181 E. Tasman Dr. Suite 20. PMB#364\n\nSan Jose CA 95134\n\nbaoliao2019@gmaiI.com\n\n+1 (510)371-5615\n\n致：\n\n法院书记官\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\nThurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse\n\n40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007\n\n尊敬的法院书记官：\n\n随函附上用于提交请愿书的材料：\n\n- 调卷令请愿书（PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS）\n- 证据 A（SDNY 第 528 号裁定）\n- 证据 B（SDNY 第 596 号裁定）\n- 证据 C（第二巡回法院案号 25-2726 的裁定）\n- 证据 D（第二巡回法院案号 25-2726，ECF 第 26 号文件，证据 D，扩充补充调卷令请愿书）\n- 证据 E（第二巡回法院案号 25-2726，ECF 第 29 号文件，向法院告知近期进展的信件）\n- 证据 F（显示第 596 号裁定系基于虚假事实前提的证据）\n- 金额为 600 美元申请费的汇票\n- 送达证明书\n\n谨此提交，\n\nChunk Chyi（真实姓名：Chunhong Qi［齐春红］），签署于 2026年1月7日\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\n关于：Chunk Chyi（真实姓名：Chunhong Qi［齐春红］），United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 郭文贵 等案）中的被害人，1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n调卷令请愿书\n一、引言\n\n我，Chunk Chyi（真实姓名：Chunhong Qi［齐春红］），系依据 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪被害人权利法》，“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. § 3771 亲自出庭（pro se）的犯罪被害人，谨此向本院提出调卷令请愿，请求责令 Torres（托雷斯）法官回避本案的所有审理程序。\n\n我是本案中第一位作为亲自出庭的请愿人介入以揭露程序漏洞和不公的人，曾就检方程序问题、不当债权人登记、破产管理人潜在不当行为以及潜在的司法偏见提出关切。我在数月前就指出了这些问题。自那时起，另一位独立的亲自出庭请愿人 Ryan Bai（白瑞安）后续提交的文件——包括他在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院，SDNY）提出的动议（ECF 第 733 号文件）、原调卷令请愿书（第二巡回法院 25-2726），以及近期归档入卷的扩充补充调卷令请愿书和随后的信件（25-2726 ECF 第 26、29 号文件）（证据 D、E），以及本院就 Ryan 的原调卷令请愿书作出的法院裁定（SDNY ECF 第 767 号文件）——均证实了我所指出的核心问题的有效性。我此前指出的程序问题、破产管理人潜在不当行为以及司法偏见，现已得到独立提交的文件、本院裁定及核实证据的印证。从本质上讲，记录表明，我数月前发出的预警具有前瞻性且准确无误。\n\n提出的问题：\n\n在地方法院法官基于显见虚假的事实前提对提出程序质疑的亲自出庭请愿人发布立案限制、未能提供 Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998) 所要求的通知和陈述意见的机会、强迫请愿人接受其已声明放弃的程序身份，并在未予纠正或免责声明的情况下将由此产生的强迫提交文件保留为正式记录一部分的情形下，该法官是否必须根据 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) 予以回避。\n\n二、背景\n\n此前，在作为被害人介入 SDNY 第 679 号文件项下的程序后，我曾向本院提交过一份调卷令请愿书。当时，我提交了多份被害人动议，但地方法院压制并不予理会我的提交文件，实质上剥夺了《犯罪被害人权利法》所保障我的程序保护。作为回应，我寻求获得一份责令地方法院将我被压制的动议录入案卷的调卷令。该请愿书于 2025年11月19日 被本院退回，未予录入案卷或审议。\n\n然而，本请愿书截然不同。近期的进展——包括 Ryan Bai 在案号 25-2726 中的调卷令提交文件，以及他在 2025年12月26日 引用我揭露司法偏见的第 507 号文件的入卷记录——印证了我此前在 SDNY 提出的关切。Ryan 的扩充补充调卷令请愿书（证据 D）进一步支持了提出程序不合规问题的被害人所经历的系统性程序失当及报复性后果的存在。这与我在 Torres 法官面前的自身经历高度吻合。综合来看，这些独立的进展证实了我早期提交文件的准确性，并支持对本案中被害人持续面临的风险以及司法偏见表象的合理推论。\n\n关于以往亲自出庭提交文件的声明\n\n提交本请愿书时，我充分意识到，我此前在纽约南区联邦地区法院的提交文件是在客观受限的情形下以亲自出庭方式作出的，包括获取信息的渠道受限以及缺乏法律协助。即便那些提交文件缺乏技术上的润色，此类局限性在性质上也属于程序层面，并未影响所提关切的实质内容。\n\n后续独立的提交文件和法院记录已证实了这些关切的准确性与关联性。本请愿书体现了我继续以善意努力、遵循程序重点和法律结构化方式提出相同问题，并对本院的规则与权威保持充分尊重。\n\n三、有争议的第 528 号裁定文件，以及不当的第 596 号裁定文件，后者系基于完全虚假的事实前提\nA：有争议的第 528 号裁定：\n\n正如第 528 号裁定所反映的，我作为请愿人提交了 SDNY ECF 第 505、507、508、510、513、517、519、522 和 524 号文件，旨在提请法院注意本案中的一系列程序违规行为。在提交这些文件时，由于我的英语水平有限且法律训练不足，我的措辞和表达并不完美。我随后承认了这些局限，并在后来的呈递材料中对任何表意不清或非预期的语气表达了歉意。然而，亲自出庭请愿人的固有局限不能成为理由，也不可用于掩盖第 528 号裁定和第 596 号裁定所反映的程序缺陷。\n\n程序遮蔽与无理滥诉标签：\n\n在上述提交文件中，我提出了关于没收程序的重大程序关切，具体对 Greyer 律师、Luc 破产管理人以及检方的行为提出了质疑：\n\n在第 508 号文件中，我基于对其声称代表的个人实施欺诈的指控，动议撤销 Greyer 律师的代理资格。当时，Greyer 作为数千名犯罪被害人的代表，同时又身具利益相关第三方地位，其自身行为直接牵涉到有争议的程序不合规问题。在第 510 号文件中，我质疑了特赦/减免（remission）程序本身的程序正当性。\n\n在第 519 号文件中，我再次请求撤销 Greyer 的代理资格。这些关切随后得到了独立提交文件的印证。在第 709 号文件中，Beibei Zhu（朱贝贝）指控了 Greyer 律师的不当行为，并就该行为主张了 100,000 美元的权利请求；在第 712 号文件中，Greyer 的律师终止了对朱女士的代理。在第 522 和 524 号文件中，我就 Luc 破产管理人在相关破产程序中对债权人登记的处理提出了额外的程序关切。类似的债权人登记问题后来由 Ryan Bai 在 SDNY 第 733 号文件及其第二巡回法院调卷令程序（SDNY 第 765 号文件，第二巡回法院裁定，SDNY 第 767 号文件）中独立提出，引发了对法庭欺诈（fraud-upon-the-court）的关切。第二巡回法院并未驳回这些指控的实质内容，而是指示任何根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）Rule 60(d) 寻求的救济应在宣判后提出。\n\n尽管这些与诉讼程序密切相关的提交文件具有实质重要性，但 Torres 法官的第 528 号裁定在很大程度上回避了对我程序主张的裁决。相反，法院将这些提交文件定性为“不当”、超出刑事起诉范围或可能构成骚扰，并以此为由驳回了动议。通过强调程序标签和我的提交行为，法院将注意力从文件所揭示的重大程序问题上转移开，从而有效地屏蔽了对潜在关切的审查。无理滥诉/不当的定性起到了掩盖我诉求实质的作用，阻碍了对合理程序异议的有意义裁决，并限制了获得法院救济程序的途径。这构成了程序遮蔽的一个例证：法院以惩戒性或程序性标签替代对合法程序主张的裁决，从而规避了对有关特赦/减免程序、律师不当行为以及债权人登记等重大问题的审查。\n\nB：基于虚假事实前提的不当第 596 号裁定\n\n第 596 号裁定是在作出第 528 号裁定后不到二十四小时内签发的。在该裁定中，地方法院重申任何“不当提交文件”都可能导致施加法院禁令。依据我和 Beibei Zhu 在第 528 号裁定作出后的二十四小时内提交了数份文件这一事实，法院随后对我及 Beibei Zhu 施加了立案前审查要求，根据该要求，未来的任何呈递材料都必须经过审查和批准后方可录入案卷。\n\n因此，第 596 号裁定将进入案卷系统的权利置于司法前置审查的条件之下，构成了适用于我和 Beibei Zhu 的实际立案限制。\n\n然而，我最近才发现，该裁定所依据的事实前提——尤其是对我施加的前置审查限制——显然是基于一个虚假的事实前提。\n\n具体而言，第 596 号裁定所基于的假设是：我的提交文件（后来录入案卷为第 554、555、556 和 557 号文件）是在第 528 号裁定签发并录入案卷之后提交的。该假设存在实质性错误。如证据 F 所示，我向纽约南区联邦地区法院传输这些提交文件的时间为中国时间 2025年4月3日。相比之下，第 528 号裁定的公开上传时间为美国东部时间 2025年4月3日 下午 4:30，如我从 Courtlistener 获取并载于证据 F 的内容所示，第 528 号裁定的上传时间对应于中国时间 2025年4月4日 凌晨 4:30。\n\n因此，我在第 554、555、556 和 557 号文件中的呈递材料是在第 528 号裁定公开发布入卷或可被查阅之前发送的，使得这些提交文件在时间上绝无可能违反第 528 号裁定，也绝无可能是在该裁定之后的“二十四小时内”提交的。\n\n因此，第 596 号裁定基于一个虚假的事实前提——即我在第 528 号裁定之后进行了提交，蔑视了法院的指令。鉴于该前提是不正确的，对我施加的前置审查限制完全缺乏事实依据。\n\nC：基于虚假事实前提非法压制提交文件\n\n正如我在开头所提到的，由于我在 SDNY 依据 CVRA 提出的动议受到压制，我此前在 11 月寻求了调卷令救济。由于第 596 号裁定所施加的前置审查机制是基于虚假的事实前提，法院持续拒绝将我第 679 号之后的提交文件录入案卷，构成了对程序正义（procedural due process）的持续侵犯以及对司法裁量权的滥用，侵犯了我的 CVRA 权利，等同于非法剥夺向法院申诉的权利。\n\nD：程序正义的侵犯与不当的无理滥诉认定（第 596 号裁定）\n\n第 596 号裁定通过要求所有未来的提交文件均须接受司法前置审查，强加了事实上的立案限制。尽管该裁定避免将该限制直接定性为\n\n“禁令”，其实际效力与禁令无异。第 596 号裁定不仅基于错误的事实前提，而且违反了具有约束力的 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）先例：地区法院在未向受影响的诉讼当事人提供事先通知和有意义的陈述意见机会的情况下，不得施加此类限制。Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998)。第 596 号裁定两者均未提供。缺乏通知和陈述意见的机会使得该裁定在程序上存在瑕疵。\n\n第 528 号裁定与第 596 号裁定之间紧迫的时间升级进一步加剧了这种正当程序的缺失。第 596 号裁定是在第 528 号裁定作出后不到二十四小时内签发的，剥夺了我获悉前一份裁定的任何现实可行的机会。正当程序所要求的不仅是理论上的通知，而是具有实际意义的通知。退一步讲，即使假定第 596 号裁定的事实前提成立，法院紧迫的时间升级依然导致在我获得关于第 528 号裁定的实际、可行通知之前所提交的文件，被追溯性地作为加重限制的理由——从而造成了违反基本公平和正当程序的程序性陷阱。\n\n此外，第 596 号裁定未能适用所要求的狭义剪裁和最少限制手段原则。第二巡回法院要求任何提交限制都必须具有针对性、相称性，并针对所涉具体行为进行狭义剪裁。第 596 号裁定未对限制较少的替代方案进行任何分析，例如限制主题事项、明确允许提交的类别或逐一处理具体提交的文件。相反，法院在没有进行任何相称性分析的情况下，施加了最严厉的可用机制——对今后所有提交的文件进行普遍的事先审查。\n\n该裁定还存在过宽且缺乏针对性的问题。它对今后所有提交的文件适用了一刀切的审查机制，而不区分提交文件的类型、法律依据或主题事项。该裁定既未指明哪些具体提交的文件致使需要采取如此全面的限制，也未将该限制限定在与所认定问题存在合理关联的行为之内。这种过宽的限制抑制了当事人依法向法院寻求救济的合法途径，超出了维护案卷完整性所必需的限度。\n\n最后，第 596 号裁定缺乏足够的事实认定来支持关于无理纠缠的判定。该裁定依赖于关于我“滥用公众知情权”并从事“无理纠缠”行为的结论性断言，而未作出具体的逐案文件认定，未解释为何普通的驳回不足以解决问题，也未证明该行为如何达到了第二巡回法院关于无理诉讼的门槛标准。结论性的定性无法支持此类非常规救济措施。在缺乏详细、个别化认定的情况下，施加提交限制的裁定不能成立。\n\nIV. 第 596 号裁定所依据的错误事实前提以及由第 528 号和第 596 号裁定引发的不断升级的程序性违法\n\n基于明显错误的事实假定，第 596 号裁定强制实施了提交前审查，并意图对我施加禁令。在这些胁迫性条件下，除了提交第 679 号动议并采取我一再声明放弃的程序立场——即“犯罪被害人”立场之外，我没有其他可行的方法来维持向法院提请诉求的途径。这是对法院自身指令的被迫回应，而非自主选择，并且它引发了一连串的程序扭曲，加剧了官方记录中的争议与前后矛盾。\n\nA. 司法胁迫与内部前后矛盾的记录\n\n第 528 号和第 596 号裁定造成了法院自身制造的矛盾：第 528 号裁定依据的是我对被害人身份的放弃声明（第 513、517 号案卷索引），然而第 596 号裁定中的事先审查威胁却迫使我在第 679 号动议中以被害人身份提交申请。这种前后不一致反映的是司法胁迫，而非诉讼当事人的摇摆不定，并污染了后续审查的事实基础。\n\nB. 正当程序违法与寒蝉效应\n\n提交前限制和无理纠缠的定性施加了迫使我改变法律立场的压力，压制了合法的程序性异议。这种胁迫产生了寒蝉效应，抑制了参与，并向其他 pro se（自行代理）参与人发出信号，表明进行程序性参与可能会招致惩罚性措施，从而破坏了基本的公平原则。\n\nC. 未能纠正记录扭曲及由此产生的偏颇表象\n\n第 679 号动议明确通知法院，我采取被害人身份是受到胁迫的，且已明确声明放弃该身份。因此，在第 679 号案卷索引归档后，法院已获悉该提交文件是在受胁迫情形下作出的，以及案卷记录中由此产生的前后矛盾。然而，法院既未更正记录，未声明不采信该被迫提交的文件，也未撤销产生该文件的胁迫性前提。通过将该被迫采取的程序立场保留在案卷中，法院维持了一份既不中立也不可靠的记录。在法院被明确告知诉讼当事人的程序立场系在受胁迫情形下采取的情况下，法院负有积极义务，要么纠正由此造成的记录扭曲，要么声明不采信此类被迫提交的文件。未能做到这一点，使得司法上的不作为转化为了对胁迫效果本身的参与，从而加重了损害，并在 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) 下引发了偏颇的表象，同时加剧了对合法参与的寒蝉效应。\n\nD. 司法悖论：从提出质疑到被迫成为被害人\n\n在第 513 号和第 557 号案卷索引中针对被害人名单的准确性与完整性提出的狭义剪裁的程序性质疑被径行终止。然而，通过随后的胁迫性指令，法院将我自行代理的程序性质疑转变成为了被强制加入其此前拒绝审查的被害人类别之中。这一悖论破坏了程序的完整性。\n\nE. 程序与自由裁量权的累积性滥用\n\n第 528 号和第 596 号裁定引发了一连串的胁迫与程序扭曲。禁令威胁、基于错误前提的事先审查，以及缺乏针对性的相称性分析，迫使我采取被害人身份，制造了内部前后矛盾的案卷记录，并对合法参与产生了寒蝉效应。\n\nF. 司法偏见与选择性执法的证据\n\n正如 Ryan Bai（白瑞安）的补充职务履行令请愿书（25-2726，案卷索引 26、29）所示，由律师代表的第三方提交的文件获得了受理，而自行代理被害人的动议则被压制或限制。尽管法院确认知悉了我的第 507 号动议，但并未回应偏见问题。这种模式表明了针对无律师代理参与人的选择性归档、不平等待遇以及执行标准不一。\n\nV. 提请理由及所请求之救济\n职务履行令救济标准与程序性强迫之持续风险\n\n在确立已久的 Cheney（切尼）标准下，职务履行令救济是正当合理的，该标准要求：(1) 请愿人对所请求的救济享有明确且无可争议的权利，(2) 签发法院负有不可自由裁量的作为义务，以及 (3) 不存在其他足以获得救济的充分手段。\n\n第 596 号裁定（证据项 B）的存在施加了巨大的程序压力，迫使我改变自身身份以便能够继续安全地参与诉讼程序，详见第 679 号案卷索引。该裁定的存在使我处于由于我居住在中国大陆而导致我继续参与诉讼伴有可合理预见之政治风险的境地。后续提交的文件，包括白瑞安向本院提交的材料（25-2726），进一步阐明了 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案卷上所反映的一贯模式，即提出程序性关切的自行代理参与人的个人身份信息被公开发布，造成了可预见的安全和报复风险。\n\n综合来看，这些情况证明了：\n\n1. 我享有明确且无可争议的救济权利，因为我在 CVRA（《犯罪被害人权利法案》）项下的法定权利受到了实际限制；\n2. 鉴于将我逼入非自愿被害人状态的胁迫效果和程序违规行为，法院负有不可自由裁量的作为义务；\n3. 在地区法院内部不存在其他充分的救济途径，因为此前以自行代理方式主张这些权利的尝试已遭到系统性的阻拦或压制。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)，要求回避是独立必要的，因为地区法官已成为争议程序历史中的实质参与者。所请求的救济必然要求对第 528 号和第 596 号裁定的事实前提、胁迫效果和程序后果进行审查——而这些裁定正是由 Judge Torres（托雷斯法官）本人签发的。\n\n如上所述，第 528 号和第 596 号裁定所做的已超出了案件管理的范畴。通过威胁施加提交禁令和强制事先审查，法院采取了胁迫手段，迫使一名自行代理参与人采取其一再明确声明放弃的程序立场——即犯罪被害人身份——以此作为维护自身安全和继续向法院提请诉求的唯一可行手段。一名理性观察者必然会质疑一名其自身的胁迫行为在实质上塑造了当事人的程序身份以及由此产生的案卷记录的法官的中立性。\n\n这种偏颇的表象被有据可查的选择性执法模式所进一步强化。正如白瑞安的扩充补充职务履行令请愿书及相关提交文件（案件号 25-2726，案卷索引 26、29）所示，并如第 IV 节第 7 项所述，由律师代表的第三方被允许提交动议并提出程序性异议，而自行代理被害人的动议则被压制或受到限制性指令的制约。尽管 18 U.S.C. § 853(n) 和 CVRA 项下对非被告人的法定保护具有相似的保护目的，但根据 § 853(n) 提交的文件（包括 ECF No. 777）获得了受理，而基于 CVRA 的被害人动议却被阻拦。\n\n综合来看，法院对明显错误的事实前提的依赖、强加非自愿程序角色的胁迫行为，以及对案卷提请权限和法定保护的选择性执行，主动污染了司法记录本身。面对明确的除名和事先审查威胁，我被迫提交了第 679 号案卷索引，并采取了我一贯声明放弃的程序身份。尽管随后未施加进一步的制裁，但法院——在将第 679 号案卷索引归档从而完全知悉该文件系在胁迫条件下提交的情况下——未能对由此产生的记录予以纠正、更正或澄清。\n\n通过维持在胁迫条件下生成并基于错误前提的案卷条目，法院将一场具有争议的程序争端转化为了法院自身制造的案卷产物。此类记录污染并非附带性缺陷，它破坏了上诉审查所必然依赖的记录的准确性、中立性和可靠性。当法院制造了强迫当事人提交文件的条件，随后又将这些文件作为记录的权威组成部分予以保留时，理性观察者必然会质疑是否维持了公正的审判。因此，根据 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)，必须予以回避以恢复公众对司法程序廉洁性的信心。\n\nVI. 基于前述理由，我谨请求本院签发职务履行令，指示作出以下救济：\n\n- 1. 立即给予救济，就本人而言，撤销、中止或以其他方式宣告第528号和第596号裁定（证物A和B）的操作性及强制作力无效，包括针对本人的任何预先审查要求、立案限制或无理缠诉性定性，只要此类裁定是基于虚假的事实前提，或其运作强加了本人已明确声明放弃的诉讼地位、干涉了本人参与诉讼程序，或使本人面临持续的可预见风险。\n- 2. 法院认为必要的任何额外救济，以确保本人在18 U.S.C. § 3771项下的法定权利得到充分保护，且本人参与诉讼程序不再受到选择性执法、恐吓或胁迫的损害。\n- 3. 根据28 U.S.C. § 455，因其表现出的司法偏见、选择性执法以及对自行代表诉讼当事人的胁迫性对待，托雷斯法官应回避与United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案），1 :23-CR-118-1 (AT)有关的所有诉讼程序，包括基于虚假事实假设发布第596号裁定、强行转变诉讼当事人的诉讼地位，并由此导致司法捏造且前后矛盾的案卷记录，压制并扭曲了《犯罪被害人权利法》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，简称「CVRA」）项下的法定权利。\n\n谨此提交，Chunk Chyi（戚纯红）2026年1月7日 +1(510)371-5615 baoliao2019@gmail.com 美国邮寄地址：181 E. Tasman Dr. Suite 20. PMB#364, San Jose, CA95134\n\n证物A\n\n纽约南区第528号裁定\n\n美国联邦地区法院 纽约南区（Southern District of New York） 美利坚合众国\n\n诉\n\n郭文贵（MILES Guo）、余建明（KIN MING JE）以及王雁平（YVETTE WANG），\n\n被告。\n\n关于非当事人信函与动议的裁定\n\n地区法官 ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）：\n\n本裁定涉及法院收到的与本案相关的某些非当事人立案材料及电子邮件往来。\n\n本案共有四方当事人：美利坚合众国、郭文贵、余建明和王雁平。除根据21 U.S.C. § 853(n)提出第三方请愿书（参见United States v. Kozeny，案号05 Cr. 518，2011 WL 1672473，第*3页（S.D.N.Y. 2011年4月29日）），或根据仅适用于因被告实施联邦罪行而受到「直接且近因损害」之人的《犯罪被害人权利法》（「CVRA」）提出动议（18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A)；参见同法§ 3771(a), (d)(3), (d)(6)）之外，任何其他方均无诉讼资格介入本案或提交任何动议、信函、文件或请求。\n\n在日期为2025年4月1日的信函中，一名自称为Bei Bei Zhu（朱贝贝）的非当事人提交了「自行代表介入动议」。ECF No. 526（大小写已改动）。该非当事人申请介入以「获取相关证据和法院立案材料」。同上，第2页。获取证据或法院立案材料并非介入刑事案件的有效依据，因为除依法封存的材料外，案卷中的所有法院立案材料和证据均向公众开放。该非当事人进一步申请介入以「提供[其]权利受到侵犯的证据」，并主张与「潜在被害人赔偿或资产追回」相关的请求。同上。只要该非当事人拥有任何此类请求，该非当事人可通过遵守21 U.S.C. § 853或CVRA中规定的程序来主张此类请求，但该非当事人在此并未这样做。最后，该非当事人申请介入以提供与涉案刑事指控相关的「证词或证据」。同上。作为刑事案件的非当事人，朱贝贝缺乏为了提供未经要求的证词或证据而介入诉讼的资格。因此，ECF No. 526处的动议被驳回（DENIED）。\n\n同一非当事人还提交了一项「解封被害人名单」的动议。ECF No. 527。在该动议中，该非当事人声称「从未收到过CVRA项下的被害人通知」，并希望了解该非当事人是否「出现在[政府的]被害人名单中」。同上，第1页。因此，法院指示政府调查此事，并在适当情况下直接与该非当事人沟通。在非当事人寻求解封所有涉及被害人身份信息的封存或经隐名处理的法院立案材料的范围内，该动议因缺乏诉讼资格而被驳回（DENIED），并在实体理由上亦被驳回。\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n电子立案文件\n文件编号：\n立案日期：2025年4月3日\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n关于非当事人信函与动议的裁定\n\n另一位自称为Chunk Chyi（戚纯红）的非当事人，在过去两周内几乎每天都在案件卷宗上提交信函。参见ECF Nos. 505, 507, 508, 510, 513, 517, 519, 522, 524。除ECF No. 505可作宽松解释视为§ 853(n)项下的自行代表请愿书外，戚纯红提交的文件均属不当。戚纯红已多次声明放弃被害人身份，参见例如ECF Nos. 513, 517，且戚纯红提交的许多文件涉及超出本刑事起诉范围的私人事务，参见例如ECF Nos. 508, 519, 524。此外，戚纯红提交的某些文件可被解释为对政府及被告罪行被害人的威胁或骚扰。参见例如ECF Nos. 517, 522。因此，ECF Nos. 508, 510, 519, 522和524处的非当事人动议被驳回（DENIED）。戚纯红或戚纯红的任何化名或代表若进一步违反本裁定或适用的法院规则提交文件，可能被视为无理无据、缠诉或骚扰，并可能导致提交人受到永久性立案禁令的制裁。\n\n最后，在过去的几个月里，法院直接在法官办公室电子邮箱中收到了大量未经要求的非当事人电子邮件通信。此类通信是被禁止的。与法院的任何通信必须直接发送给法院书状录事官和/或自行代表诉讼立案处，并且必须按照法院规则提交。\n\n谨此指示法院书状录事官终结ECF Nos. 508, 510, 524, 526和527处的动议，并将本裁定副本邮寄或通过电子邮件发送给非当事人朱贝贝和戚纯红。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2025年4月3日\n\n纽约州纽约市\n\n[签名]\n\nANALISA TORRES\n美国联邦地区法官\n\n证物B\n\n纽约南区第596号裁定\n\n美国联邦地区法院 纽约南区 美利坚合众国\n\n诉\n\n郭文贵、余建明以及王雁平，\n\n被告。\n\n关于非当事人信函与动议的裁定\n\n地区法官 ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）：\n\n在日期为2025年4月3日的裁定中，法院阐明了非当事人可以在刑事案件中提交信函、动议或其他立案材料的有限情形。ECF No. 528。法院讨论了自称为戚纯红（Chunk Chyi）和朱贝贝（Bei Bei Zhu）的个人所提交的具体材料。同上。法院解释了为何这些个人的立案材料是不当的，并且在某些情况下可被解释为威胁、骚扰或——至少是——缠诉。参见同上。法院告诫，进一步的不当立案可能使提交人受到永久性立案禁令的制裁。参见同上。\n\n在法院裁定记入卷宗后的二十四小时内，戚纯红和朱贝贝又提交了六份额外的不当立案材料。参见ECF Nos. 553-57, 582。因此，法院认定戚纯红和朱贝贝系无理缠诉的非当事人，其公然违反法院命令，滥用了公众向法院提请诉讼的权利。法院命令（ORDERS），戚纯红或朱贝贝，或其任何化名或代表进一步提交的任何立案材料均应经过审查，且仅在法院认定该提交材料系根据适用的法院规则、出于善意并具备法律上的正当依据时，方可记入卷宗。\n\n基于法院4月3日裁定中所述的理由，非当事人Carolyn Sun在ECF Nos. 559和568处提交的请求被驳回（DENIED）。\n\n谨此指示法院书状录事官终结ECF Nos. 519, 557, 559和582处的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2025年4月4日\n\n纽约州纽约市\n\nANALISA TORRES\n美国联邦地区法官\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n电子立案文件\n文件编号：\n立案日期：2025年4月4日\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n关于非当事人信函与动议的裁定\n\n证物C\n\n第二巡回法院关于25-2726号案件的裁定\n\n纽约南区 - 纽约市 23-cr-118 托雷斯法官\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit）\n\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院定期法庭审期，于二千零二十五年十一月二十六日在纽约市弗利广场40号瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院举行。\n\n出席法官：\n\n巡回法官 Dennis Jacobs、Joseph F. Bianco，地区法官 Victor A. Bolden *\n\n关于：Ranyue Bai（白冉月），25-2726\n\n25-2726\n\n请愿人。\n\n请愿人以自行代表形式提交了一份调卷令/执行令（writ of mandamus）请愿书，请求指示地区法院停止压制其未来的立案材料、将其已提交但未记入卷宗的动议记入卷宗，并就其未决的联邦民事诉讼规则第60(d)(3)条动议作出裁定。经审慎考虑，特此裁定驳回该执行令请愿，因为请愿人未能证明其对该令状享有明确且无可争议的权利，且未能证明在此情形下签发该令状是适当的。参见Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.，542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)。\n\n鉴于地区法院收到的大量提交材料（我们相信法院将迅速予以处理），关于请愿人要求将其提交材料记入卷宗的执行令请愿被驳回，但不影响其在地区法院未能在合理时间内将提交材料记入卷宗的情况下重新提出申请。\n\n经认证的真实副本签发于：2025年11月26日\n\n* 康涅狄格区联邦地区法院Victor A. Bolden法官，系指定代席。\n\n同样，关于其第60(d)(3)条动议的驳回，亦不影响其在基础刑事案件量刑后地区法院未能在合理时间内采取行动的情况下重新提出申请。参见Cheney，542 U.S. at 380-81；United States v. Magassouba，544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008)。\n\n代表法院：法院书状录事官 Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院\n\n真实副本\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe，书状录事官\n美国第二巡回上诉法院\nCatherine O'Hagan Wolfe\n\n证物D\n\n25-2726 卷宗号26 扩大执行令救济范围的请愿书\n\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院\n\n案号 25-2726\n\n关于 Ryan Bai，请愿人\n\n因纽约南区报复性披露个人身份信息而请求扩大执行令救济范围的补充请愿书\n\n致法院书状录事官及第二巡回法院尊崇的各位法官：\n\n一、引言\n\n我，Ryan Bai（白冉月），作为一名根据《犯罪被害人权利法》（「CVRA」）18 U.S.C. § 3771以自行代表身份出庭的犯罪被害人，谨此请求本尊崇的法院扩大我未决执行令请愿（于2025年10月28日记入卷宗）的范围，鉴于纽约南区在United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（美国诉郭文贵案），案号1:23-cr-00118-AT（S.D.N.Y.）第765号卷宗中报复性披露了我的个人身份信息（「PII」）。纽约南区的报复性公开立案通过暴露CVRA被害人请愿人并对受保护的参与产生寒蝉效应，损害了本法院进行独立执行令审查的能力，从而干涉了本法院的管辖权。\n\n本立案并非旨在重新开启对任何刑事定罪的实体审理，而是请求根据28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)援引本法院的监督权力，以补救正当程序的结构性崩溃并保护正在进行的诉讼程序的完整性。\n\n二、背景\n\n在纽约南区屡次拒绝将我先前的两份被害人动议记入卷宗后，我向本法院寻求了执行令救济。第二巡回法院于2025年10月28日将我最初的执行令请愿书记入卷宗。\n\n然而，在10月29日，Southern District of New York（纽约南区，简称“SDNY”）将我原审求偿/调卷/训令令状申请书（mandamus petition）的未遮蔽版本作为 Dkt. 765 公开立案提交，披露了我的真实姓名、住址、电子邮件地址和电话号码。我一发现该提交记录，便立即向 SDNY Pro Se Intake（亲自出庭人员接收处，作为附件 C 附上）提交了紧急请求，请求地区法院取消对 Dkt. 765 的公开访问权限，并以适当遮蔽的版本取而代之，以保护我的个人身份识别信息（“PII”）。同日，由于我不知晓 SDNY 是如何获取该未遮蔽的令状申请书的，我亦向本院（this Court）提交了一份紧急动议，请求将我的原审令状申请书予以封存并以遮蔽版本替换，以减轻任何进一步的风险。\n\n在我提交之后，本院书记官办公室协助我完成了必要步骤，该动议于2025年11月18日获得批准。对于书记官和法院为保护刑事犯罪受害者的隐私利益所采取的迅速行动，我深表感谢。\n\n相比之下，自向 SDNY 提交紧急动议以来已经过去了十四天以上，地区法院却未采取任何行动来保护我的信息。由于 SDNY 的公开披露，我的个人信息已在社交媒体上被引用和流传，给我造成了无法弥补的个人伤害。\n\n此举完全属于自由裁量行为——Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）未曾发布任何指示 SDNY 提交我令状申请书的命令。当我在10月29日向第二巡回法院书记官办公室核实时，他们确认并未发送过任何指令。因此，SDNY 将我未遮蔽的令状申请文件录入案卷的行为，纯属自行发起的报复行为。\n\n2025年11月19日，SDNY 采取了更为反常的一步：上传了 Dkt. 766，即我令状申请书的遮蔽版本，而该版本此前仅作为我向本院提交的紧急动议的附件。该附件从未在本院的案卷上录入，但 SDNY 却将其上传至 SDNY 案卷，同时拒绝撤下或封存暴露我 PII 的未遮蔽文件 Dkt. 765。这一先后顺序表明这是选择性且报复性的案卷录入，而非文书错误。\n\nIII. 报复行为的证据\n\n1. SDNY 报复性披露个人身份识别信息\n\n在我早先提交受害者文件（Dkt. 744 和 Dkt. 733）之后，SDNY 以“保护隐私”为由，禁止了所有非 ECF 系统的第三方受害者文件提交。然而，法院随后却上传了我未遮蔽的令状申请书，暴露的恰恰是其有义务——且此前声称——保护的个人数据。\n\n在提交本令状申请书之前，我被要求向 SDNY 邮寄一份申请书送达副本，这意味着地区法院已经持有一份适合公开录入案卷的适当遮蔽版本。SDNY 非但没有使用该版本，反而故意从其他渠道调取原始未遮蔽文件并上传至地区法院案卷。此种行为绝非单纯的文书疏忽，而是直接针对申请人此前提出地区法院内部程序违规和不当行为的合法提交所进行的报复性披露。此种报复性行为不仅违反了 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第49.1条）和 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第5.2条）规定的隐私保护，而且使敏感个人信息永久处于公众可获取的状态，造成了无法弥补的损害，因此侵犯了《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771）赋予我的权利。\n\n尽管已经持有一份我令状申请书的遮蔽版本，SDNY 仍将我作为向本院提交的紧急动议的一部分所递交的遮蔽申请书，作为 Dkt. 766 上传到了 SDNY 案卷。这意味着 SDNY 获取、提取并选择性地录入了案卷中我邮寄给上诉法院的材料。此种行为在任何联邦规则中均无依据，构成了对上诉程序的直接侵扰。\n\n更令人不安的是，截至2025年12月19日，SDNY 在上传遮蔽版本的同时，在明知存在遮蔽版本的情况下，仍拒绝撤下未遮蔽版本（Dkt. 765）。\n\n这一双重举动——(1) 超过14天拒绝撤下有害文件，以及 (2) 在已经持有遮蔽版本的情况下，选择性上传本用于上诉审查的文件——证明 SDNY 的案卷录入行为并非意外或疏忽，而是一种报复、选择性录入案卷以及干扰上诉记录的惯常模式。\n\n2. 报复性暴露的惯常模式\n\n这并非此类行为的首例。\n\n在涉及本案中，Dkt. 723、730 和 731 均由同一名亲自出庭（pro se）申请人提交。Dkt. 730 和 731 为要求强制录入 Dkt. 723 的动议，后者未被 SDNY 及时上传。值得注意的是，在 Dkt. 731 中，申请人明确援引了隐私保护规则，声明：\n\n“根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 和 Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2，申请人进一步请求从公开案卷中遮蔽个人识别标识（如护照号码、政府签发的身份证件和详细住址），而完整的未遮蔽版本则保持封存。”\n\n尽管如此，SDNY 却莫名其妙地在 Dkt. 732 中上传了申请人 Dkt. 723 提交文件的重复副本——且此次为未遮蔽形式，从而公开暴露了其所有的个人识别信息，包括其在中国大陆的住所。该提交不具有任何正当的诉讼程序目的，仅是重复了 Dkt. 723 的实体内容，同时去除了申请人依据 Rule 49.1 / 5.2 明确请求的隐私保护。该行为构成了地区法院针对申请人先前提交的文件（Dkt. 723，其中对案件处理中的程序违规和司法不当行为提出了质疑）的明显报复行为。通过故意重新上传未经遮蔽的同一动议，法院不仅漠视了其保护个人信息的职责，而且使申请人面临严重且可预见的风险，特别是鉴于本案的敏感性及其在中华人民共和国可能产生的影响。\n\nSDNY 直接将文件邮寄给中国公民 Chunk Chyi 和 Beibei Zhu（朱贝贝），随后又将包含他们家庭住址的退件信封公开发布在案卷上——这是一种可能危及生命的鲁莽行为。\n\n该模式表明，SDNY 不仅是疏于履行隐私保护义务，而是根据提交人是否批评程序违规而选择性地执行隐私规则。\n\n3. A. 数千名 CVRA 受害者面临的风险（若政府的陈述属实）\n\n政府在 Dkt. 7、26、192 等案卷中反复强调本案涉及数千名受害者。然而，南区法院的报复性行为——特别是 Dkt. 765 中对未遮蔽受害者信息的公开披露——表明其对这些人员的安全与隐私肆意漠视。如果此类报复行为得到容忍，数千名可能受 CVRA 保护的受害者的个人信息将处于极度危险之中。我不得不不仅为个人保护而奔走，而且要维护所有身份和敏感信息面临风险的受害者的利益与权利。这一系统性失职凸显了迫切需要通过监督性职务调卷/训令令状（supervisory mandamus）来防止进一步的损害并恢复司法程序的公正性。\n\nIV. 司法偏见\n\n1. 对亲自出庭提交文件的差别对待\n\n在 Dkt. 745 之后，法院禁止第三方亲自出庭受害者提交的所有文件上传至公开案卷，同时却允许律师通过 ECF 系统提交文件。这种区别对待构成了不平等对待，违反了 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）的 Due Process Clause（正当程序条款），并损害了平等诉诸法院的原则。通过建立一个给予律师提交的文件优于亲自出庭提交文件之特权的体系，法院表现出了对亲自出庭受害者的明显偏见。\n\n2. 根据 Liteky / Caperton 案确立的司法不当表象\n\n法院此前已经认识到公开披露个人住址对司法程序构成严重威胁。例如，在 Dkt. 7 中，控方指控被告的支持者张贴了 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章破产受托人）、受托人家属及其他相关方的私人住址，并呼吁在这些地点举行抗议。在 Dkt. 51 中，Torres（托雷斯）法官援引此类张贴信息作为妨碍司法公正和恐吓法院工作人员的证据，并将其作为拒绝被告保释的一个考量因素。然而，在与该先例直接矛盾的情况下，法院自身却在 Dkt. 732 和 765 中公开发布了一名受害者（即我自己）及其他自行代表的申请人的私人住址。法院对待我提交文件的方式，采用了其明确谴责过他人的做法，从而表明了针对亲自出庭申请人和受害者的明显偏见模式，在司法审判中适用双重标准，并无视了 Rule 49.1 / 5.2 所强制规定的隐私保护。\n\n此外，Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) 确立了当一方当事人遭受可能影响结果的系统性不利对待时，需要回避的偏见可能性会增加。法院在公开披露我的个人身份识别信息的同时，此前却对其他各方的类似披露行为予以批评（Dkt. 51），法院借此适用了双重标准，助长了不当行为的表象，并削弱了公众对公正司法的信心。\n\n3. 选择性录入案卷及忽视关于司法偏见的指控\n\n在 Dkt. 507 中，Chunk Chyi 提出了指控司法偏 sample 的正式异议。虽然法院在其随后的第 528 号裁定（Order 528）中提及了 Dkt. 507，但对于申请法官回避的请求未提供任何实质性回应、解释或裁定。通过忽视这些指控，法院剥夺了提交人享有公正且不偏不倚法庭的基本诉讼权利，违反了第五和第十四修正案的正当程序条款。\n\n此外，根据 Code of Conduct for United States Judges（《美国法官行为准则》），法官不仅必须避免实际的不当行为，还必须避免不当行为的表象。未能对回避请求作出处理——特别是当提交人明确提出对偏见的关切时——造成了程序可能不具有公正性的合理表象。这种选择性审查削弱了公众对司法机构的信心并污染了诉讼记录，从而损害了正在进行的审理及上诉审查。\n\nV. SDNY 误导并干扰第二巡回法院审查的行为\n\nSDNY 将我原始令状文件录入案卷的行为，不仅侵犯了我的 CVRA 权利，而且干扰了本院进行令状审查所依据的程序保障与假设，为独立评估制造了事实和法律上的复杂困难。\n\n上诉记录的损坏：令状审查的前提是提交的文件是安全的、真实的且未受未经授权的篡改。\n\nSDNY（Southern District of New York，纽约南区联邦地区法院）单方面公开披露一份上诉申请文件，将外来的且未经授权的成分强行注入调卷令（mandamus）案卷记录中，损害了呈交本院审理材料的完整性。具体而言，SDNY 将我的上诉调卷令申请书录入案卷，同时却拒绝录入或确认我依规提交的地区法院动议（附件 A 和 B），从而造成了无法调和的程序歧义。案卷记录陷入了一种自相矛盾的局面：该申请文件在公开层面清晰可见，仿佛已被地区法院受理，但它实际上从未合法提交给该法院，亦未获授权在该法院录入案卷。这绝非一起中立的文书过失。它扭曲了本案的程序历史，并干扰了本院对专属于其上诉管辖权范围之事项进行独立调卷令复核的能力。\n\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）未经授权公开录入我最初的调卷令申请书，并非对本院进行程序干扰的首起事件。在 Dkt. 733 中，我已论证控方依赖了受污染的债权人登记证据，从而导致地区法院驳回了被告的保释申请。被告提起上诉，而本院在 Dkt. 87 中同样驳回了该上诉：\n\n“Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）就地区法院以其存在严重潜逃和妨碍司法风险、对社区构成危险为由驳回其审前释放申请的裁定提出上诉……”\n\n正如 Dkt. 733 中所详述，“妨碍司法”的认定采纳了控方提交的受污染证据。此外，正如本补充申请书关于司法偏见的第 IV(2) 节所阐述的，地区法院报复性地公开披露我的地址，污染了 Torres（托雷斯）法官此前在 Dkt. 51 中依据郭文贵支持者的类似披露行为来认定妨碍司法的理由，而这可能同样影响了本院在 Dkt. 87 中对被告上诉的驳回。\n\n因此，SDNY 的行为已屡次干扰本院的独立复核，同时损害了上诉案卷记录的事实和程序完整性。\n\nVI. 慢性结构性错误\n\n被告在 Dkt. 700 中解除了其辩护律师的代理，称其提供的代理“连最基本的都没有”，并表示“我非常失望”。\n\n这种情况说明了为什么作为受害者，我能够识别出检察官和受托人 Luc（卢克）涉嫌实施的欺诈法庭行为并随后提交了 Dkt. 733，而被告的三任辩护律师却均未能察觉。仅此一点就表明辩护程序已出现系统性崩溃。正如调卷令申请书附件 B 中所援引的，无论从司法欺诈还是律师失职的角度来看，本案中违规行为的严重程度都远远超出了美国最高法院标志性判例（例如 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 以及 Washington v. District of Columbia, 802 F.2d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1986)）所处理的范围。我在调卷令申请书后附的附件 B 中详细对比了本案与 Hazel-Atlas 案、Hartford-Empire Co. 案及 Washington 案，重点指出了本案中的不当行为和系统性失职如何超越了这些历史判例。本案中的违规行为——包括辩护律师的系统性失职、涉嫌的检察官欺诈，以及对受害者和证据披露的不当处理——超出了这些历史判例的严重程度。因此，本案面临着成为美国历史上最大司法欺诈案件之一的风险。\n\nVII. 请求的救济\n\n我援引 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 即《通用令状法》（All Writs Act），该法授权本院“签发在其各自管辖范围内必要或适当且符合法律惯例与原则的所有令状”。我认为，本文所请求的救济——对于保护 CVRA（Crime Victims' Rights Act，犯罪受害者权利法案）受害者、纠正程序缺陷以及防止进一步报复至关重要——正是 § 1651(a) 所预设的令状类型。\n\n此外，我援引以下原则：调卷令救济可以扩大适用范围，以应对地区法院报复性行为所造成的后续损害。正如最高法院所指出的：\n\n“调卷令不限于最初请求的救济，若地区法院的后续行为造成了新的损害，该令状可予扩大以纠正之。”——Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81\n\n同样，第九巡回法院也确认：\n\n“当地区法院因 CVRA 受害者行使法定权利而对其进行报复时，受害者可申请调卷令以撤销原裁定并获得更广泛的救济。”——Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017-18\n\n为防止对 CVRA 受害者进行进一步的报复性人肉搜索（doxxing），根据 § 1651(a) 唯一有效的救济方式是撤销所有受污染的裁定，并责令主审法官回避。\n\n因此，SDNY 泄露 Dkt. 765 的报复性行为，引发了我恭请获得如下扩大调卷令救济的权利：\n\n1. 责令 Southern District of New York（“SDNY”，纽约南区联邦地区法院）立即从包括但不限于 PACER、CourtListener 及类似平台在内的所有公开可访问的法院系统中移除或封存 Dkt. 765、Dkt. 732 以及包含未隐去受害者信息的任何其他案卷文件，并上传我此前通过 SDNY Pro Se（本人诉讼）电子邮箱提交但遭案卷压制的两份隐去敏感信息的原始动议（调卷令申请书中的附件 A 和 B）；\n2. 责令 SDNY 录入所有合格的第三方本人诉讼文件；\n3. 鉴于本文所述的慢性结构性崩溃，发出监督性指示，在独立复核期间中止或撤销保释驳回裁定、初步没收裁定、定罪裁定和量刑程序以及由这些程序缺陷导致的任何其他受污染程序的执行；\n4. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)，因存在偏见表象和利益冲突，命令 Analisa Torres（安娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官回避；\n5. 发出为恢复司法廉洁以及防止对 CVRA 受害者实施进一步报复所必需的进一步监督指示；\n6. 为避免再次遭受 SDNY 的报复，同时在案卷上显示必要的文件内容，将本《补充申请书_redacted.pdf》和《附件 C_public.pdf》的隐去敏感信息版本上传至案件 25-2726 的公开案卷，并将完整签署且未隐去信息的版本作为本院内部案卷予以封存。\n\n7. 责令 SDNY 将本补充申请书的隐去敏感信息版本录入 SDNY 案卷，以确保与 Dkt. 765 保持一致，并防止进一步削弱本院监督性复核的裁量性录入案卷行为。\n\n附件 E\n案件 25-2726 Dkt. 29 告知近期进展情况的信函链接\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国第二巡回联邦上诉法院）\n\n案件：25-2726 SDNY 案号：1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n关于：Ryan Bai（白冉月，申请人）\n就与此前扩大的补充调卷令申请书相关的近期进展告知法院的信函\n\n致：United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国第二巡回联邦上诉法院）法庭书记官及各位尊敬的法官：\n\n我谨提交此信函，以支持我于 2025年12月22日 提交至案卷（案件 25-2726 Dkt. 26，附件 D）的待决《扩大的补充调卷令申请书》。提交本信函仅为告知本院与待决调卷令复核相关的地区法院近期进展，包括地区法院于 2025年12月22日 作出的裁定（SDNY Dkt. 782）以及反映地区法院处理非被告第三方提交文件情况的相关申请前案卷进展（SDNY Dkt. 777），并说明这些进展与目前呈交本院审理之事项的关联性。\n\n我提交本信函仅为告知本院该项新发生的进展及其与本院正在进行的调卷令复核的关联性。我并不通过本信函寻求额外救济，并完全遵从本院就其审酌所具有的自由裁量权。\n\n地区法院的裁定本身因另一个与本院调卷令复核相关的理由而具有重大意义。通过明确考虑任命一名特别主事官（special master）来管理第三方权利主张，地区法院已承认其在常规司法框架内及时且中立地处理非被告第三方利益的能力已发生崩溃。\n\n该承认证实了我此前关于处理第三方受害者提交文件存在系统性失职的调卷令主张并非推测或假设。相反，地区法院现在已通过其自身裁定明确承认——其现有程序已被证明不足以应对由本案引起的第三方权利主张的数量、复杂性或敏感性。\n\n2025年12月22日 的裁定考虑了可能任命一名特别主事官，以处理与没收管理有关的部分第三方权利主张。我对地区法院管理附随没收程序的权力并无异议。然而，该裁定并未涉及法院在 18 U.S.C. § 3771《犯罪受害者权利法案》（“CVRA”）项下的独立、法定且不可委任的义务。\n\n具体而言，该裁定并未解决包含我个人身份信息的未隐去敏感信息文件（包括 Dkt. 765）持续处于公开状态的问题——这是待决的《扩大的调卷令申请书》中明确提出的问题。截至本信函出具之日，该文件仍处于公开可访问状态。对受 CVRA 保护的受害者造成的损害是持续且不可挽回的。\n\n尽管《扩大的补充申请书》中已明确提出这些问题，但 12月22日 的裁定未采取任何行动来纠正受害者信息持续被披露的问题，也未减轻相关的隐私和安全风险。实际上，该裁定对呈交本院的 CVRA 侵权问题未予解决，同时将注意力转移到附随的行政机制上，而该机制不能替代地区法院保护受害者的自身法定义务。\n\n对 2025年12月22日 裁定的评估，还必须结合地区法院此前关于妨碍司法的认定。正如我的《扩大的调卷令申请书》中所详述，该法院将被告支持者公开破产受托人及相关人员的私人地址和个人信息作为驳回保释的依据（SDNY Dkt. 7, 26, 51）——这一理由随后得到了本院的维持（SDNY Dkt. 87）。\n\n在此背景下，未经授权公开录入 Dkt. 765——将我暴露并包含我未隐去敏感信息的家庭住址和个人信息——使我承受了此前已确认的同等报复风险。其持续公开造成了持续的损害，并污染了地区法院妨碍司法认定和本院上诉复核所依据的程序案卷记录。12月22日 的裁定并未解决这种不一致性，\n\n将焦点转移至针对没收主张的预期特别主事官，既未解决正在持续的披露问题，也无法替代地区法院保护受害者信息的即时、不可委任的义务。\n\n表明对非被告受害者区别对待的以往案卷进展：\n\n2025年12月17日，地区法院将ECF No. 777登入案卷，这是一名由律师代表的非被告投资者受害者根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提起的请愿书，旨在就其在被没收资产中的财产权益寻求司法裁判。该份诉状迅速被受理并在案卷中向公众公开。相比之下，由受《犯罪受害者权利法案》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，简称 CVRA）保护的受害者提交的多次诉状却未被登入案卷，或在很长一段时间内未得到处理。\n\n这种差异并非归因于行政处理能力不足。§ 853(n) 请求人和 CVRA 受害者均为非被告，且均就源自同一犯罪行为的法定保护权益提出主张。然而，地区法院对 § 853(n) 权利主张人给予了充分的诉讼程序参与途径和案卷可见性，而基于 CVRA 提出、旨在寻求免受持续侵害保护的提交材料却依然未获救济。此种差别待遇反映出法院明确将没收管理诉求置于强制性受害者保护法定义务之上的优先对待。\n\n受理 ECF No. 777 这一事实证实，地区法院只要选择这样做，就完全有能力将非被告受害者的诉状登入案卷。在本院介入后，地区法院依然未能将基于 CVRA 的提交材料登入案卷、进行处理或给予救济，这证实了问题不在于拖延，而在于对诉讼参与途径和权利保护的选择性执行。\n\n因此，这些最新进展进一步证明，为制止持续发生的违法行为、恢复受害者之间的平等地位，并确保提交给本院审理的事项是在完整且未受污染的程序记录基础上进行复核，扩大适用之职务履行令（Mandamus）救济确属必要。\n\n谨此提交，Ryan Bai，2025年12月23日\n\nRm\n证物 F\n证明第 596 号裁定系基于虚假事实前提的证据\n\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）上传第 528 号裁定的时间为 2025年4月3日 下午 4:30 EST（美国东部标准时间），对应北京时间 2025年4月4日 凌晨 4:30。\n\n我的所有文件均于北京时间 2025年4月3日 发送，后被登入案卷为案卷号（Dkt.）554、555、556、557。\n\n这表明我所有的文件均在第 528 号裁定上传时间之前发送。因此，第 528 号裁定系基于虚假事实前提。\n\n10:04 Gmail Gmail 应用变得更强大易用\n安全快捷的电子邮件服务, 助您有条不紊地处理大小事务\n打开\n已发...\n致案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 所有受害者的信函\n喜和 baoliao2019@gmail.com\n隐藏详细信息\n收件人: ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n日期: 2025年4月3日, 06:21\nPDF Letter to all victims.pdf 回复 转发 ©2025 Google\n\n10:06 ... VPN HD 5G 83\nGmail\nGmail 应用变得更强大易用\n安全快捷的电子邮件服务, 助您有条不紊地处理大小事务\n打开\n已发...\n关于强制作出披露案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 已知受害者的动议\n喜和\n感谢法院工作人员，感谢法官，感谢伟大的美国。\n喜和\n---------- 转发的邮件 ---------- 发件人: 喜和 baoliao2019@gmail.com 日期: 2025年4月3日\n喜和\n主题: 转发: 关于强制作出披露案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 已知受害者的动议\n喜和\nbaoliao2019@gmail.com\n隐藏详细信息\n标签 数值\n收件人: ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n日期: 2025年4月3日, 05:39\n---------- 转发的邮件 ----------\n发件人: 喜和 baoliao2019@gmail.com\n\n10:03\nGmail\n致案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) Geyer 的信函\nbaoliao2019@gmail.com\n收件人: ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n日期: 2025年4月3日, 13:33\n感谢伟大的美国！\nMy letter to Geyer.pdf\n---------- 转发的邮件 ----------\n发件人: 喜和 baoliao2019@gmail.com\n日期: 2025年4月3日\n主题: 致案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) Geyer 的信函\n\n裁定 - 文件编号 #528\n纽约南区联邦地区法院（District Court, S.D. New York）\n案卷号：1:23-cr-00118\n判例引证：United States v. GUO, 1:23-cr-00118, (S.D.N.Y. Apr 03, 2025) ECF No. 528 提交日期：2025年4月3日 下午 1:27 EDT 上传时间：2025年4月3日 下午 4:30 EDT\n\n描述\n关于非当事人信函和动议的裁定，针对 Miles Guo（郭文贵）、Kin Ming Je（余建明）、Yvette Wang（王雁平）。（由 Analisa Torres 法官于 2025年4月3日 签署）（见文中所列裁定）（法院书记官办公室于 2025年4月3日 邮寄副本至陕西省西安市樱花路 Bei Bei Zhu 19802907101 及中国北京市丰台区南三环西路4号院1号楼 Chunk Chyi 86-10-67526586）（lnl）（录入日期：2025年4月3日）\n\nPDF 文本\n美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区\n美利坚合众国\n诉\nUSDC SDNY\n文件\n电子归档\n文件编号：\n归档日期：2025年4月3日\nMILES GUO、KIN MING JE\n及 YVETTE WANG，\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n关于信函和动议的裁定\n\n送达证明\n关于：Chunk Chyi，请求人\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit）\nSDNY 案件：United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n本人特此证明，于 2026年1月7日，以下材料已完成送达：\n- 1. 职务履行令申请书（随附）\n- 2. 证物 A - SDNY 裁定，案卷号 528（公开可获取的法院裁定）\n- 3. 证物 B - SDNY 裁定，案卷号 596（公开可获取的法院裁定）\n- 4. 证物 C - 第二巡回法院案号 25-2726 的裁定（公开可获取的法院裁定，SDNY 案卷号 767）\n- 5. 证物 D - 案号 25-2726，案卷号 26（公开登入案卷的诉状）\n- 6. 证物 E - 案号 25-2726，案卷号 29（公开登入案卷的诉状）\n- 7. 证物 F - 证明第 596 号裁定系基于虚假事实前提的证据（随附）\n\n证物 A 至 E 均通过援引方式送达，证物 F 连同申请书一并以邮寄方式送达。\n\n送达已通过邮寄方式向以下接收人进行：\nAnalisa Torres 法官阁下\n美国联邦地区法官\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\nRyan B. Finkel\n联邦助理检察官\n美国联邦检察官办公室\n纽约南区\nOne St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n谨此提交，\n\nChunk Chyi（真实姓名：齐春红），签署于 2026年1月7日\n\n用力按压以封口\n\n用力按压以封口 FSC 用力按压以封口\n1\n优先邮件统一资费信封 已付邮资\n美国邮政署（UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE）\nPRIORITY 零售\n指定预计送达日期\n国内寄递包含 100 美元保险\n包含 USPS Tracking 追踪服务\n有限的国际保险\n用于国际寄递时，需填写海关申报\n已付美国邮资\n11.90 美元\nPRIORITY MAIL\n始发地：94401\n2026年1月8日\n0544010251-01\n0 磅 8.20 盎司\nRDC 03\n发件人：\nChunk Chyi\n转交 Rangyue Bai\n181 E. Tasman Dr, Suite 20\nPMB #364\nSan Jose, CA 95134\n保险不涵盖某些物品。详见国内邮寄手册或国际邮寄手册。统一资费信封，单一费率，不限重量，已追踪，已投保。\nPS00001000014\n预计送达日期：2026年1月12日\nC099\n收件人地址：\n40 FOLEY SQ\nNEW YORK NY 10007-1502\nUSPS 追踪号\n9505 5143 0278 6008 0260 74\n收件人：\nSDNY\n法院书记官\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007","key_entities":["Pro Se","pro se","CVRA","Je","Torres","CIPA","Crime Victim","Guo","Analisa Torres","853(n)","Kwok","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Kin Ming Je","Geyer","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":6,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":7,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":26,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":29,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":51,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":87,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":505,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":507,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":508,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":510,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":513,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":519,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":526,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":527,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":528,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":554,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":557,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":596,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":679,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":700,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":709,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":712,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":723,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":731,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":732,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":733,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":744,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":745,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":765,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":766,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":767,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":777,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":9991,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-01-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-01-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:16:22"}