{"id":"court_sdny_867_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":867,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"JUDGMENT","filed_date":null,"title":"July. 19,.2 From: J","summary_zh":"人身保护/执行监督令状申请（Petition for Writ of Mandamus） —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 23-CR-118 ECF #867（2026年7月立案）。一名自述为 G 系列投资人的第三方当事人（Pro Se）依据 28 U.S.C. § 1651 及 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提起令状申请，主张自己并非受害者，请求上诉法院指令地区法院撤销2026年6月29日的量刑与没收裁定、就检方包含225名索赔人的受害者名单（ECF #833）举行证据听证会，并暂缓执行涉案资产没收程序。","summary_en":"Petition for Writ of Mandamus — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 23-CR-118 ECF #867 (filed July 2026). A pro se G-Series third-party investor petitions the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), claiming non-victim status and requesting an order directing the District Court to vacate the June 29, 2026 sentencing/forfeiture orders, conduct an evidentiary hearing on the prosecution's 225-claimant victim list (ECF #833), and stay forfeiture proceedings.","body_en":"July. 19,.2\nFrom: J\nAddress:\nPhone n\nEmail:\nTo:\nClerk of Court\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n2ND Circuit\n40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\nRe: Petition for Writ of Mandamus\nPetitioner: J\nCase: SDNY - United States v, Kwok, etal. 1523-CR-118-1 (AT)\nDear Clerk of the 2” Circuit Court,\nEnclosed please find a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed by JCQEM ys a Pro Se\nPetitioner in United States.v. Kwok, et al 1 :23-CR-118-1 (AT), under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), Fed.\nR. Crim. P. 32.2(c), claiming Non-Victim Status, Investment Purpose and Fed. R. Crim. P,\n49.1.\nEnclosed:\n1) Motion information Statement Form 1080 and Supporting Papers for the motion.\n2) AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO.APPEAL IN FORMA\nPAUPERIS.\n3) Aredacted version of the Writ and 4 unredacted versions.\n(Certificate of Service is embedded in the Writ document)\nRespectfully submitted,\n—\nSignature\n\n\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals\nfor the at\not eas,\nSecond Circuit Gout.) Tig circu\n. ; vce Fa Age\nIn Re: > Pro Se 3\" Party Petitioner JUN 3 BD\nPETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS RELATING TO SDNY DISTRICT COURT\nSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTION\nThis Court has authority to issue a writ.of mandamus pursuant to the All-Writs Act, 28\nU.S.C. § 1651(a), because the underlying action is “within its appellate jurisdiction”.\nSTATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT\nPetitioner is an innocent G-Series investor who is nota victim of the Defendant. Petitioner\npossesses no other adequate legal avenue to formally address foundational issues in this\ncase. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court exercise its supervisory authority and\nissue a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Court and the Respondent-Prosecution to:\n1, Vacate the June 29, 2026 Sentencing and Forfeiture Orders: Mandate the\nvacation of the premature sentencing and forfeiture judgments due to systemic,\nunaddressed procedural and evidentiary defects. The District Court structuralized\nits final judgments upon.a record contaminated by unsubstantiated foreign-\nadversary influence, specifically, actively orchestrated, coerced and falsified claims\nby the Ministry of State Security (MSS) of the Peoplé's Republic of China which\ndirectly corrupted the integrity of the basis of this entire case.\n2. Order an Evidentiary Hearing to Purge the Tainted Victim List: Direct the District\nCourt to conduct a formal, adversarial evidentiary hearing regarding the\nprosecution's victim list (SDNY Docket Document 833). The court must require the\ngovernment to substantiate the identity, validity, and voluntary nature of each of the\n225 listed claimants, ensuring that the final victim calculations are not derived from\nstolen identities, coerced foreign statements, or state-sponsored manipulation.\n3. Stay All Forfeiture Proceedings Pending Geopolitical Integrity Verification:\nEnjoin the permanent forfeiture or transfer of the restrained res until the District\n\n\n\nCourt conducts a thorough, on-the-record assessment of whether the judicial\nprocess and asset pool have been actively subverted and weaponized by foreign\nintelligence organs targeting political dissidents..\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS\nPetitioner’s investment in the. G-Series was an.act of peaceful political conscience. Having\nspent decades. navigating the harsh realities of a one-party dictatorship including the\nenduring trauma of the Cultural Revolution which forced Petitioner’ ro end his own\nlife under torture, Petitioner possesses a profound, personal understanding of life devoid of\nthe rule of law, This systemic disregard for human dignity is manifested today in a pervasive\nstate surveillance apparatus that fails to prevent the rampant abduction of children, while\nthe state itself remains heavily implicated in internationally documented, profit-driven\nforced organ harvesting operations targeting the young people and political dissidents.\nDesiring a future for the Chinese people defined by equality, freedom, and dignity,\nPetitioner actively aligns with the Defendant's.anti-totalitarian stands. Petitioner's\ninvestment of hard-earned capital into the G-Series was a direct, peaceful attempt to help\ndismantle authoritarian structures and support the establishment of a democratic society\ngoverned by law in China.\nPetitioner has invested abo > G-Serios > voc >: A10 an De\nG-Club. The vast majority of Petitioner's investment capital was transferred via\nintermediaries. However, ED : single, direct transaction CY\n(Exhibit 1) was wired directly frong ) Sara Wei (aka 3\nBEAL, Wei Lihong), the former CEO of Arizona Phoenix Farm, who was in charge.of the VOG\ninvestments and was designated as a \"co-conspirator\" by the prosecution. Tig?\ntransaction exposed Petitioner's highly sensitive personal data, including full name, home\naddress, phone number, national identity number, and bank account. details. This exposure\ntriggered-a systematic, years-long campaign of state-sponsored.coercion and evidentiary\nfabrication:\nquestioning, officers explicitly raised the name of the Defendant, Mr. Guo, before\nbeing abruptly silenced by a supervising officer,\n\n\n\nhome. They brought their owrl\nThey collected and searched Petitioner's electronic devices, interrogated Petitioner\nfor ours, recorded the entire proceeding, and departed with a strict directive of\nsecrecy, warned Petitioner not to disclose the interrogation even to family members.\nThroughout th@gy our interrogation, the operatives explicitly stated that Mr. Guo\nwas.a political dissident operating against the Chinese Communist Party and the\nstate, labeling his activities as fraudulent. This extra-judicial operation marked the\nbeginning of the state-sponsored duress used to. weaponize Petitioner's identity\nagainst the Mr. Guo.\nFraudulent \"Victirn\" Classification and Denied Redress): In-early June\n2026, Petitioner discovered through an independent source that.the prosecution\nmight have included Petitioner’s online moniker on its “Victim Impact Statement”\n\n\n\nays prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a formal\nPérsonate ent with the District Court arid the prosecution explicitly\ndisctaiming \"victim\" status, demanding the removal of Petitioner's name, and\nrequesting an investigation into this case of identity theft (Exhibit 4). Proceeding ina\ncomplete procedural vacuum, neither the District Court:northe prosecution\nresponded to Petitioner’s filing. Instead, the court rushed to finalize the June 29,\n2026 sentencing while leaving this material factual dispute entirely unresolved.\nSTATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW\n1. Sentencing Disputes:& Due Process Violations (Fed. R. Crim. P, 32)\nWhether the District Court committed reversible procedural and constitutional error\nunder Federat Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) and the Fifth Amendment by\nadopting.a contested victim database without conducting mandatory adversarial\ntesting or an evidentiary hearing.\nAs established by the record (Docket 26-1626, Doc, Entry 8.1, p. 14 and SDNY Doc. 853), a\nvast class of Chinese national investors had their sensitive personal data compromised by\ndesignated co-conspirator Sara Wei, enabling targeted, state-sponsored coercion, Despite\ndocumented evidence that. at least 108 investors were interrogated by the CCP, 35 were\ncoerced into signing false fraud acknowledgments,-and 7 were forced to file false.\ncomplaints, the District Court summarily adopted the prosecution’s unverified 225-person\n\"Victim Impact Statement” roster (SDNY Doc. 833), Did the District Court abuse its\ndiscretion and violate the Defendant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by denying an\nevidentiary hearing to. determine whether these individuals were genuine claimants or\nvictims of state-coerced identity theft?\n2. Forfeiture Defects & Deprivation of Property (Fed. R. Crim. P. 32:2 & 21 U.S.C. §\n853(n))\nWhether the District Court violated Federal. Rule. of Criminal Procedure 32,2(c) and 21\nU.S.C. § 853(n) by finalizing criminal forfeiture orders while systematically failing to\ndocket, adjudicate, or verify legitimate third-party property claims.\nThe District Court calculated the final fraud loss.and forfeiture metrics by sweeping all\nseized capital into.a singular pool of “fraud proceeds,” explicitly ignoring independent\nproperty disclaimers and claims filed by legitimate investors. By failing to hold mandatory\nancillary proceedings to purge the victim roster of fabricated, MSS-coerced identities, the\ncourt ensured that legitimate property owhers would suffer an irreversible dilution of their\nrecovery from a finite asset pool. Did the District Court commit a structural error of taw by\nconverting a U.S. federal.court into an instrument that divests true asset. owners of their\nproperty in favor of unverified, foréign-manufactured claimants?\n\n\n\n3. Evidentiary Unreliability & Foreign Coercion (18 U.S.C. § 3661)\nWhether a sentencing judgment must be vacated as a matter of law under 18 U.S.C. §\n3661 when the underlying Guideline and loss calculations rely on an evidentiary\nrecord shaped under duress by a foreign intelligence adversary.\nAverified block of G-Series investors formally filed disclaimers rejecting \"victim\" status,\nasserting that their capital allocations were voluntary political investments. By failing to\naccount for these explicit disclaimers and instead relying on sentencing inputs\nmanufactured under custodial duress by the PRC Ministry of State Security (MSS),\nincluding the cyber-hijacking of investor digital identities to forge U.S. regulatory\ncomplaints, did the prosecution and the District Court violate the baseline reliability\nstandards required for federal sentencing information?\n4. Constitutional Suppression of the Public Docket (1st & 5th Amendments)\nWhether the District Court violated the First and Fifth Amendments by systematically\nrefusing to acknowledge, file, or docket third-party submissions challenging the\nprosecution's evidentiary narrative.\nWhen affected third-party investors attempted to submit formal disclaimers, evidence of\nforeign identity theft, and valid property claims, the District Court flatly refused to permit\nthese documents to be formally entered into the public record. By actively blocking these\nsubmissions, the court insulated the prosecution's narrative from outside challenge. Did\nthe court commit a structural due process violation by completely denying third parties\ntheir fundamental right to petition the court and be heard before their identities and assets\nwere used to finalize a criminal judgment?\n5. Evasion of Appellate Review & Separation of Powers (S.Res. 444)\nWhether the District Court exceeded its extra-territorial jurisdiction, violated the\nconstitutional separation of powers, and unlawfully evaded appellate review by racing\nto enter a final judgment on June 29, 2026, while multiple mandamus petitions were\nactively pending.\nOn June 16, 2026, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 444, an authoritative\ncoordinate-branch finding that the PRC operates via cross-border deception, cyber-\nwarfare, and transnational repression. Concurrently, the PRC government explicitly treats\nthese overseas capital allocations (comprising 80% of the G-Series investments) as\npolitical subversion, prosecuting investors under state-security laws (Docket 26-361 ).\nArmed with this structural notice, and with full knowledge that its jurisdiction was\nchallenged via outstanding mandamus petitions, the District Court rushed to finalize\njudgment. Did the court's actions impermissibly intrude upon foreign relations prerogatives\n\n\n\nreserved to the political branches under Articles | and Il, and divest the Court of Appeals of\nits supervisory jurisdiction?\n6. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree & Conflicted Cooperating Witness\nWhether the final judgment and corresponding forfeiture metrics are structurally\ninvalid under the \"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree\" doctrine due to the prosecution's\nreliance on a corrupted, foreign-conflicted cooperating co-defendant.\nThe prosecution's core narrative relies heavily on the plea and cooperation of co-defendant\nYvette Wang. However, public records (Exhibit 5) and appellate submissions (Docket 26-\n1192, Doc. Entry 25) establish that Wang maintained a self-declared, 18-year active\nmembership in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).\nChinese Communist Party Members’ Constitution, Article 2:\n“The Party Constitution stipulates that members of the Communist Party of China are\nvanguard fighters of the Chinese working class who possess communist consciousness;\nthey must serve the people wholeheartedly and dedicate their lives to the cause of\ncommunism, even at the expense of their personal interests.”\nActing under this foreign ideological alignment, Wang impermissibly entered into a plea\nagreement forfeiting extensive corporate assets over which she possessed no lawful title,\nwhile suppressing massive exculpatory evidence that would clear the Defendant's name.\nDid the District Court commit a structural error by adopting a conviction built entirely upon\nthe non-adversarially tested admissions of a hidden foreign sovereign asset?\nREASON WHY THE WRIT SHOULD BE ISSUED\nPetitioners meet the strict criteria for mandamus relief because they possess no other\nadequate means to attain the requested relief. Because the District Court has completely\nlocked the docket and refused to rule any 3\" party petitions, an extraordinary Writ of\nMandamus from this Court is the exclusive mechanism available to compel the lower court\nto perform its clear legal duty.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, The District Court’s final judgment, sentencing orders, and\ncorresponding forfeiture metrics are structurally invalid, built upon a record systematically\ncontaminated by the actively orchestrated, coerced, and falsified manipulation of the\nMinistry of State Security of the People’s Republic of China. The District Court’s failure to\nconduct mandatory adversarial testing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n32(i)(3)(B), its refusal to adjudicate third-party property claims pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 8\n\n\n\n853(n), and its reliance on an evidentiary record shaped under custodial duress by a foreign\nintelligence adversary constitute reversible structural errors. Furthermore, by aggressively\nrecharacterizing overseas political transactions in direct conflict with the foreign policy\nfindings of Senate Resolution 444, and by entering final judgment to evade active\nmandamus review, the District Court exceeded its extra-territorial jurisdiction and violated\nthe constitutional separation of powers.\nAccordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court VACATE the judgment of\nconviction and sentencing order in its entirety; REMAND this case to the District Court with\ninstructions to conduct a full, adversarial evidentiary hearing to purge the record of foreign\nstate manipulation and secure the institutional integrity of the judicial process; and STAY\nall forfeiture proceedings, enjoining the permanent transfer of the restrained res, pending a\ncomprehensive, on-the-record geopolitical integrity verification to ensure the machinery of\nthe United States judiciary is not weaponized by a foreign intelligence adversary against\npolitical dissidents.\nIn the alternative, should this Court deem an evidentiary hearing insufficient to cure the\nstructural taint: because the entirety of the government's case is built upon the\ncompromised, non-adversarially tested admissions of a hidden foreign sovereign asset, the\nentire prosecution is irremediably corrupted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.\nWhere the structural integrity of a federal prosecution has been systematically subverted\nby a foreign intelligence adversary, piecemeal procedural remedies are legally inadequate.\nAccordingly, this Court should DISMISS the case entirely with prejudice to eradicate the\ntaint of foreign manipulation, vindicate constitutional due process, and preserve the\nabsolute sovereign supremacy and institutional independence of the United States\njudiciary.\nPRIVACY\nPetitioners respectfully request to file this petition under seal in fear of the Chinese\ngovernment’s harm.\nCertificate of Compliance: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g), the undersigned hereby\ncertifies that the foregoing document contains 2565 words, in compliance with the applicable type-volume\nlimitations.\nDate: july 18, 2026\nRespectfully submitted\n\n\n\nThe undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct to the\nbest of Petitioners’ knowledge and belief.\nsenate\nCertificate of Service\nPetitioners certifies that on July 18, 2026, Petitioners submitted this filing to the following\nparties:\nBy US Mail:\nNathan Rehn\nUS Attorney’s Office/SDNY\n26 Federal Plaza; 37\"Floor\nNY, NY 10278\nHon. Annalisa Torres\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York; NY 10007\nCounsels for the Defendant:\njkaley@doarlaw.com\n—\n\n\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed10.1, (10 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 10 of 28\n\nEXHIBIT 1\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed10.1, (11 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 11 of 28\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1, (12 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 12 of 28\n\nEXHIBIT 3\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed10.1, (13 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 13 of 28\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1, (14 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 14 of 28\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1, (15 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 15 of 28\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1, (16 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 16 of 28\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 867DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1, (17 of 28)\n 08/03/26 Page 17 of 28\n\nEXHIBIT 3 — investTMENT moron i,\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT 4 -QggPERSONAL STATEMENT SENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND\nTHE PROSECUTION DISCLAIMING VICTIM STATUS AND DEMAND NAME REMOVAL\nFROM THE 225 “VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT” LIST\n\n\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\n Case: 26-2102,\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,867\n 07/31/2026, DktEntry:\n DktEntry: 10.1,\n Filed 10.1, (20 of\n (20\n 08/03/26 of 28)\n 28)\n\n1 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n.2\n\n3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n4\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n 5\n\n 6\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Personal Statement, Denying Being\n Kwak the Defendant's Victim\n7\n Plaintiff, 1 BY\n 8\n )\n 9\n 1\n 1\n10\n 1\n11 HO WAN KWOK (A/K/A MILES GUO, MILES\n12 KWOK, WENGUI GUO AND BROTHER SEVEN),\n .‫ك ليه منبه‬\n\n13\n Yvette Wang,\n14 Defendants.\n15\n\n16\n Personal Statement\n17\n\n18\n I appearing pro se, hereby submit this Personal\n Statement and formally declare as follows:\n19\n 1. Not the Defendant's Victim Status: I am a legitimate G-\n20\n Series investor. At no time have I ever been a victim of\n21\n the Defendant, Ho Wan Kwok. The Defendant did not defraud\n22 me, and I maintain that he has always acted with honor and\n23 integrity.\n24 2. Source of Financial Injury: Any financial loss or\n25 deprivation of property I have suffered is directly and\n26 proximately caused by the unilateral seizures and\n27\n enforcement actions of the United States Government\n\n28\n\nCase: 26-2102,\n Case: 07/31/2026,\n 26-2102, Document\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026, DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1,\n DktEntry:\n 867 10.1, (21\n (21 of\n 08/03/26 of 28)\n 28)\n\n (specifically the SEC and the DOJ), not by any conduct\n attributable to the Defendant.\n1 3. Fraudulent Inclusion on Government \"Victim\" List: On\n I discovered that my personal digital nickname,\n\n =\n was included without my knowledge or consent on\n the prosecution's \"victims\" list, falsely attributing\n statements to me that accuse the Defendant and Yvette Wang\n of wrongdoing. I did not authorize this inclusion, I did\n not make those statements, and I consider the unauthorized\n use of my identity to be an act of fraud, deception, and\n malicious misrepresentation.\n 4. Formal Demand for Removal and Independent Verification: I\n hereby formally demand that the prosecution immediately\n remove my name and nickname from the \"victims\" list, I\n further demand a comprehensive investigation into how my\n identity was stolen and manipulated into this record.\n Because the vast majority of entries on the government's\n list consist of unverified, anonymous nicknames, I request\n that the Court appoint an independent third party to\n conduct a rigorous forensic accounting and line-item\n verification of all purported victim claims to expose any\n fictitious entities,\n 5. Revocation of Prior Authorization If Any: No individual or\n entity possesses the authority to represent me or speak on\n my behalf in this matter. I hereby explicitly void and\n retract any and all claims, documents, or statements\n previously submitted under my name or nickname by any third\n party prior to this date.\n\nCase: 26-2102,\n Case: 07/31/2026,\n 26-2102, Document\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026, DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1,\n DktEntry:\n 867 10.1, (22\n (22 of\n 08/03/26 of 28)\n 28)\n\n 1 DECLARATION\n 2\n declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and\n belief.\n 3\n\n 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n 5 certify or submitted this filing to the Court's Pro Se Intake for docketing via email\n ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov.\n 6\n\n 7\n US Attorney's Office SDNY:\n ·ryan.finkel@usdoj.gov (Ryan Finkel, Assistant US Attorney)\n 8\n ·justin.horton@usdoj.gov\n 9 ·micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov\n10\n Defense counsel:\n11 · msarafa@sarafalaw.com\n\n12\n · jdratel@dratellewis.com\n ·Jkaley@doarlaw.com\n13\n\n14\n Attachment: Personal ID\n\n15 Dated\n\n16\n Respectfully submitted,\n17\n\n Signatu\n18\n Addres\n19\n\n20 Telepho\n Email\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\nCase: 26-2102,\n Case: 26-2102, Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 07/31/2026, DktEntry:\n Filed 10.1,\n DktEntry:\n 867 10.1, (23\n (23 of\n 08/03/26 of 28)\n 28)\n\n 性别\n姓 名\n\n 王\n\nCase: 26-2102,\n Case: 26-2102, Document\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,\n 07/31/2026, DktEntry:\n DktEntry:\n 867 10.1,\n Filed 10.1, (24 of\n (24\n 08/03/26 of 28)\n 28)\n\n 民 身 份证\n中华人民共和国\n\n 签发机关\n 有效期限\n\nCase: 26-2102, Document\n Case: 26-2102,\n Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 07/31/2026,867\n 07/31/2026, DktEntry:\n DktEntry: 10.1,\n Filed 10.1, (25 of\n (25\n 08/03/26 of 28)\n 28)\n\n##4X : Pro Se Filing \n日期\n\nEM : IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\n收件\n\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\n\nYour email has been received by the Pro Se Intake Unit of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New\nYork. (This is not the United States Bankruptcy Court.)\nDocuments from pro se litigants that meet the required standards for electronic filing will be filed and will appear on the ECF\ndocket within two business days of receipt (see required standards below): If you send your document by email and it is\naccepted for filing, you should not deliver a hard copy version to the court ..\n\nRequirements for Filing a New Action by Email:\n\n Documents must be attached to the email in PDF format, no larger than 15 megabytes;\n\n The complaint must be signed by the filing party;\n · Fee requirements and instructions:\n # Please note that your complaint will not be reviewed until the court receives payment of\n the filing fees.\n\n Payment must be made within 30 days of the date your case is assigned a docket number, If mailing payment,\nplease send a certified check, bank check, or money order to: Cashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.\n\n Your payment must include the docket number, which you can learn by calling (212) 805-0175.\n If you have not consented to e-service, your docket number will also be mailed to you, at the address provided\non the complaint, in a form order that will include payment instructions, If you do not make payment within 30 days of the\ndate a docket number is assigned to your case, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.\n\n If you cannot pay the filing fees and want to request that the court waive the filing fees, you must email\nan application to proceed in forma pauperis,\n\nFiling Documents in an Existing Case by Email:\n\n Documents must be attached to the email in PDF format, no larger than 10 megabytes;\n\n The email and attached document must contain the docket number, filer' s name, address, and telephone\nnumber;\n\nDocuments must be signed by the filing party;\nAny additional comments, questions, or other messages in the email will be disregarded;\nAny additional correspondence included in the email will be disregarded.\nFor any submission, if your document does not appear on the ECF docket within two business days, it has not met the\nrequired standards for electronic filing. If so, you must submit your document to the court in paper form by (a) sending your\ndocument by mail, or overnight delivery service, to the appropriate courthouse listed below; or (b) delivering your document\nin-person to the appropriate courthouse listed below between the hours of 9:30 AM to 1:30 PM; or (c) depositing your\ndocument after hours in the court’ s night depository box at the 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY courthouse.\nUnited States Courthouse\nPro Se Intake Unit\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\nor\nUnited States Courthouse\nPro Se Intake Unit\nWhite Plains, NY 10601\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT 5\nOn September 5, 2017, in his “Law and Society” #64 of Mingjing, Dr. Chen Xiaoping had an\nExclusive Interview with Yvette Wang. in the interview, Wang self-declared a “DEVOTED”\ncommunist, maintained a “18-year active membership in the Chinese Communist Party”\n(CCP).\n\n\n\nEXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 07/23/26 NM,\nJ; i PRESS FIRML _\ncasi Se nen PRS USPS TRACKING® #\n‘I ——\n— ; — :\n=\nPOTS HERVRE ©\n\\ 10007 $12.90\nRDC O03 1 Lb 14.00 oz $2323A501988-24 |\nrFrAEwwEAE OO @ FRO\nDATE OF DELIVERY SPECIFIED Ss\nUSPS TRACKING™ INCLUDED*\nTO:\n(A\n$s INSURANCE INCLUDED *\nPICKUP AVAILABLE\nroameniciie . Cle ottia\nThurgood Marshall Cour Neysa.\n40 Foley F;\n| | | | Lill Il EPI4F July 2013 VISIT US AT HISPS rnnae eee Rr am\npDennnnannnnas\n\n","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["forfeiture","Pro Se","pro se","Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","853(n)","Guo","CCP","MSS","Ho Wan Kwok","Finkel","Miles Guo","Torres","Horton","Fergenson"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":10,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":833,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":853,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3904,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-17 09:56:36"}