{"id":"court_sdny_867_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":867,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MANDAMUS_PETITION","filed_date":null,"title":"Petition for Writ of Mandamus","summary_zh":"强制令申请书（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。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. 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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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 <pro.se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\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<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->","body_zh":"2026年7月19日\n发件人：J\n地址：\n电话：\n电子邮箱：\n收件人：\n法院书记官\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n事由：人身保护令/调卷令/执行令申请书（Petition for Writ of Mandamus，履行职务令申请书）\n申请人：J\n案件：SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）- United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n尊敬的第二巡回上诉法院书记官：\n\n随函附上由 JCQEM 作为 Pro Se（自行代理/亲自出庭）申请人在 United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 案中提起的《履行职务令申请书》（Petition for Writ of Mandamus）。该申请依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Crim. P.）第 32.2(c) 条提起，主张非受害者身份、投资目的及适用《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条。\n\n随附文件：\n1) 动议信息声明表 Form 1080 及该动议的支持文件。\n2) 伴随申请以贫民身份上诉许可之动议的宣誓书（AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS）。\n3) 令状申请书的删节版 1 份及未删节版 4 份。\n（送达证明书已内嵌于令状申请文件之中）\n\n谨此提交，\n—\n签名\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：亲自出庭第三人申请人\n就 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）事项请求签发履行职务令的申请书\n\n管辖权声明\n根据《全令状法》（All-Writs Act），28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)，本法院有权签发履行职务令（writ of mandamus），因为作为基础的诉讼“在其上诉管辖权范围之内”。\n\n请求救济声明\n申请人是一名无辜的 G-Series（G系列）投资者，并非被告人的受害者。申请人别无其他适当的法律途径来正式解决本案中的根本性问题。申请人谨请求本法院行使其监督权，签发履行职务令，指示地区法院及被申请人-检方：\n\n1. 撤销 2026年6月29日的量刑裁定与没收裁定（Sentencing and Forfeiture Orders）：因存在系统性的、未获解决的程序和证据缺陷，责令撤销过早作出的量刑和没收判决。地区法院的终审判决所依据的记录受到了未经证实的外国敌对势力影响的污染，具体而言，系受中华人民共和国 Ministry of State Security (MSS，国家安全部) 积极策划、强迫和捏造的主张所污染，这直接破坏了整个案件基础的完整性。\n\n2. 命令举行证据听证会以清除受污染的受害者名单：指示地区法院就检方的受害者名单（SDNY 案卷文件 833）举行正式的对抗性证据听证会。法院必须要求政府证实所列 225 名索赔人中每一位的身份、有效性及其自愿性质，确保最终的受害者计算并非来源于被盗用的身份、被强迫作出的境外陈述或国家支持的操纵。\n\n3. 在地缘政治完整性验证完成前中止所有没收程序：禁制对被扣押的物（res）进行永久没收或转移，直至地区法院就司法程序和资产池是否已被针对政治异见人士的外国情报机关积极颠覆和武器化进行全面且记录在案的审查。\n\n事实陈述\n申请人对 G 系列的投资是一种和平表达政治良知的行为。在经历了数十年的单党独裁统治残酷现实——包括迫使申请人的亲属在酷刑折磨下结束自己生命的文化大革命带来的持久创伤——之后，申请人对缺乏法治的生活有着深刻切身的体会。这种对人类尊严的系统性漠视如今体现在无所不在的国家监控机构中，该机构无法阻止猖獗的拐卖儿童行为，而国家本身却严重卷入到国际上记录在案的、以营利为目的、针对年轻人和政治异见人士的强摘器官运作之中。出于对中国人民享有平等、自由和尊严未来的期盼，申请人积极认同被告人的反极权立场。申请人将辛勤赚取的资金投入 G 系列，是一次直接、和平的尝试，旨在帮助瓦解威权结构，并支持在中国建立一个依法治理的民主社会。\n\n申请人已向 G 系列投资了约……VOG、G-Fashion 以及 G-Club。申请人的绝大部分投资资金是通过中介机构转账的。然而，有一笔直接交易（证据 1）是直接汇往 Sara Wei（魏丽红，又名 Wei Lihong）的，她是 Arizona Phoenix Farm（亚利桑那凤凰农场）的前首席执行官，负责 VOG 的投资，并被检方指定为“共犯”。该交易暴露了申请人的高度敏感个人数据，包括姓名、住址、电话号码、身份证号码和银行账户详情。这一暴露引发了长达数年、由国家支持的系统性强迫和证据捏造活动：在讯问中，执法人员明确提及了被告人郭先生（Mr. Guo）的名字，随后被主管人员突然打断制止。\n\n家中。他们带来了自己的设备。他们搜集并搜查了申请人的电子设备，对申请人讯问了数小时，对整个过程进行了录音录像，并在离开时发出严格的保密指令，警告申请人甚至不得向家人透露此次讯问。在长达数小时的讯问过程中，特工人员明确表示郭先生是反对中国共产党和国家的政治异见人士，并将他的活动定性为诈骗。这一法外行动标志着国家支持的胁迫的开始，旨在将申请人的身份武器化以对付郭先生。\n\n欺诈性“受害者”定性及救济被拒：2026年6月初，申请人通过独立渠道得知，检方可能已将申请人的网络代号列入其“受害者影响陈述”（Victim Impact Statement）之中。在量刑前数日，申请人向地区法院和检方提交了一份正式的个人声明，明确声明放弃“受害者”身份，要求删除申请人的姓名，并请求对这起身份盗窃案展开调查（证据 4）。然而在完全缺乏正当程序的情况下，地区法院和检方均未对申请人的提交作出回应。相反，法院在这一重大事实争议完全未得到解决的情况下，仓促敲定了 2026年6月29日的量刑。\n\n提请复审的问题陈述\n1. 量刑争议与正当程序侵害（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32 条）\n地区法院在未进行强制性对抗质证或证据听证会的情况下采纳存在争议的受害者数据库，是否构成了根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32(i)(3)(B) 条及《第五修正案》应予撤销原判的程序与宪法错误。\n正如记录（案卷 26-1626，文件条目 8.1，第 14 页以及 SDNY 文件 853）所确立的那样，大批中国籍投资者的敏感个人数据被指定的共犯 Sara Wei 泄露，从而导致了具有针对性的、国家支持的强迫。尽管有书面证据表明至少 108 名投资者遭到了 CCP（中共）的讯问，35 人被强迫签署了虚假的欺诈确认书，7 人被强迫提交了虚假控告，地区法院却草率地采纳了检方未经证实的 225 人“受害者影响陈述”名单（SDNY 文件 833）。地区法院拒绝举行证据听证会以确定这些人是真正的索赔人还是遭受国家强迫的身份盗窃受害者，是否滥用了自由裁量权并侵犯了被告人依据《第五修正案》享有的正当程序权利？\n\n2. 没收缺陷与财产剥夺（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2 条及 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)）\n地区法院在系统性未能将合法的第三方财产主张立案、审理或核实的情况下敲定刑事没收裁定，是否违反了《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c) 条及 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)。\n地区法院通过将所有查扣的资金一网打尽归入单一的“欺诈所得”池中，计算了最终的欺诈损失和没收指标，公然忽略了合法投资者提交的独立财产放弃声明和主张。由于未能举行强制性的附随程序以清除受害者名单中捏造的、受 MSS 强迫的身份，法院确保了合法财产所有人从有限的资产池中获得的受偿将遭受不可逆转的稀释。地区法院将美国联邦法院转变为剥夺真正资产所有人的财产以偏袒未经证实的、外国制造的索赔人的工具，是否犯下了重大的法律结构性错误？\n\n3. 证据不可靠性与外国强迫（18 U.S.C. § 3661）\n当作为基础的《量刑指南》和损失计算依赖于外国情报敌对势力在胁迫下形成的证据记录时，根据 18 U.S.C. § 3661，量刑判决是否必须在法律上予以撤销。\n一批经核实的 G 系列投资者正式提交了拒绝“受害者”身份的放弃声明，坚称其资金配置属于自愿的政治投资。检方和地区法院未能考虑这些明确的放弃声明，反而依赖于中华人民共和国国家安全部（MSS）在羁押胁迫下制造的量刑依据（包括网络劫持投资者的数字身份以伪造向美国监管机构的投诉），这是否违反了联邦量刑信息所要求的底线可靠性标准？\n\n4. 对公开案卷的合宪性压制（《第一修正案》及《第五修正案》）\n地区法院系统性拒绝承认、归档或将挑战检方证据叙事的第三方提交材料录入案卷，是否违反了《第一修正案》和《第五修正案》。\n当受影响的第三方投资者试图提交正式的放弃声明、外国身份盗窃的证据以及有效的财产主张时，地区法院断然拒绝允许将这些文件正式载入公开记录。通过积极阻挠这些提交，法院使检方的叙事免受外部质疑。在第三方的身份和资产被用于敲定刑事判决之前，法院完全剥夺了其向法院请愿并获得陈述意见的基本权利，这是否构成了结构性的正当程序侵犯？\n\n5. 规避上诉审查与权力分立（参议院第 444 号决议 / S.Res. 444）\n地区法院在多项履行职务令申请正在审理期间，仓促于 2026年6月29日作出终审判决，是否超出了其域外管辖权、违反了宪法权力分立原则，并不法规避了上诉审查。\n2026年6月16日，美国参议院通过了参议院第 444 号决议（Senate Resolution 444），这是一份具有权威性的同等权力分支机构认定，确认 PRC（中华人民共和国）通过跨境欺骗、网络战和跨国镇压展开运作。与此同时，中国政府明确将这些海外资金配置（占 G 系列投资的 80%）视为政治颠覆，并依据国家安全法律对投资者提起起诉（案卷 26-361）。在获知此项体制性通告且充分知悉其管辖权正因未决的履行职务令申请而受到质疑的情况下，地区法院仍仓促敲定判决。法院的这一行为是否不当地侵犯了外交关系的专属特权\n\n保留给第一条和第二条之下的政治部门，并剥夺上诉法院的监督管辖权？\n\n6. 毒树之果与存在利益冲突的配合证人\n鉴于检方依赖一名腐败的、存在外国利益冲突的配合同案被告人，终审判决及相应的没收指标根据“毒树之果”（Fruit of the Poisonous Tree）原则是否在结构上无效？\n\n检方的核心指控在很大程度上依赖于同案被告人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的认罪答辩与配合。然而，公开记录（证物 5）和上诉呈递文件（案卷 26-1192，文件条目 25）证实，Wang 自认保持了长达 18 年的中国共产党（CCP）有效党籍。\n\n中国共产党章程，第二条：\n“党章规定，中国共产党党员是中国工人阶级的有共产主义觉悟的先锋战士；他们必须全心全意为人民服务，为实现共产主义奋斗终身，甚至不惜牺牲个人的利益。”\n\n基于这种外国意识形态认同，Wang 违规签署了一项认罪协议，没收了其并不拥有合法所有权的大量公司资产，同时隐匿了足以洗清被告人罪名的大量开脱性证据。\n\n地区法院完全采信基于未经验证其对抗性的隐蔽外国主权实体资产之招认所建立的定罪，是否构成了结构性错误？\n\n应当签发令状的理由\n\n请愿人符合寻求执行令状救济的严格标准，因为他们没有其他充分途径来获得所请求的救济。由于地区法院已彻底锁定案卷并拒绝就任何第三方请愿作出裁决，因此由本院签发一份特权执行令状（Writ of Mandamus），是迫使下级法院履行其明确法律职责的唯一可用机制。\n\n结论\n\n基于前述理由，地区法院的终审判决、量刑裁定及相应的没收指标在结构上无效，它们建立在被中华人民共和国国家安全部（Ministry of State Security of the People’s Republic of China）主动策划、胁迫和伪造的操作所系统性污染的记录之上。地区法院未能依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure）第 32(i)(3)(B) 条进行强制性的对抗性审查，拒绝依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 裁决第三方财产主张，并依赖于在外国情报敌手拘押胁迫下形成的证据记录，构成了可推翻的结构性错误。此外，地区法院通过激进地对海外政治交易重新定性，与第 444 号参议院决议（Senate Resolution 444）的对外政策结论产生直接冲突，并通过作出终审判决以逃避正在进行的执行令状审查，地区法院超出了其域外管辖权并违反了宪法上的分权原则。\n\n因此，请愿人谨请求本院撤销（VACATE）定罪判决及量刑裁定的全部内容；将本案发回（REMAND）地区法院，并指示其进行全面的、对抗性的证据听证会，以清除记录中的外国国家操纵，确保司法程序的制度完整性；并中止（STAY）所有没收程序，禁止永久转移被限制的涉案财产，等待全面的、记入记录的地缘政治完整性核验，以确保美国司法机器不被外国情报敌手武器化用于对付政治异见人士。\n\n或者，如果本院认为证据听证会不足以消除该结构性污点：鉴于政府起诉依据的全部案情均建立在未经验证其对抗性的受损隐蔽外国主权实体资产之招认之上，依据毒树之果原则，整个起诉已遭受无法挽回的腐化。当联邦起诉的结构完整性已被外国情报敌手系统性破坏时，零碎的程序性补救措施在法律上是不充分的。因此，本院应当以具有既判力的方式完全驳回（DISMISS）本案，以根除外国操纵的污点，维护宪法正当程序，并维护美国司法系统的绝对主权至上与制度独立。\n\n隐私\n\n由于惧怕中国政府的伤害，请愿人谨请求对本请愿书进行封存提交。\n\n合规证书：根据《联邦上诉诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure）第 32(g) 条，下述签名人特此证明，前述文件包含 2565 个单词，符合适用的篇幅限制。\n\n日期：2026 年 7 月 18 日\n\n谨此呈递\n\n下述签名人谨在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，据请愿人所知所信，前述内容真实无误。\n\n送达证书\n请愿人证明于 2026 年 7 月 18 日，请愿人已将本呈递文件提交给以下各方：\n\n通过美国邮政寄送：\nNathan Rehn\n美国联邦检察官办公室/纽约南区（US Attorney’s Office/SDNY）\n26 Federal Plaza; 37th Floor\nNY, NY 10278\n\nHon. Annalisa Torres\n美国联邦地区法院（United States District Court）\n纽约南区（Southern District of New York）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York; NY 10007\n\n被告人辩护律师：\njkaley@doarlaw.com\n—\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 10 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 10 页，共 28 页\n\n证物 1\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 11 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 11 页，共 28 页\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 12 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 12 页，共 28 页\n\n证物 3\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 13 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 13 页，共 28 页\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 14 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 14 页，共 28 页\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 15 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 15 页，共 28 页\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 16 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 16 页，共 28 页\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 17 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26    第 17 页，共 28 页\n\n证物 3 — 投资动议 1\n\n证物 4 — 发送给地区法院和检方的个人声明，否认受害者身份并要求从 225 人“受害者影响陈述”名单中删除姓名\n\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号：26-2102，\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 20 页，共 28 页）\n07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 20 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区\n\n美利坚合众国，\n原告，\n\nv.\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）（又名郭文贵、郭浩云、郭文贵及七哥），\nYvette Wang（王雁平），\n被告。\n\n个人声明，否认系被告人受害者\n\n个人声明\n本人 本人亲自出庭（pro se），特此提交本个人声明并正式声明如下：\n\n1. 非被告人受害者身份：本人是合法的 G 系列（G-Series）投资者。在任何时候，本人都从未成为被告人 Ho Wan Kwok 的受害者。被告人并未对我进行欺诈，本人坚持认为他一贯以荣誉和诚信行事。\n\n2. 经济损害来源：本人所遭受的任何经济损失或财产剥夺，均是由美国政府（特别是美国证券交易委员会（SEC）和美国司法部（DOJ））的单方面扣押和执法行动直接且近因造成的，而非归因于被告人的任何行为。\n\n案号：26-2102，\n案号：26-2102，文件\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT    07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 21 页，共 28 页）\n07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，（第 21 页，共 28 页）\n867    归档于 08/03/26\n\n3. 被欺诈性列入政府“受害者”名单：于 [日期空白]，本人发现本人的个人数字昵称 [昵称空白] 在本人不知情且未同意的情况下被列入了检方的“受害者”名单，虚假地将指控被告人和 Yvette Wang 存在不当行为的陈述归于本人名下。本人并未授权此种列入，本人未作出过这些陈述，且本人认为对本人身份的未经授权使用属于欺诈、欺骗和恶意虚假陈述行为。\n\n4. 正式要求删除及独立核验：本人特此正式要求检方立即将本人的姓名和昵称从“受害者”名单中删除。本人进一步要求对本人的身份如何被盗用并被操纵进入该记录展开全面调查。鉴于政府名单上的绝大多数条目由未经核实的匿名昵称组成，本人请求法院指定独立的第三方进行严格的法务会计审查和对所有据称的受害者主张进行逐项核实，以揭露任何虚构实体。\n\n5. 撤销既往授权（如有）：没有任何个人或实体拥有在此事项中代表本人或代表本人发言的授权。本人特此明确作废并撤回在此日期之前由任何第三方以本人姓名或昵称此前提交的任何及所有主张、文件或陈述。\n\n案号：26-2102，\n案号：26-2102，文书 10.1，\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT，07/31/2026，案卷条目：867，已提交 07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，08/03/26（第 28 页之第 22 页）\n\n声明\n本人在承担伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，据本人所知及所信，前述内容真实且正确。\n\n送达证明\n本人证明或确认已将本文件通过电子邮件 ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov 提交至法院的 Pro Se Intake（亲自诉讼收件处）以供登记入卷。\n\nUS Attorney's Office SDNY（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）：\n· ryan.finkel@usdoj.gov（Ryan Finkel，助理联邦检察官）\n· justin.horton@usdoj.gov\n· micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov\n\n辩护律师：\n· msarafa@sarafalaw.com\n· jdratel@dratellewis.com\n· Jkaley@doarlaw.com\n\n附件：个人身份证件\n日期：\n谨此提交，\n签名：\n地址：\n电话：\n电子邮件：\n\n案号：26-2102，文书 10.1，\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT，07/31/2026，案卷条目：867，已提交 07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，08/03/26（第 28 页之第 23 页）\n\n性别\n姓名\n王\n\n案号：26-2102，文书 10.1，\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT，07/31/2026，案卷条目：867，已提交 07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，08/03/26（第 28 页之第 24 页）\n\n居民身份证\n中华人民共和国\n签发机关\n有效期限\n\n案号：26-2102，文书 10.1，\n案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT，07/31/2026，案卷条目：867，已提交 07/31/2026，案卷条目：10.1，08/03/26（第 28 页之第 25 页）\n\n发件人：Pro Se Filing <pro.se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>\n日期：\n主题：重要信息，请查阅\n收件人：\n\n重要信息，请查阅\n\n您的电子邮件已由 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Pro Se Intake Unit（亲自诉讼收件组）收到。（本处并非美国破产法院。）\n来自亲自诉讼当事人且符合电子立案/归档规定标准的文书将在收到后两个工作日内立案/归档并显示在 ECF（电子案卷系统）案卷中（参见下方规定标准）：如果您通过电子邮件发送文书且已被接受立案，您无需再向法院递交纸质版本。\n\n通过电子邮件提起新诉讼的要求：\n\n文书必须以 PDF 格式作为附件随邮件发送，大小不得超过 15 兆字节（MB）；\n\n起诉状必须由立案当事人签署；\n· 费用要求及说明：\n请注意，在法院收到立案规费付款之前，不会对您的起诉状进行审查。\n\n付款必须在您的案件被分配案号之日起 30 日内完成。如邮寄付款，请将保付支票、银行本票或汇票寄至：Cashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007。\n\n您的付款必须注明案号，您可致电 (212) 805-0175 查询该案号。\n如果您未同意电子送达，您的案号也将以格式命令的形式寄至起诉状上提供的地址，其中将包含付款说明。如果您在案件分配案号之日起 30 日内未付款，该诉讼将被驳回（无偏见驳回/允许重新起诉）。\n\n如果您无法支付立案规费并希望申请法院免除该规费，您必须通过电子邮件发送 in forma pauperis（以贫民身份诉讼）的申请。\n\n通过电子邮件在现有案件中提交文书：\n\n文书必须以 PDF 格式作为附件随邮件发送，大小不得超过 10 兆字节（MB）；\n\n电子邮件及所附文书必须包含案号、提交人姓名、地址和电话号码；\n\n文书必须由提交当事人签署；\n电子邮件中的任何其他意见、问题或其他留言将不予受理；\n电子邮件中包含的任何其他往来信函将不予受理。\n对于任何提交事项，如果您的文书未在两个工作日内显示在 ECF 案卷上，则说明其未达到电子立案的规定标准。如遇此情况，您必须通过以下方式向法院提交纸质文书：(a) 将文书邮寄或通过隔夜特快专递寄至下列相应法院；或 (b) 于上午 9:30 至下午 1:30 之间将文书亲自送达至下列相应法院；或 (c) 在非工作时间将文书投入位于 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY 法院的夜间投递箱。\nUnited States Courthouse（美国联邦法院大楼）\nPro Se Intake Unit（亲自诉讼收件组）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n或\nUnited States Courthouse（美国联邦法院大楼）\nPro Se Intake Unit（亲自诉讼收件组）\nWhite Plains, NY 10601\n\n<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\n\n证物 5\n2017年9月5日，在 Mingjing（明镜）的“法治与社会”第 64 期节目中，Dr. Chen Xiaoping（陈小平博士）对 Yvette Wang（王雁平）进行了专访。在采访中，王自称是一名“虔诚的”共产党员，保持着“18 年 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，CCP）党龄的活跃党员身份”。\n\n<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->\n\n预计送达日期：07/23/26\n请用力按压\nUSPS TRACKING® #（美国邮政追踪号）\n10007 $12.90\n1 磅 14.00 盎司\n已指定送达日期\n包含 USPS 追踪服务*\n收件人：\n包含保险*\n可上门取件\nThurgood Marshall Court（瑟古德·马歇尔法院大楼），纽约南区联邦地区法院\n40 Foley Square\n2013年7月 请访问 USPS 网站\n\n<!-- 本页由 tesseract OCR 补全（原为扫描图像页） -->","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":"2026-09-04 11:47:25"}