---
type: court_doc
id: "court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_38"
court: "2Cir"
case_no: ""
doc_number: null
doc_type: "DOC"
filed_date: null
lang: "zh"
url: "https://mubeitech.com/court/court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_38"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_38"
---
# 2Cir ECF 25-2726_dkt_38

**动议及请愿——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,第二巡回上诉法院 25-2726 号,ECF #38(公开涂改版2026年3月16日归档,原件3月9日提交)。CVRA 犯罪被害人 Ryan Bai(即 Ranyue Bai)以 pro se 身份提交'撤回调卷令并以修改案名重新申请 mandamus 及涂改个人信息'的动议,并附带其重新提起的《申请令状》及证据A-F,要求撤销2026年1月21日发出的调卷令、准许重新提起 mandamus、指令上传涂改版卷宗、以'In re: Ryan Bai'重新命名案名以保护隐私。Bai 主张地区法院曾将其未涂改的原始 mandamus 请愿以 Dkt. 765 公开归档,泄露其姓名、住址、邮箱及电话,且四个多月未受理其 CVRA 相关提交。**


> 原始法庭文件为英文；下方为英文全文，顶部为中文摘要。

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 1 of 54
i
Public Redacted Documents for
Docketing
1;
;°»~.8
•
ii .
;;1~;l
g
i
...,..»1
C5"`»
s
- ' , '
( . u
" , : I
.'..4'.:
I . "in
2
- a l
W I N  P
l " . l ; \ ;
:1"
(_./7
`\I
843
. .
3
i n
v"
8
Ra"
~~""x
3 .. .
.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 2 of 54
Certificate of Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In re:l
Case No: 25-2728
SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)
I, Ryan Bail
, hereby certify as follows:
On March 09, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following
documents:
1: Motion to Recall the Mandate and Renew Petition for Mandamus with an
Amended Caption, and to Redact Personal information
2: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
3: Exhibit A-F
Nathan Rehn
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10278
Executed on March 09, 2026.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Bai

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 3 of 54
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT
In re:
, Petitioner
SDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT
Second Circuit No. 25-2726
Motion to Reeall the Mandate and Renew Petition for
Mandamus with an Amended Caption, and to Redact
Personal Information
I, Ryan Bai, appearing pro se, pursuant to this Court's Order dated November 26,
2025 (Exhibit C), which stated that the petition for mandamus was denied without
prejudice to renewal if the district court failed to docket Petitioner's submissions
within a reasonable time, respectfully move this Honorable Court to:
1. Recall the Mandate issued on January 21, 2026.
2. Permit renewal of the petition for a writ of mandamus.
3. Direct that public or redacted versions of Petitioner's filings be
uploaded to the public docket, including the redacted petition for writ of
mandamus, the redacted version of this motion, and all accompanying
exhibits.
4. Redact personal identifying information, including any real names,
address, email address, or phone number appearing on the envelope,
1080 form, or payment check.
5. Seal the document under sealed envelopes.
6. Amend the case caption to reflect In re: Ryan Bai, while maintaining
the same case number, in order to better protect my privacy.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 and the Court's

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 4 of 54
inherent authority to protect privacy and safety, redaction of such sensitive
information and changing the caption is both necessary and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Bai I
March 09, 2026

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 5 of 54
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
In re:
,
Victim in United States M Kwok, et al. ,
SDNY No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)
Second Circuit Case No. 25-2726
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
I. Introduction
I, Ryan Bai, a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. §3771, respectfully submit this Renewed Petition for Writ of
Mandamus in Case No. 25-2726.
My initial Mandamus was docketed by this Court on October 28, 2025 which
sought for relief to order the District Court to docket my suppressed motions
(Exhibits A, B) and to direct the District Court to adjudicate the rule60(d) motion,
which i filed in SDNY Dkt. 733.
.
This renewal is filed pursuant to this Court's Order dated November 26, 2025
(Exhibit C), which denied the prior petition without prejudice to renewal if the
district court fails to docket my submissions within a reasonable time, also denied
without prejudice to renew the rule60(d) after sentencing. The present petition is
limited solely to the district court's continued failure to docket CVRA and related
submissions. This petition does not seek renewal of any relief concerning
Rule 60(d)(3) and does not challenge any substantive ruling in the
underlying criminal case.
II. Background and New Developments

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 6 of 54
.
Disclosure of My PII by the District Court and Failed to
Correet:
In proceedings before the district court, I have consistently redacted my
personally identifiable information (PII) in light of the heightened public
attention surrounding this case and the likelihood of media review. Given
the extensive public commentary and third-party coverage associated with
the underlying criminal matter, l took precautionary measures to protect my
privacy in all district court filings.
When i first filed pro se in the Second Circuit, I was unfamiliar with the
Circuit's specific formatting and redaction practices. Accordingly, my initial
appellate submission was not formatted with the same level of redaction as
my district court filings. This was not intentional noncompliance, but rather
a result of inexperience with appellate procedures.
After the Southern District of New York docketed the unredacted version of
my mandamus petition as Dkt. 765, thereby publicly disclosing my name,
address, email, and telephone number, I promptly sought corrective relief. I
submitted an emergency (Exhibit E) request to the SDNY Pro Se Intake
seeking removal or sealing of the unredacted filing and replacing it with a
redacted version on the same day I discovered the disclosure. I also tiled
an emergency motion in this Court requesting that my mandamus petition
be sealed and replaced with a redacted version (25-2726 Dkt. 11). The
Clerk's Office of this Court promptly assisted me, and the motion was
granted on November 18, 2025. I am grateful for this Court's timely action
to protect privacy interests.
After this Court granted my motion to seal my original mandamus petition,
the District Court nevertheless docketed Dkt. 766, which was a redacted
version of my petition. Although the district court was aware that this Court
had sealed the original appellate filing, and although it was in possession
of my properly redacted version, the district court has failed to remove or
further redact the previously filed unredacted version (Dkt. 765).
In contrast, despite having been notified more than four months ago,
the district court has taken no action to remove or seal and properly
redact Dkt. 765, leaving my personally identifiable information
publicly accessible.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 7 of 54
• Ongoing Secondary Victimization:
In recent weeks, there has been a coordinated online campaign targeting
pro se participants in this matter. My name and professional affiliation have
been publicly referenced in connection with those attacks, creating a risk of
intimidation and chilling effect on my continued exercise of statutory rights.
I have documented these events in detail in Second Circuit Docket No.
25-2726, Dkt. 35.
The failure to remedy the public disclosure of my unredacted
information implicates my statutory right to dignity and privacy under
18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(8) and has caused ongoing secondary
victimization through subsequent misuse of the disclosed
information.
.
Expanded Mandamus Filing:
Based on the above facts, E filed Exhibit D seeking expanded mandamus
relief in the month of November, 2025. However, due to the unique
procedural complexities of pro se appellate filings, that submission
contained procedural defects. The Court's original order regarding my
initial mandamus petition predated the docketing of the expanded filing. in
an effort to comply with the applicable procedural requirements and to cure
the identified deficiencies, l submitted a Motion for Leave to Cure the
Expanded Mandamus Petition on December 22, 2025 (Dkt. 26, 27),
seeking permission to correct the defects and properly present the
requested relief. On January 15, 2026, this Court denied the Motion for
Leave.
III. Concerns of CVRA and Record Integrity
.
No CVRA Motion was Docketed Since this Court's Order:
It has been more than four months since this Court issued its order
on November 26, 2025 in Case No. 25-2726. During that period, the
district court has not docketed a single motion filed under the Crime
Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). Furthermore, during the district court's status
conference held on January 20, 2026 (Exhibit F), the court made no
reference to the CVRA or to any pending CVRA-related submissions. The

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 8 of 54
only statement remotely touching upon such filings was a passing
reference to certain "complaints" that had been received. The
characterization of filings asserting statutory CVRA rights as mere
"complaints" raises concerns that the victim submissions have not
been recognized or processed as motions invoking federally
protected rights.
In contrast, following the district court's status conference on January 20,
2026, at least three additional related Mandamus petitions were docketed
in this Court, including Case Nos. 26-361, 26-364, and 26-441 .
The fact that additional petitions from third parties continue to be
filed in this Court further demonstrates that the underlying
issue--namely, the district court's failure to docket or process victim
submissions-remains ongoing. Therefore, despite this Court's
November 26, 2025 order, there has been no meaningful improvement in
the district court's handling of such filings.
Concerns of Record Integrity :
1: Inconsistent Treatment of Address Disclosure Raises Concerns
Regarding Record Integrity:
As described in Exhibit D (the expanded mandamus submission), the
district court has previously recognized that the public disclosure of private
home addresses of individuals involved in this matter may pose risks to the
judicial process. in SDNY Dkt. 7, the prosecution alleged that supporters of
the defendant had posted the private addresses of the Chapter 11 Trustee
and related individuals online and encouraged protests at those locations.
in SDNY Dkt. 51 , the district court referenced those allegations in
discussing concerns regarding potential intimidation and obstruction. in
contrast, the district court subsequently docketed my unredacted
mandamus petition as Dkt. 765, which contained my home address and
other personally identifiable information. After discovering the disclosure, I
promptly submitted an emergency request seeking redaction or sealing.
Despite that request, the unredacted filing has remained publicly
accessible for an extended period. This sequence of events appears
difficult to reconcile with the privacy concerns previously recognized

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 9 of 54
in the case and raises concerns regarding the consistent application
of privacy protections within the court record.
2: Inconsist Docketing of Mandamus Filings Raises Procedural
Concerns:
Although I do not dispute that the District Court possesses discretion
regarding docketing procedures, its prior practice reflects a consistent
approach in treating certain Second Circuit mandamus submissions as
part of the district court record. Specifically, several related mandamus
matters - including Nos. 25-2726, 25-3064, and 26-0077 - were
docketed on the SDNY docket. By contrast, recent filings, including Nos.
26-0361, 26-0364, and 26-0441, have not been docketed to date. Where
the District Court has established a practice of docketing
mandamus-related submissions, consistent application of that practice is
necessary to ensure procedural fairness and avoid arbitrary or inconsistent
treatment. Docketing decisions should follow neutral administrative criteria
and not depend on the substantive content of a filing. Accordingly, the
same principle of consistent treatment should apply both to Exhibit D
(Expanded Mandamus) and to the present Renewed Petition for Writ
of Mandamus. As filings arising from the same appellate matter, they
should be processed in a manner consistent with the Court's prior
treatment of similar submissions in order to preserve record integrity and
procedural uniformity.
IV. Cheney and 18 U.S.C. §3771(d)(3)
.
No Other Adequate Means to Obtain Relief:
in the October 28, 2025 Order in Case No. 25-2726, this Court denied the
petition "without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the
submissions within a reasonable time." More than four months have
elapsed since that order, my previously filed motions (Exhibits A and B)
were not docketed until recently.
Despite the passage of time, the district court's January 20, 2026 status
conference did not reference the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The only
related statement characterized certain submissions as "complaints,"
without addressing their statutory basis under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (Exhibit F).

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 10 of 54
The classification of CVRA submissions as "complaints" prevents
the creation of an appellate order and effectively forecloses ordinary
appellate review.
Notably, in connection with my initial mandamus petition, I contacted the
district court clerk's office and was informed that certain third-party
submissions would not be uploaded to the public docket in order to "protect
privacy." while privacy protection is a legitimate administrative objective,
the subsequent public docketing of my unredacted mandamus petition in
Dkt. 765-disclosing my PII-and the failure to timely correct or seal and
redact that filing appear inconsistent with the stated privacy rationale.
Because the court has not implemented the prior directive permitting
renewal if docketing does not occur within a reasonable time, no adequate
alternative remedy exists. Renewal of mandamus relief is therefore
necessary to preserve the statutory scheme and to give effect to this
Court's prior order.
• A Clear and Indisputable Right to Relief
This Court's prior order on October 28, 2025 expressly contemplated
renewal of the mandamus petition if the district court failed to docket my
submissions within a reasonable time.
More than four months have now elapsed, and the relevant submissions
have still not been docketed.
Accordingly, the condition identified by this Court for renewal of the petition
has been satisfied .
.
Mandamus is Appropriate Under the Circumstances
First, more than four months have now elapsed since this Court's
November 26, 2025 order permitting renewal if the district court failed to
docket the relevant submissions within a reasonable time. Despite the
passage of that period, the district court has taken no corrective action.
Second, the requested relief would ensure that properly filed mandamus
submissions - including those previously addressed by this Court - are
consistently docketed in a manner that preserves record completeness.
Selective or inconsistent docketing may result in incomplete procedural
record and undermine transparency.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 11 of 54
Third, the continued public availability of my unredacted personally
identifiable information - including my full name, home address, and
employment-related information and failure to correct after I submitted an
emergency motion- has resulted in online dissemination and subsequent
targeting (25-2726, Dkt. 35). The continued maintenance of unredacted
filings, despite emergency requests for correction, raises ongoing concerns
regarding the reliability and completeness of the public record. When
sensitive information remains publicly accessible without timely remedial
action, limited supervisory intervention may be necessary to prevent
further procedural harm.
Mandamus relief is therefore appropriate where needed to prevent
procedural deficiencies and to ensure that lower~court actions do not
frustrate this Court's supervisory authority.
V. Relief Sought
I respectfully request that this Court issue a renewed writ of mandamus directing
the following relief:
1. Pursuant to this Court's November 26, 2025 Order in Case No. 25-2726, order
the district court to docket redacted CVRA motions, Exhibits A and B, on the
SDNY docket.
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and applicable privacy rules and prevent
further unauthorized dissemination of protected personal information, order the
district court to seal Dkt.765 or redact my PH including my real name, email,
phone number and address in Dkt. 765.
3. Pursuant to this Court's supervisory authority and in the interest of record
integrity and procedural consistency, order the district court to docket Exhibit D
and the redacted version of present renewed petition consistent with its prior
practice regarding related mandamus submissions, or in the alternative, issue a
written order stating the grounds for any refusal to docket.
Respectfully submitted:
Ryan Bai I
March 09, 2026

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 12 of 54
Exhibit B Emergency Motion:
Court Must Stop Suppressing CRVA
Rights and Grave Misstep and
Docket victim Motions and Prevent
Collapse of Proceedings in Light of
Unaddressed Prosecutorial Fraud -
After Three Successive Defendants
Counsel Failures, Victim Forced to
Seek Rule 33 and Prosecution
Misconduct with Prejudice Relief
(RE: ECF 733,739,742,744)

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 13 of 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
;
;
:
iii
i
HO WAN KWOK,a/kla MILES Guo, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT
;
Emergency Motion: Court Must Stop Suppressing CRVA Rights
and Grave Misstep and Docket Victim Motions and Prevent
Collapse of Proceedings in Light of Unaddressed Prosecutorial
Fraud -- After Three Successive Defendants Counsel Failures,
Victim Forced to Seek Rule 33 and Prosecution Misconduct with
Prejudice Relief (RE: ECF 733, 739, 742,744)
The Honorable Analisa Torres
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Dear Judge Torres:
Background: The court has deprived victims of their rights.
I, Ryan Bai, a recognized victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, previously filed ECF
No. 733 addressing serious prosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the court.
Right after my document was docketed, another victim filed ECF Nos. 739, 742
to attack my victim status, I filed ECF No. 744 to address these attacks
subsequently. However, I am now subject to systematic suppression by the
Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. My motion filed on September 14, 2025 which is also related to the fraud-

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 14 of 54
upon-the-court issue, was suppressed for two weeks. Subsequently, on
September 19, 2025, I filed a motion to compel, which has now been suppressed
for one week. During this period, the prosecution, the trustee, and attorneys
representing other entities have faced no obstacles in accessing the docket.
Meanwhile, all victims, including myself, have been systematically prevented
from uploading any motions. This conduct by the Clerk's Office of the Southern
District of New York constitutes a systemic violation of victims' rights and
interests under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, specifically including, but not limited to, the
following :
1.
2.
3.
The Right to Be Reasonably Heard (18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4))
The Right to Proceedings Free from Unreasonable Delay (18 U.S.C. §
3771 (a)(7))
The Right to Be Treated with Fairness and Respect for Dignity and Privacy
(18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8))
The procedures in this case have suffered a severe breakdown
O
Defense counsel have changed three times, yet none have raised the
government's Brady violations, highlighting a systemic defense failure.
o
Victims have begun disputing one another's standing, and filings such as ECF
Nos. 739 and 742 seek to undermine victims' legitimacy by suggesting they are
aligned with the Defendant. In contrast, while the prosecution and the trustee
filed ECF Nos. 750, 751, to reply to a prior defense motion, it has entirely failed
to address my earlier filing, ECF No. 733, which set forth allegations of
prosecutorial fraud upon the Court. Allegations of fraud upon the Court should
receive the highest level of judicial attention, yet, rather than promptly confronting
these serious issues, the prosecution has disregarded them. This disparate
treatment demonstrates that the prosecution-even while accused of
perpetrating fraud upon the Court-has been afforded preferential access to the
judicial process, while victims raising substantive concerns have been excluded.
Such circumstances reveal a structural procedural failure undermining the
fairness of these proceedings.
O
Other victims' counsel (e.g,, filings by Geyer) have been challenged as
representing problematic claims. These circumstances reflect a broader
collapse of procedural safeguards.
o
The Pro se filing has crashed the pro se department, the court has to recruit a
pro se manager to reduce the risk. This is another proof of the crash of the

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 15 of 54
judicial process in this case
I
o
i
1
I
The current NFSC leader Qingteng (aka. Forrest Zhou/Yue Zhou) and
spokesperson Ava Chan (aka Rechael, Sherry) registered as victims in Yvett
Wang's sentencing hearing, however, they have been continuously obstructing
defendant's sentencing proceeding by different means for more than 1 year,
including faking visit record of federal prison, illegally endorsing the TDCCP
virtual currency in the name of the defendant, causing significant financial losses
to followers. According to another NFSC member Laojiang, some investors in
China have already committed suicide as a result. Under Qingtent's leadership,
the Alliance also endorsed a suspicious account in the name of Guo's daughter,
spreading suspicious information. However, the prosecution failed to react to
their obstructing behavior, the prosecution failed to arrest, detain any NFSC
co-conspirator (e.g. Yongbing Zhang who again claimed visited the MDC to
meet the defendant, meanwhile being identified as a co-conspiritor in
different court documents), and failed to clarify these suspicious activities
by the alleged co-conspirator, failed to address some victims's obstructing
behaviors, which proofs that the prosecution failed to fulfill its obligation.
O
As I mentioned in ECF No. 733, the trustee and the prosecution have never
addressed the creditor registration issue (Gongzu, Julia) from the beginning of
this case until now, recent filings 750 and 751 serve as the strongest evidence of
continued collaboration between Luc and the prosecution in engaging in
misconduct and perpetrating fraud upon the court.
o
The prosecution has failed to oppose Trustee Luc A. Despins, despite
being aware that his role prioritizes the interests of creditors-many of
whom, as demonstrated in ECF No. 738, are largely unreliable-over the
interests of victims in this case.
O
ECF No. 733, authored by a victim rather than the defendant's counsel,
exposes serious misconduct and fraud upon the court by the prosecution and the
trustee, Luc A. Despins. This filing stands as the most compelling evidence of a
systemic procedural breakdown in this case.
O
The Court's Mailing of Orders to Mainland China Victim»Petitioners Constitutes
a GraveMisstep:
On September 22 and 24, 2025, the Court docketed two "return mail" entries
related to victim~petitioners Chunk Chyi and Beibei Zhu. These entries confirm
that the Clerk's Office mailed court orders directly to addresses in mainland
China. At the outset, I a hundred percent agree with Judge Torres' prior
statement that this case is an economic matter without political elements.
However, that characterization applies only within the United States. in practice,
for victim-petitioners who currently reside in mainland China, participation in this

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 16 of 54
case carries severe political consequences far beyond the courtroom. By mailing
court documents to these individuals, the Court has inadvertently triggered highly
complex political risks and, more gravely, exposed victims to catastrophic
scenarios in which their personal liberty and very lives may be endangered. The
danger was not speculative. In ECF No. 507, filed by victim-petitioner Chunk
Chyi, he himself warned: "I am not sure whether what I wrote will lead to my
arrest by the Chinese government." This was explicit notice on the record of the
risk. Yet, notwithstanding that warning, the Court continued to mail sensitive
orders to mainland China addresses. Such conduct constitutes a grave misstep
and violates core statutory rights guaranteed to victims under the Crime Victims'
Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771):
O
The Right to Be Treated with Fairness and Respect for Dignity and Privacy (§
3771 (a)(8)): Exposing victims to known foreign-state reprisals by disclosing their
participation is the antithesis of fairness and dignity.
i
o
The Right to Reasonable Protection from the Accused and Others (§ 3771(a)(1)):
While the statute usually concerns protection from the defendant, its logic
extends to foreseeable external dangers. Mailing to hostile jurisdictions
recklessly disregards this protection.
O
The Right to Proceedings Free from Unreasonable Delay (§3771(a)(7)): By
creating conditions where victims may be detained, silenced, or placed at risk,
the Court has jeopardized their ability to participate without delay or obstruction.
This risk is further corroborated by defense witness Yijian Hu, who testified in
open court about the political reprisals he personally suffered as a direct
consequence of this case. While I fully support Judge Torres' prior statement
that this case is fundamentally an economic matter without political
elements, the Court cannot ignore the evidentiary reality that Mr. Hu's ordeal
must have been genuine - for if it were not, his testimony would amount to
perjury. Thus, whether the Court wishes to acknowledge political dimensions or
not, the political risks faced by participants in mainland China are undeniable.
As trained judicial officers, the Court and Clerk's Office are expected torecognize
these foreseeable risks. The decision to mail orders into such a hostile
jurisdiction was therefore not a harmless clerical error, but a grave misstep
that disregarded both the record before the Court and the predictable
consequences to vulnerable victims.
In sum, the Court's mailing practice did not merely constitute a clerical
lapse -- it placed victims in jeopardy of state retaliation and life-threatening
consequences. That decision, even if unintended, represents a systemic

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 17 of 54
breakdown in safeguarding victim rights and must be urgently addressed
to prevent irreparable harm.
Risk of Becoming The Most Extreme Instance of Judicial Fraud
Since the Founding of The Nation:
As l listed in my motion on Sep 14, 2025 which was suppressed by the Court, I
would list the same comparison here:
Comparative Gravity
This case exceeds the seriousness of both Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. and
Strickland v. Washington from two perspectives:
t.
Fraud-upon-the-Court (Hazel-Atlas comparison).
In Hazel-Atlas, fraud was limited to the concealment of a single ghostwritten article
that misled the Third Circuit. Here, the misconduct is broader and systemic:
O
According to EFT No. 733 and the attached report, the prosecution and
Trustee Luc A. Despins repeatedly misled multiple judges (Judge Parker,
Judge Torres, Judge Manning, and the Second Circuit) across separate
proceedings.
O
The concealment and distortion of Brady material-such as Defendant's
January 10, 11, and 23, 2023, broadcasts identifying problematic creditors-
resulted in long-termreliance on false premises that shaped bail, forfeiture,
and bankruptcy rulings.
O
The fraud is not an isolated episode but a two-year structural practice of
deceiving courts and suppressing evidence.
2. Ineffective Assistance and Defense Breakdown (Strickland comparison).
In Strickland, the Court recognized ineffective assistance where one defense lawyer
failed to adequately investigate mitigating evidence. In this case, however:
O
Three successive defense teams have ignored or declined to raise the
prosecution's Brady violations and systemic misconduct.
O
Defendant himself, in ECF No. 700, discharged his counsel and stated he was
"very disappointed" because "not even the basics" were done.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 18 of 54
O
The consistent failure across multiple lawyers reflects not mere negligence but
a structural collapse of the defense function, leaving victims-not defense
counsel-to identify prosecutorial violations.
Therefore, the scale of judicial fraud here surpasses Hazel-Atlas, which involved
only one appellate misrepresentation, the defense failure here far exceeds the
individual lapse in Strickland, amounting to systemic.ineffective assistance
across multiple counsel over years.
No case in the history of the United States has exhibited such an
unprecedented degree of severity in both prosecutorial misconduct and
ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, this case satisfies the
criteria to be regarded as the most extreme instance of judicial fraud since
the founding of the nation.
First Victim-Led Exposure of Systemic Judicial Misconduct in
U.S. History:
As reflected in the record (see ECF No. 733 and accompanying exhibits), the
events in this case have placed me in an unprecedented position within the
history of American criminal procedure. I have no formal legal training, I am not a
party's lawyer, and l have no institutional authority to conduct litigation. Yet,
faced with a multi~Iayered collapse of adversarial safeguards --~ successive
defense teams that failed to investigate or to vindicate evidentiary matters crucial
to fairness, and prosecutorial and trustee conduct that the record now shows
may have misled multiple courts - l was compelled, as a private citizen and an
injured investor, to undertake the factual and documentary investigation that the
adversarial system did not produce.
What I have submitted to this Court is not conjecture. it is a compilation of
documentary evidence, timestamps, public broadcasts, and court filings that,
when read together, present a coherent account of procedural failures and
possible misconduct (ECF No. 733). That a non-lawyer victim -- acting alone
and without institutional power ....-. has assembled and presented this body of
material, which bears directly on the integrity of the entire procedure, including
the bail proceedings, and the forfeiture process etc, is itself historically
significant. lt demonstrates that the ordinary checks and balances of the criminal

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 19 of 54
•
•
.
.
I hold no prejudice against the defendant's political inclinations and
maintain a neutral stance.
.
I fully support Judge Torres' characterization of this case as an economic
matter, devoid of political elements.
As a victim, although I have exposed the systemic fraud upon the court
and collaborative misconduct by the prosecution and trustee Luc, I remain
in opposition to the defendant, whose actions have undeniably caused
profound harm to my investments.
Although I, as a victim, have exposed the collaborative misconduct
and fraud upon the court by the prosecution and Luc, I believe they
are not the primary parties responsible. If the three successive
defense counsel teams had not all turned a blind eye to the
prosecution's violations, the current absurd situation would not have
arisen. Therefore, l assert that defense counsel should take proactive
responsibility for addressing the systemic procedural breakdown.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court:
.
•
.
Recognize the systemic breakdown of adversarial safeguards in this case,
as documented in ECF No. 733 and subsequent filings, where
prosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the Court were exposed not by
defense counsel, but by the victim myself.
Because victims in this case have been subjected to systemic
suppression - by the defendant and by the prosecution and Trustee
through concealment of evidence, by Defendant's successive
counsel through repeated failure to set, and most recently by the
Court's Clerk's Office through suppression of victim filings - I, as a
victim, am left with no meaningful procedural remedy. It is only under
these extraordinary circumstances that I am compelled to request
that Defendant's counsel be directed to state, within fourteen (14)
days, whether they intend to move for a new trial under Rule 33 and
to raise Prosecutorial Misconduct with Prejudice, or to explain why
they decline to do so.
Affirm that victims must not be silenced or suppressed, and that filings
exposing fraud upon the Court should be docketed and adjudicated rather
than ignored, in compliance with 18 u.s.c. § 3771, also no suppressing in
future filings,

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 20 of 54
!
i
I
I
1
¥
2
g
g
.
•
Upload the public version of this motion and the attached Chinese version
to the public while maintaining the signed version under seal on the Clerk's
docket for the Court's full consideration.
That the Clerk of Court cease mailing any court orders, notices, or
correspondence to victim-petitioners with known addresses in mainland
China, unless such victim-petitioners have expressly and affirmatively
requested delivery to those addresses in writing, so as to avoid creating
foreseeable risks of political retaliation, personal harm, or other irreparable
injury.
Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
E
i!
I
I
I|.
I
EI
!I!1I
E
5l!
I
rI!
EII:
|.I
Due to the Court's ongoing suppression of victim filings, I am left
with no choice but to notify all relevant stakeholders to ensure
transparency and protect victims' statutory rights. These
stakeholders include, but are not limited to:
a
i
i
:
i
i
.
ii!I:
E
3
.
.
Defendant's current and former counsel, who bear primary
responsibility for addressing Prosecutorial Misconduct with
Prejudice and Rule 33 issues;
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York,
including supervisory prosecutors overseeing this matter,
Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee of the Second Circuit, which
has supervisory responsibility regarding the fair administration of justice,
Victim Rights Committees and the Court-appointed Victim Coordinator, as
suppression of filings directly violates 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ,
Other victims and third-party petitioners under 21 U.S.C. § 853, whose
rights are equally jeopardized by procedural suppression,
Relevant congressional oversight committees, should judicial and
prosecutorial misconduct rise to the level of systemic failure.
Reservation of Rights
I expressly reserve my rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, including the right to seek
mandamus review before the Second Circuit if this motion is ignored or denied
without adjudication, as well as any additional remedies available under law.
Declaration of Good Faith: I submit this motion in good faith and not for any
improper purpose. The factual assertions and exhibits referenced herein are

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 21 of 54
a
iI
sI
II1
4
sI
s
8II
iI
I
iIEi:|.
I
:I
i
:aI:Is
iI
i
EI!
Exhibit A: Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754:
|I
I|
Addressing Complicity in Court Fraud
and Urging Discussion of Judicial
Recusal
a

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 22 of 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HO WAN KWOK,a/kla MILES Guo, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT
Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754: Addressing Complicity in
Court Fraud and Urging Discussion of Judicial Recusal
The Honorable Analisa Torres
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
I. Introduction
I, Ryan Bai, as a victim of this case, submit this Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754 to address
the ongoing and unresolved issues highlighted in my prior filing, Dkt. 733, regarding
prosecutorial misconduct and suspected court fraud. For over one month, my Dkt. 733
report detailing judicial fraud and systemic prosecutorial misconduct has gone
unaddressed by the Court, the prosecution, or defense counsel.
Despite this, Dkt. 754-filed by defense counsel-advances forfeiture proceedings,
ostensibly to mitigate the risk of asset depletion. However, given the unresolved
allegations in Dkt. 733, any action to advance forfeiture is procedurally improper.
Based on the allegations of prosecutorial fraud outlined in Docket 733 and the
accompanying report, all associated forfeiture orders, including the Preliminary Order of
Forfeiture (POF), are null and void, thereby rendering any further proceedings
fundamentally illegitimate.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 23 of 54
The recent filings, including Dkt. 754 and the Government's Dkt. 750, exemplify fraud
upon the court and suggest possible collusion between defense counsel and the
prosecution, as neither party has acknowledged or acted on the unresolved issues I
raised regarding asset control, creditor disputes, or the Trustee's role in the bankruptcy
estate.
II. Background
As outlined in Dkt. 733, for over two years the prosecution failed to verify or correct
creditor issues with Luc, resulting in severe harm to victims tike myself. The report
documents systemic misconduct across multiple courts, including Judge Parker,
Judge Torres, and the Second Circuit, posing a direct threat to the integrity of judicial
decisions.
Despite these allegations, the Court, the prosecution, and defense counsel have
remained silent, allowing forfeiture proceedings to advance under a potentially
fraudulent framework. Defense counsel's Dkt. 754 motion requests the Court to
authorize the Government to manage forfeiture of assets from Luc. While intended to
protect against asset depletion, this request implicitly advances a procedure that is
invalid as documented in Dkt 733.
I have previously requested under Rule 60 that the Court void the existing forfeiture
orders and appoint a neutral third-party receiver or master to oversee any forfeiture
proceedings. To date, this motion has received no response, and no party has acted
to halt or correct the ongoing forfeiture process.
Ill. Procedural Impropriety and Complicity
1. Advancing Forfeiture Without Addressing Fraud Allegations:
Proceeding with forfeiture under the current circumstances is procedurally
improper because it assumes the legitimacy of orders that may be null and
void due to alleged court fraud. Defense counsel's Dkt. 754 motion, by
requesting the Government to seize and manage assets, risks facilitating fraud
upon the court rather than protecting victims' interests.
2. Complicity Concerns:
The prosecution's continued inaction after Dkt. 733, combined with defense
counsel's Dkt. 754 motion, prosecution's Dkt. 750 and the Court's silence, raises
the reasonable suspicion of collaborative complicity in court fraud. The
ongoing forfeiture process is proceeding without any corrective oversight, despite

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 24 of 54
clear documentation of prior misconduct.
3. Judicial Silence and Impaired impartiality:
As documented in Dkt.733 and the attached report, Judge Torres has been
exposed to fraudulent filings multiple times and, despite my victim report, has
remained silent. This raises serious concerns regarding judicial impartiality
and the Court's ability to oversee the forfeiture process fairly. Both defense
counsel and the Court should have acted to correct procedural collapse or
pause the forfeiture process until fraud allegations are addressed. Judicial
silence in the face of substantiated fraud allegations constitutes constructive
acquiescence, which is incompatible with due process obligations under the Fifth
Amendment.
IV. Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CRVA)
The continuation of forfeiture proceedings despite unresolved allegations of court fraud
constitutes a direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771 ).
As a victim, I have the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect, and to be
reasonably heard in proceedings involving the forfeiture of assets derived from the
offense. By suppressing Dkt. 733 and disregarding its content, the Court, prosecution,
and defense have collectively deprived victims of their statutory right to participate in a
fair and transparent process.
The CRVA requires that victims' concerns-particularly those alleging prosecutorial
misconduct and fraud upon the court affecting the legitimacy of forfeiture-be
addressed before any substantive action proceeds. Advancing forfeiture under
fraudulent conditions not only undermines procedural justice but also perpetuates the
very harm that the CRVAwas enacted to prevent.
This systemic disregard for victims' procedural rights reinforces the appearance that
both the Court and counsel are complicit in shielding institutional misconduct rather than
ensuring accountability and redress for victims.
V. Continuation of the Systematic Breakdown Identified in the September
28 Motion (suppressed and not docketed)
The ongoing pattern of silence and procedural deviation directly aligns with the
"systematic breakdown of judicial process" described in my prior motion submitted on
September 28, which the Court failed to docket. That motion detailed how multiple
actors-the prosecution, defense, and the Could-have allowed structural defects in
due process to persist, including the suppression of victim filings, selective docketing,
and the failure to correct known creditor registration issues.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 25 of 54
3
i
justice system were, in practice, ineffective in identifying or correcting the
problems at issue.
This Court should treat that fact not as a rhetorical flourish but as a sober
evidentiary reality with consequences. The reality that a private injured party was
forced into the investigatory role normally borne by counsel and prosecutors is a
measure of systemic breakdown, it is an indicium that ordinary institutional
remedies may have been exhausted or rendered ineffective. For victims, for
defendants, and for the public's confidence in the rule of law, that reality compels
rigorous, transparent review rather than perfunctory dismissal.
I do not claim any glory in this role. I present it only to place the Court on notice
of why the matters raised in ECF No. 733 - and the remedies I request - are
not peripheral or speculative: they are the product of an extraordinary factual
record compiled by a private victim precisely because responsible counsel and
public officers did not do so. The import of that record, and the remedy
appropriate to it, are questions this Court must confront on their merits.
As an immigrant born in mainland China and later naturalized as a United States
citizen, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to participate in this case,
made possible by the robust foundation of the American legal system and the
continuous efforts of our nation's founders to refine and perfect judicial
processes. My actions in this matter are driven by a deep belief in the principles
of judicial independence and fairness, which I seek to uphold in honor of their
legacy. l express my gratitude to the United States for embracing me as a citizen,
and I remain steadfast in my faith in the American judicial system. My efforts in
this case are a commitment to advancing the pursuit of justice and equity, as
envisioned by those who established this nation's legal framework.
When future generations examine this chapter of history, some will be
remembered as heroes and others as jesters. At the very least, I have refused to
be the latter.
Statements :
Before seeking relief, I wish to make the following declarations:
.
I hold no prejudice against the Chinese government and maintain a neutral
stance.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 26 of 54
These failures are not isolated procedural oversights but manifestations of an
institutionalized collapse of judicial integrity. The scope and depth of misconduct and
fraud upon the court issue that is documented in Dkt. 733 and the September 28 motion
arguably constitute the most serious instances of judicial fraud in the history of the
United States-surpassing the misconduct standards addressed in Hazel-Atlas Glass
Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) and the ineffective assistance
thresholds defined in Strickland v. Washington.
The current advancement of forfeiture proceedings, while the Court remains silent on
Dkt. 733, is a continuation of that systemic failure. It demonstrates that the Court's
administrative and substantive processes have been compromised to a degree that no
longer ensures impartial adjudication or transparency. This continued procedural
breakdown not only denies victims access to lawful remedies but also institutionalizes
misconduct, making judicial correction impossible unless external oversight-such as a
neutral receiver or independent master-is imposed .
VI. Constitutional Violations Underlying Procedural Collapse
The continued advancement of forfeiture proceedings, while the Court has failed to
address the substantiated allegations of prosecutorial fraud, constitutes multiple
constitutional violations. First, it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, because property deprivation and related procedural actions are
proceeding on a foundation potentially tainted by fraud upon the court, depriving victims
of a fair and lawful process. Second, it implicates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, as victim filings and critical reports-like Dkt. 733 and the
suppressed September 28 motion-have been ignored, while prosecution and defense
filings are selectively docketed and acted upon. Third, the ongoing procedural collapse
undermines the Sixth Amendment right to fair representation, as defense counsel,
by advancing forfeiture under conditions of suspected fraud without addressing these
critical issues, may be complicit in perpetuating a procedurally invalid process.
Collectively, these constitutional failures demonstrate that the judicial process has been
compromised to the point of causing direct and ongoing harm to victims' rights,
necessitating immediate corrective intervention.
VII. Call for Corrective Action
The Court, the prosecution, and defense counsel have each failed to respond to my
prior filing, Dkt. 733, which detailed credible and document-supported allegations of
prosecutorial misconduct and fraud upon the court. Despite the gravity of these
allegations, all parties have proceeded with substantive actions -- including the

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 27 of 54
advancement of forfeiture proceedings under Dkt. 754 - as though no such allegations
exist.
This constitutes a procedural collapse that strikes at the core of due process and the
integrity of the judicial system. Under long-standing constitutional principles, no court
may continue substantive proceedings where there is an unresolved claim that prior
orders or filings were procured through fraud. Doing so renders all subsequent
proceedings void ab initio, as actions built upon fraudulent or procedurally tainted
foundations cannot carry legal validity.
Given the circumstances, I respectfully request the following:
1.
raised in Dkt. 733 are addressed,
Immediate suspension of all ongoing forfeiture procedures until the issues
2.
forfeiture proceedings, as no party implicated in Dkt. 733 should control the
process,
Appointment of a neutral third~party receiver or master to oversee any
3. Discussion of judicial recusal due to the Court's exposure to fraudulent filings
and compromised impartiality,
4. Transparency requirement: if no discussion or action regarding indicial recusal
occurs within 14 days, I request that the Court publicly state its reasons for
declining to address the issue.
These steps are necessary to protect victims' rights, ensure procedural legitimacy, and
restore confidence in the judicial process. Proceeding without these measures risks
further damage to victims' rights and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Bar

---

i
:
i
I
i:
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 28 of 54
;
a
EIs.|s
IiI::
!IIIII
I:
II
III
Ii!
II
III
E
ii
Exhibit C: Order on November 26, 2025
for 25-2726
:
|
:

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 29 of 54
S.D.N.Y.
N.Y.C.
23-cr-l 18
Torres, J.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At 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 261" day of November, two thousand twenty-five.
Present:
Dennis Jacobs,
Joseph F. Bianco,
Circuit Judges,
Victor A. Bolden,
District Judge. *
In Re: Ranyue Bai,
25-2726
Petitioner.
Petitioner, pro se, has tiled a petition ion' 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 p. U.S Dial. CI..bI' D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).
In 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 it' the district court fails to docket the submissions within a
reasonable time.
*
T
sitting by designation.
Judl,e Victor A. Bolden, of the United States District Court tb' the District otlConnecticut,

---

............
.........................
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 30 of 54
Likewise, 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, 41 l
n.l6 (2d Cir. 2008).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'I-Iagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
seCOun
)@%~°~
Second Circuit
A True Copy
Catherine O'Hagan We
U n i t e d  S t a t e s  c o u r t
f + € u
1.44
we I

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 31 of 54
;
:
|
i
:
4
'.i
g
8
g
1
I
gr
s
3
.
3
:
Exhibit D:
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR
EXPANDED MANDAMUS
RELIEF DUE TO SDNY'S RETALIATORY
PII DISCLOSURE
5\IIiiI
E

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 32 of 54
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
Case No. 25-2726
In re Ryan Ba
X RE1'\,
Petitioner
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR EXPANDED MANDAMUS
RELIEF DUE TO SDNY'S RETALIATORY PII DISCLOSURE
To the Clerk of Court and the Honorable Judges of the Second Circuit:
I. INTRODUCTION
I, 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 right of the Southern District of New York's
retaliatory disclosure of my personally identifiable information ("Pll") in United
States v. Ho Wan Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 765. SDNY's
retaliatory public filing 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.
_
"\_ aw
.,.
'.*/, ~
,:* \¢/f
This 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.
II. BACKGROUND
After 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.
However, 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 E discovered this filing, I immediately submitted an emergency request to

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 33 of 54
the 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 ("PII"). 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.
Following 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. I am
grateful for the prompt actions taken by the Clerk and the Court to protect a crime
victim's privacy interests.
In 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.
This 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 self-
initiated, retaliatory act.
On 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 Pit. This sequence demonstrates selective and
retaliatory docketing rather than clerical error.
Ill. EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION
1. Retaliatory Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information by the
SDNY

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 34 of 54
Following 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.
Prior 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 laMul 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.
Despite 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.
Even 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.
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.
2. Pattern of Retaliatory Exposure

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 35 of 54
This is not the first instance of such conduct.
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:
"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."
Nevertheless, 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.
o 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.
»
The pattern shows SDNY does not merely neglect privacy obligations-
it selectively enforces privacy rules depending on whether the filer
criticizes procedural irregularities.
3. A. Risk to Thousands of CVRA Victims (If the government's
representations are to be believed)

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 36 of 54
The 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. I am compelled to advocate not only for personal protection
but also to safeguard the interests and rights of ail victims whose identities
and sensitive information are at risk. This systemic failure underscores the
urgent need for supervisory mandamus to prevent further harm and to restore
the integrity of the judicial process.
Iv. JUDICIAL BIAS
1. Disparate Treatment of Pro Se Filings
Following 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.
2. Appearance of Judicial impropriety Under Liteky I Caperton
The 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 victim-
myself-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

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 37 of 54
justice and disregarding the privacy protections mandated by Rule 49.1 /
5.2.
Furthermore, 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.
3. Selective Docketing and Ignored Allegations of Judieial 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 filer
of a fundamental procedural right to a fair and impartial tribunal, in violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Moreover, 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.
v. SDNY'S ACTIONS THAT MISLED AND INTERFERED WITH THE SECOND
CIRCUIT'S REVIEW
The 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.
.
Corruption of the Appellate Record: Mandamus review presupposes
that filings are secure, authentic, and free from unauthorized manipulation.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 38 of 54
SDNY'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 while 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. lt 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.
The 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:
"Ho Wan Kwok appeals a district cowl' 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..."
As detailed in Dkt. 733, the "obstruction of justice" finding incorporated the
tainted evidence submitted by the prosecution. Further, as explained in Section
lV(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.
Thus, SDNY's actions have repeatedly interfered with this Court's independent
review, affecting both the factual and procedural integrity of the appellate record.
VI. CRONIC STRUCTURAL ERROR
The defendant terminated his counsel in Dkt. 700, stating that the representation
provided "not even the basics" and expressing that "| am very disappointed." This

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 39 of 54
circumstance 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-irlcluding 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.
VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
I 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." I 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).
Moreover, 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,
"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
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that:

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 40 of 54
"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
To prevent further retaliatory doxxing of CVRA victims, the only effective remedy
under §1e5t(a) is to vacate all tainted orders and recuse the presiding judge.
Thus, the SDNY's retaliatory actions in leaking Dkt. 765 trigger my right to
respectfully seek an expanded mandamus remedy as follows:
1. Direct the Southern District 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 I previously submitted via the SDNY Pro Se email but
suppressed from the docket;
2. Direct the SDNY to docket all proper third-party pro se documents,
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.
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,
5. Issue such further supervisory instructions as may be necessary to restore
judicial integrity and prevent further retaliation against CVRA victims.
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.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 41 of 54
7. 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.
'x,.
21
"*~.*,.!\./
"\7*
M' "
, \ .t"
'" . \
'».
"1
.?
December 19, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Ba >
24
*»

---

1
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 42 of 54
E
I
I
I
i
r
r
Exhibit E:
i
s
E
rII
g
!
l
)
l
II
P
i
ir
I
)
r
1
Motion to SDNY:
Emergency Motion: Unauthorized Public
Upload of Personal Information in ECF
No. 765- Violations of the Crime
Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771),
Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1, and Judicial
Privacy Policy

---

E
E
i
I
.
|
!
:
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 43 of 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
II\..a8I
I:
Ie
I!I.
e.I
NOTICE OF PRIVACY BREACH AND CRIME VICTIMS'
RIGHTS ACT VIOLATION
I:
I
I
IIi!IIII
E!
i
(Re: Unauthorized Public Disclosure in ECF No. 765)
REQUEST FOR IMMEDlATE SEALING, INVESTIGATION,
AND REMEDIAL ACTION
To:
ii
:1
E
i
i!
i
Chief Clerk of Court
Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT
Emergency Motion: Unauthorized Public Upload of
Personal Information in ECF No. 765 - Violations of the
Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §3771), Fed. R.
Crim. P. 49.1, and Judicial Privacy Policy
Dear Chief Clerk and Hon. Judge Torres,
I respectfully submit this notice to report a serious breach of
privacy and victims' rights by the Southern District of New
York, arising from the Court's public filing of ECF No. 765.

---

6
i
:|.|
i
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 44 of 54
ECF No. 765 contains documents that I originally mailed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, not to the
SDNY docket. These materials include my personal
information, such as my real name, phone number, address,
full residential address, signature, and identifying details,
which were never intended for public disclosure.
By uploading these materials without redaction or
authorization, the Court has violated multiple statutory and
procedural safeguards, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(8) - guaranteeing crime victims
"the right to be treated with fairness and with respect
for the victim's dignity and privacy." The public
release of a victim's personal information is a direct
infringement of this statutory protection.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(a) - requiring redaction of
personal identifiers such as home addresses, full
names, and signatures before documents are made
public.
Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy and Public
Access to Electronic Case Files (March 2008) -
prohibiting courts from exposing private personal
data on the ECF system.
E-Government Act of 2002 §205(c)(3) - requiring
federal courts to maintain privacy-protective filing
procedures.
.
Due Process under the Fifth Amendment -
prohibiting arbitrary or retaliatory treatment that
undermines procedural fairness for victims.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 45 of 54
l
I
lk
I
i
g
L
P
l
8
1
I
I
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court:
This action is especially contradictory given that SDNY has
previously claimed that victim filings were being restricted "to
protect privacy." Yet the Court itself has now publicly
exposed a victim's private data, demonstrating
inconsistent and potentially retaliatory treatment toward
victims - a further violation of the fairness and dignity
guarantees in §3771(a)(8).
2.
1. In 24 hours, immediately seal or restrict public
access to ECF No. 765 and any related entries
containing personal identifying information,
including my real name, signature, email, phone
number, address, then redact these information and
3.
4.
5.
upload a redacted version.
Conduct an internal review to determine why victim filings
were uploaded to the public docket without redaction or
consent
Certify compliance with victims' privacy protections under
18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1.
Implement remedial safeguards to prevent recurrence of
similar violations in future filings involving CVRA victims.
Seal this document.
Furthermore, the Court's decision to publicly upload the
unredacted version of my filing-despite having already
received a properly redacted public version which I previously
served to the SDNY-constitutes not only a procedural
violation under Rule 49.1 but also a willful or reckless

---

|
E
KI
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 46 of 54
:
I
E
disregard of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C.
§3771 (a)(8). Such conduct raises serious concerns of
selective enforcement and retaliatory treatment toward a
CVRA victim who has lawfully exercised the right to petition
and oversight.
The mishandling of ECF No. 765 has caused significant
concern regarding the Court's commitment to treating victims
fairly and protecting their privacy as mandated by law. I
respectfully request acknowledgment of this notice and
confirmation of corrective action.
I
iIr
If the Court fails to address this breach promptly, I reserve
the right to submit this notice to the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Council of the Second
Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk's Office as part
of an oversight petition.
1
ll
l
9
1
Sincerely,
Ryan Bai
s
j
r
9
i

---

i
Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 47 of 54
i
i
i
i
:
IIiIie
I!IiI
iIII:I
I
a
IIIII
i
I
Exhibit F:
:IE
IIII
iI
iI
I|
i|
:|x
a
3
Transcript of Status Conference on
January 20, 2026
i
iii»
i

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 48 of 54
1
v.
23 Cr. 118
(AT)
2
MILES GUO,
3
Defendant.
Conference
4
-x
5
New York, N.Y.
January 20, 2026
10:05 a.m.
6
7
Before :
8
9
HON. ANALISA TORRES,
District Judge
10
11
APPEARANCES
12
13
14
15
16
JAY CLAYTON
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
RYAN B. FINKEL
JULIANA N. MURRAY
MICAH F. FERGENSON
JUSTIN HORTON
Assistant United States Attorneys
17
18
MELINDA M. SARAFA
JOHN F. KALEY
JOSHUA L. DRATEL
Attorneys for Defendant
19
20
Also Present:
Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,
(212) 805-0300
P.C.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 49 of 54
1
THE COURT!
Good morning.
2
we're here in the matter of United States v. Miles
3
Guo.
4
5
Would you make your appearances, please.
Good morning, your Honor.
MR. FINKEL:
6
Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Ferguson, and
7
8
Justin Horton, for the government.
Would the interpreter please make their
THE COURT:
9
appearance.
10
THE INTERPRETER'
11
Good morning, your Honor.
Federal court professionally qualified interpreter Tuo
12
Huang •
13
THE COURT:
And now the defense.
14
MS. SARAFA:
Good morning, your Honor.
15
Melinda Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel, for
16
Miles Guo.
17
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
18
Many individuals who believe they are victims of
19
Mr. Goo's fraudulent scheme have asked for the return of their
20
money a
Some have contacted the prosecution and some have
21
contacted the Court.
22
Apparently, there is confusion about how
the process of reimbursement works.
23
I'm going to address two types of claims concerning
24
the forfeited assets linked to Mr. Goo's illegal conduct in
25
this case.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,
(212) 805-0300
P.C.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 50 of 54
1
First, under 21, United States Code, Section
2
853(i) (1), and 28 Code of Federal Regulations 9, a victim may
3
submit to the prosecution what is known as a petition for
4
remission.
A petition for remission asks the government to
5
return assets to the victims of a defendant's crimes.
The
6
7
government will evaluate these petitions following the
procedures described in Title 28 of the Code of Federal
8
Regulations, Part 9.
9
In a letter to the Court dated January 9th of this
10
11
year, the government states that, in evaluating such petitions,
it will consider whether a victim alleges a monetary loss that
12
13
14
15
16
Under Title 21,
17
was directly caused by the criminal conduct, whether the
allegations are supported by documentary evidence and whether
the victim did not knowingly contribute to, participate in,
benefit from, or act in a willfully blind manner to the events.
There is a second type of claim.
United States Code 853(n), an individual can seek return of
18
their assets if they show a stronger legal claim to the
19
forfeited asset than the government does.
One way a claimant
20
can do that is by showing that they have superior title to an
21
asset as of the date the asset was forfeited to the government.
22
In other words, the claimant must show that he or she had a
23
24
stronger legal right to the asset than the defendant at the
time of the criminal offense.
25
For example, if a defendant were to borrow someone's
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,
(212) 805-0300
P.C.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 51 of 54
1
car, and then use it to commit a crime, the car owner may be
2
able to successfully assert that they have a superior legal
3
interest in the car under Section 853(r1) (6) (A) .
4
Another way a claimant can meet this standard is by
5
showing that they were a bona fide purchaser for value of an
6
interest in the forfeited asset.
In other words, that he or
7
she bought the forfeited asset from the defendant in good faith
8
after his criminal acts, but with no knowledge of his criminal
9
activity.
10
A person who believes that they have such a claim can
11
seek to recover their money by filing a Section 853(n) claim
12
with the Court.
However, I want to emphasize that victims of
13
Mr. Gun's fraudulent scheme may be viewed under the law as
14
general creditors and may not, therefore, be able to recover
15
In other words, Section
16
their money under Section 853(n).
853(n) claims are not interchangeable with petitions for
17
remission.
18
Submissions received by the Court that do not
19
reference Section 853(n), but which the Court has instead
20
determined to be petitions for remission, have been referred to
21
the government for its consideration.
Those submissions have
22
not been placed on the docket and will not be placed on the
23
docket .
24
The Court is in the process of considering and
25
docketing a large volume of submissions which name Section
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,
(212) 805-0300
P.C.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 52 of 54
1
853(n) .
Individuals who are represented by attorneys have been
2
added to the docket as interested parties so that they may file
3
their submissions directly on the docket.
Individuals who are
4
not represented by attorneys have not been added as interested
5
parties on the docket.
But the Court has received and is
6
processing their petitions and will docket them as needed in
7
due course .
The Court may direct that the petitions be
8
redacted or filed under seal to protect the claimants'
9
personally identifiable or other sensitive information.
10
In addition, the Court has received miscellaneous
11
petitions making various complaints.
Those submissions are
12
being evaluated on an individual basis.
13
The Court has called this status conference to discuss
14
these matters with the parties in order to expedite the Court's
15
consideration of the large volume of Section 853(n) petitions
16
which number over 100.
The Court has also asked for the
17
parties' views on the appointment of a special master under
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which permits a master to
19
perform duties consented to by the parties or to address
20
21
post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely
addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge in
22
the district.
23
I've reviewed the government's letter dated January
24
9th and the defendant's letter dated January 16th, both of this
25
year.
The parties recommend that the Court appoint a special
SOUTHERN DISTRICT RE PORTERS I
(212)
805-0300
P.C.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 53 of 54
1
2
3
4
master to assist in evaluating Section 853(n) petitions, and in
administering ancillary proceedings in this case as needed.
Compensation for a special master is limited by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(9) (2), which states that'
5
6
Compensation must be paid either by a party or parties or from
a fund or subject matter of the action within the Court's
7
control •
8
How does the government propose that the special
9
master be compensated?
10
MR. FINKEL:
11
12
Your Honor, the government doesn't have a
specific proposal with respect to that issue, but can certainly
consider it and file a letter with the Court.
13
14
15
Obviously the government is mindful of the assets that
it has acquired through forfeiture and wants to retain as much
as possible for victims.
16
THE COURT!
Is the government aware of other courts
17
18
nationally where a special master has been appointed to handle
Section 853(n) petitions?
19
MR. FINKEL2
20
not.
Standing here today, your Honor, I am
That's not to say that it hasn't happened.
I don't know
21
if it has.
22
THE COURT:
I'd like you to look into that and report
23
back to me.
24
MR. FINKEL:
We will do that.
25
THE COURT
Is there anything from the defense?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS,
(212) 805-0300
P.C.

---

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 54 of 54
1
MS. SARAFA:
2
similar to that articulated by the government.
Your Honor, I think our view is very
We would like
3
to see as much of the seized assets preserved and returned to
4
the investors and customers of the entities involved in this
5
case.
6
And I'm not aware of any authority, standing here today,
regarding sources of funds for compensation of a special
7
master.
8
THE COURT:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b) (1)
9
10
11
requires that prior to appointing a special master, the Court
must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard;
and that any party may suggest candidates for appointment.
12
13
14
Therefore, by February 10th of this year, the parties
shall confer and jointly file a letter recommending candidates
to serve as special master under Rule 53(b) (1), and a
15
Of course, the
16
recommendation as to the terms of compensation.
letter should also discuss the specific scope of the special
17
master's appointment.
18
19
Mr. Guo, you've been understanding what the
interpreter has said; correct?
20
THE DEFENDANT:
(In English) Yes, your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
All righty.
Is there anything further?
22
MR. FINKEL:
23
THE COURT:
A11 righty.
Not from the government.
The matter is adjourned.
24
MS. SARAFA :
Thank you, your Honor.
25
*
*
*
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS I
(212) 805-0300
P.C.