---
canonical_url: "https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q536cfef6dbcb426210ca"
batch_url: "https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000101"
content_type: discussion_message
speaker: "reb***"
date: "2026-04-14T05:27:52.669Z"
---

# reb*** 发言 (2026-04-14)

围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。

批次：[查看所在归档批次](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000101)
时间：2026-04-14T05:27:52.669Z
回复：[qdb9161a385cdc14435cf](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdb9161a385cdc14435cf) (查看被回复的发言（跨批次）)

被回复发言摘要：
> [删节：隐私信息] 你这个是咋扯上瑞恩的？

## 发言正文

> In October 2025, a different claimant, Ranyue Bai, filed a mandamus petition asserting Crime Victims’ Rights Act violations. The Second Circuit denied the petition in a panel decision dated November 2025, but expressly stated the denial was “without prejudice to renewal” in two circumstances:
> “Petitioner’s mandamus petition as to docketing his submissions is denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time.” (App. B)
> “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.” (App. B).
> On December 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a mandamus petition asserting violations of 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), alleging the district court’s prolonged failure to conduct the statutorily mandated hearing, its failure to timely docket and address Petitioner’s filings, and its continued inaction despite ongoing dissipation of disputed assets. Petitioner sought relief distinct from Ranyue Bai’s petition, including an order compelling a § 853(n) hearing and a temporary restraining order.
> On January 9, 2026, the Second Circuit Clerk returned the petition without docketing, stating the court lacks jurisdiction based on the prior decision in Case No. 25-2726. No judge reviewed Petitioner's claims or compared them to Ranyue Bai's different statutory assertions.
> Over five months later, the district court has held no hearing. In a parallel bankruptcy proceeding where the defendant is the debtor, a government-appointed trustee continues to dissipate assets subject to the preliminary forfeiture order by using those assets to pay bankruptcy investigation fees, while disputed claims in the parallel bankruptcy proceeding have not been substantiated through any evidentiary hearing. When the government openly asserted that the district court lacks authority to direct execution of its own forfeiture