发言原文
Based on the provided court records, the claimant "Doe" who filed the motion in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) district court and the Petitioner "Doe" who filed the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are indeed the same individual. Here is the step-by-step verification from the documents proving their identity matches: Identical Claim and Investment Amounts: In both filings, Doe explicitly asserts an interest in a $50,880 Phoenix Farm loan investment. Identical Transaction History: The SDNY motion itemizes four exact wire transfers totaling $50,880: 09/17/2020: $10,000 to Medical Supply Systems INTL LLC 10/13/2020: $10,000 to Maywind Trading LLC 10/14/2020: $10,040 to Maywind Trading LLC 11/17/2020: $20,840 to Maywind Trading LLC The Second Circuit document incorporates these exact same figures, noting the specific $10,000 wire to Medical Supply Systems and the remaining $40,880 wired to Maywind Trading LLC. The Procedural Connection: The Second Circuit petition (Case 26-364) was filed because the SDNY District Court allegedly refused to formally docket Doe's original pro se third-party petition. Page 1 of the SDNY motion even explicitly lists the reference text: "Hold Evidentiary Hearing By Doe (Second Circuit Case 26-364)". Identical Exhibits: Both actions rely on the exact same attached evidence: the public Twitter statement where Xia Qidong (@changdaobrother) states, "If I disagree, you will not get a penny back..." alongside Arizona Court Documents 156 and 157. Because both sets of documents detail the exact same unique personal financial losses, legal arguments, and specific exhibits under the pseudonymous name "Doe," they represent the same person.