Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — appeal · 2Cir ECF 25-2726_dkt_38

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 1 of 54

1;

ii .

.'..4'.:

l " . l ; \ ;

. .

3 .. . .

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 2 of 54

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)

, 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

United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York

Executed on March 09, 2026.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 3 of 54 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND

In re:

Motion to Reeall the Mandate and Renew Petition for Mandamus with an Amended Caption, and to Redact

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.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 5 of 54

In re:

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.

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.

. 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.

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:

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 12 of 54 Exhibit B Emergency Motion:

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 13 of 54

v. ; ; :

Defendants.

; 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)

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. §

The Right to Be Treated with Fairness and Respect for Dignity and Privacy

The procedures in this case have suffered a severe breakdown

Defense counsel have changed three times, yet none have raised the government's Brady violations, highlighting a systemic defense failure.

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.

Other victims' counsel (e.g,, filings by Geyer) have been challenged as representing problematic claims. These circumstances reflect a broader collapse of procedural safeguards.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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:

Three successive defense teams have ignored or declined to raise the prosecution's Brady violations and systemic misconduct.

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

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

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 20 of 54 !

.

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.

i!

I|.

5l!

rI! EII:

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:

:

. ii!I:

. . 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.

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

iIEi:|.

EI! Exhibit A: Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754:

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 22 of 54

v.

Defendants.

Motion to Oppose Dkt. 754: Addressing Complicity in Court Fraud and Urging Discussion of Judicial Recusal

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Immediate suspension of all ongoing forfeiture procedures until the issues 2. forfeiture proceedings, as no party implicated in Dkt. 733 should control the

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

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.

:

i: Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 28 of 54 ;

IiI::

I:

Ii!

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 29 of 54 S.D.N.Y. N.Y.C.

Torres, J.

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:

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.

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

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 31 of 54 ; :

:

.

: Exhibit D:

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 32 of 54

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:

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.

.,.

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.

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.

1. Retaliatory Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information by the

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

"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

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,.

'».

.?

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 42 of 54

Exhibit E:

!

Motion to SDNY:

.

! : Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 43 of 54

I:

I!I.

NOTICE OF PRIVACY BREACH AND CRIME VICTIMS'

I:

E!

(Re: Unauthorized Public Disclosure in ECF No. 765) REQUEST FOR IMMEDlATE SEALING, INVESTIGATION,

To:

i!

United States District Court, Southern District of New York

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

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.

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. .

prohibiting arbitrary or retaliatory treatment that undermines procedural fairness for victims.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 45 of 54

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

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

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 46 of 54 :

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.

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.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 47 of 54

:

Exhibit F:

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 48 of 54

v.

Defendant.

New York, N.Y.

10:05 a.m.

Before :

Also Present:

P.C.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 49 of 54

THE COURT! Good morning.

we're here in the matter of United States v. Miles

Guo.

Would you make your appearances, please. Good morning, your Honor. MR. FINKEL:

Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Ferguson, and

Justin Horton, for the government.

THE COURT:

appearance.

Good morning, your Honor. Federal court professionally qualified interpreter Tuo

THE COURT: And now the defense.

MS. SARAFA: Good morning, your Honor.

Melinda Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel, for

Miles Guo.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Many individuals who believe they are victims of

Mr. Goo's fraudulent scheme have asked for the return of their

Some have contacted the prosecution and some have

contacted the Court.

the process of reimbursement works.

I'm going to address two types of claims concerning

the forfeited assets linked to Mr. Goo's illegal conduct in

this case.

P.C.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 50 of 54

First, under 21, United States Code, Section

853(i) (1), and 28 Code of Federal Regulations 9, a victim may

submit to the prosecution what is known as a petition for

remission. A petition for remission asks the government to

return assets to the victims of a defendant's crimes.

government will evaluate these petitions following the procedures described in Title 28 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 9.

In a letter to the Court dated January 9th of this

year, the government states that, in evaluating such petitions, it will consider whether a victim alleges a monetary loss that

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

their assets if they show a stronger legal claim to the

forfeited asset than the government does.

can do that is by showing that they have superior title to an

asset as of the date the asset was forfeited to the government.

In other words, the claimant must show that he or she had a

stronger legal right to the asset than the defendant at the time of the criminal offense.

For example, if a defendant were to borrow someone's

P.C.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 51 of 54

car, and then use it to commit a crime, the car owner may be

able to successfully assert that they have a superior legal

interest in the car under Section 853(r1) (6) (A) .

Another way a claimant can meet this standard is by

showing that they were a bona fide purchaser for value of an

interest in the forfeited asset.

she bought the forfeited asset from the defendant in good faith

after his criminal acts, but with no knowledge of his criminal

activity.

A person who believes that they have such a claim can

seek to recover their money by filing a Section 853(n) claim

with the Court. However, I want to emphasize that victims of

Mr. Gun's fraudulent scheme may be viewed under the law as

general creditors and may not, therefore, be able to recover

their money under Section 853(n). 853(n) claims are not interchangeable with petitions for

remission.

Submissions received by the Court that do not

reference Section 853(n), but which the Court has instead

determined to be petitions for remission, have been referred to

the government for its consideration.

not been placed on the docket and will not be placed on the

docket .

The Court is in the process of considering and

docketing a large volume of submissions which name Section

P.C.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 52 of 54

853(n) . Individuals who are represented by attorneys have been

added to the docket as interested parties so that they may file

their submissions directly on the docket.

not represented by attorneys have not been added as interested

parties on the docket.

processing their petitions and will docket them as needed in

due course . The Court may direct that the petitions be

redacted or filed under seal to protect the claimants'

personally identifiable or other sensitive information.

In addition, the Court has received miscellaneous

petitions making various complaints.

being evaluated on an individual basis.

The Court has called this status conference to discuss

these matters with the parties in order to expedite the Court's

consideration of the large volume of Section 853(n) petitions

which number over 100.

parties' views on the appointment of a special master under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which permits a master to

perform duties consented to by the parties or to address

post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge in

the district.

I've reviewed the government's letter dated January

9th and the defendant's letter dated January 16th, both of this

year. The parties recommend that the Court appoint a special

P.C.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 53 of 54

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'

Compensation must be paid either by a party or parties or from a fund or subject matter of the action within the Court's

How does the government propose that the special

master be compensated?

MR. FINKEL:

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.

Obviously the government is mindful of the assets that it has acquired through forfeiture and wants to retain as much as possible for victims.

THE COURT!

nationally where a special master has been appointed to handle Section 853(n) petitions?

not.

That's not to say that it hasn't happened.

if it has.

THE COURT: I'd like you to look into that and report

back to me.

MR. FINKEL: We will do that.

Is there anything from the defense?

P.C.

Case: 25-2726, 03/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 54 of 54

MS. SARAFA:

similar to that articulated by the government.

to see as much of the seized assets preserved and returned to

the investors and customers of the entities involved in this

case.

And I'm not aware of any authority, standing here today, regarding sources of funds for compensation of a special

master.

THE COURT: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b) (1)

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.

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

recommendation as to the terms of compensation. letter should also discuss the specific scope of the special

master's appointment.

Mr. Guo, you've been understanding what the interpreter has said; correct?

THE DEFENDANT: (In English) Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty. Is there anything further?

MR. FINKEL:

THE COURT: A11 righty. Not from the government. The matter is adjourned.

MS. SARAFA : Thank you, your Honor.

P.C.