Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — appeal · LETTER · ECF #5

# **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS**

# **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**

Case No. 25-2726

# **NOTICE OF DISTRICT COURT RECORD-PRESERVATION FILING**

I, Ryan Bai respectfully submit this notice solely to inform the Court of a recent filing in the district court.

On February 08, 2026, I filed a **NOTICE OF RECORD PRESERVATION REGARDING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE INTEGRITY OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS** in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in *United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT)

**The district court filing was submitted for the limited purpose of preserving the record and expressly preserving objections, without seeking substantive relief or requesting any ruling.**

**This notice is provided for informational purposes only. I do not seek any action by this Court in connection with the district court filing.**

Respectfully submitted,

Ryan Bai

February 08, 2026

# **Certificate of Service**

# **United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case No: 25-2726 SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)**

I, Ryan Bai, hereby certify as follows:

On February 08, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following documents:

### ● **NOTICE OF DISTRICT COURT RECORD-PRESERVATION FILING**

● **NOTICE OF RECORD PRESERVATION REGARDING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE INTEGRITY OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS, English**

### ● **NOTICE OF RECORD PRESERVATION REGARDING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE INTEGRITY OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS, Chinese**

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 February 08, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Bai

# **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT**

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a "Miles Guo," a/k/a "Miles Kwok," a/k/a "Guo Wengui," a/k/a "Brother Seven," a/k/a "The Principal," KIN MING JE, a/k/a "William Je," and YANPING WANG, a/k/a "Yvette,"

SDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT

Second Circuit Case No: 25-2726

# **NOTICE OF RECORD PRESERVATION REGARDING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CREATING SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE INTEGRITY OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS**

Dear Judge Torres:

I, Ryan Bai, respectfully submit this letter for the limited purpose of preserving the record and expressly preserving objections. **This submission is provided for record-preservation purposes only. It does not seek relief from the district court, nor does it request adjudication of the issues described herein. The same materials will be contemporaneously submitted to my Second Circuit case 25-2726, to ensure continuity of the appellate record. This English version remains the controlling version for all legal purposes and the attached Chinese translation is provided for convenience only.**

# **Background of the NFSC Alliance**

The NFSC Alliance and its affiliated "farms" functioned as a primary organizational network of supporters of Miles Guo and as an informal bridge between Mr. Guo and his broader supporter base. Following Mr. Guo's arrest and detention, his supporters had no direct or independent channel through which to obtain information regarding his legal status, detention conditions, or case developments. In practice, the Alliance and its affiliated farms became the sole source of information purporting to reflect Mr. Guo's circumstances.

As a result, a substantial number of supporters continued to place reliance on the Alliance and its leadership as authoritative and trustworthy sources. This reliance persisted through the post-trial period and remains evident today. Individuals who recently transmitted materials to defense counsel did so not through independent initiative, but in response to calls issued by the Alliance's Secretary-General, Qingteng, acting in his organizational capacity. Their participation was premised on the belief—cultivated over time—that information disseminated by the Alliance and its farms accurately reflected Mr. Guo's interests and intentions.

This structural reality is significant not because it establishes intent or credibility, but because it explains how the Alliance acquired the practical ability to mobilize, aggregate, and channel sentencing-related submissions on a collective basis. Where an organization serves as the exclusive informational intermediary between a detained defendant and his supporters, its leadership necessarily wields disproportionate influence over the timing, content, and flow of information entering the legal process.

# **I. Post–Status Conference Emergence of Sentencing-Relevant Materials**

As reflected in ECF Nos. 797 and 799, defense counsel represented on the record that, following the January 20, 2026 status conference, counsel received additional materials bearing directly on sentencing. Counsel further stated that these materials are relevant to sentencing considerations, indicating that the universe of sentencing-related information continued to develop after the status conference.

Publicly available statements indicate that the post–status conference submissions were encouraged by Qingteng (also known as Forrest Zhou / Yue Zhou) [http](http) who currently serves as Secretary-General of the NFSC alliance. While the Court need not assess the accuracy or credibility of such statements at this juncture, the existence of coordinated efforts to solicit and transmit sentencing-related materials after the status conference is itself a relevant contextual circumstance.

It has also been publicly reported that, following the sentencing hearing of another defendant Yvette Wang in a related proceeding (January 6, 2025), Qingteng and NFSC spokesperson Ava Chen subsequently registered as victims <http>

# **Legally Significant Implications**

These circumstances collectively give rise to several legally significant considerations relevant to the integrity of the sentencing process:

First, defense counsel has confirmed on the record that newly received materials "bear on sentencing." ECF No. 797. In addition, as reflected in ECF No. 799, counsel represented that certain purported victims may have been pressured by authorities of the People's Republic of China to submit false reports. **No such evidence was presented at trial. The emergence of these issues at the sentencing stage underscores that the trial record does not contain information now acknowledged to be material to sentencing.**

Second, Qingteng's position as Secretary-General of the NFSC alliance reflects an organizational capacity to solicit, aggregate, and transmit information not introduced at trial, including materials now represented to affect sentencing. **The ability of a single actor to coordinate the production of sentencing-relevant information outside the trial record highlights the non-neutral provenance of such submissions.**

Third, the government has previously identified the NFSC-aligned "alliance farm" structure as a criminal instrumentality. See ECF No. 344. Further, in ECF No. 388, the Court approved the designation of former NFSC Secretary-General Xia Qidong as a co-conspirator. Although the Court has not made a post-conviction determination regarding the legal status of the NFSC as an organization, the leadership position occupied by Qingteng necessarily carries sensitivity in light of the organization's treatment in the existing record.

### **Procedural Concerns**

Taken together, these facts present several procedural risks:

### 1. **Source and Role Conflict**

Qingteng simultaneously asserts victim status while occupying a senior role within an organization previously identified in government filings as a criminal instrumentality, with the fact that he registered as a victim of Yvette Wang — Miles Guo's assistant who is also a defendant in this case. Under these circumstances, his encouragement of submissions directed to defense counsel reflects a structural tension between victim status and potential co-conspirator affiliation, also his legal identity is self-contradicted and ambiguous.

### 2. **Substantive Third-Party Intervention in the Sentencing Record** The post–status conference mobilization of sentencing-relevant materials reflects substantive third-party involvement in shaping the sentencing record outside the evidentiary framework tested at trial.

3. **Potential Gatekeeping Over the Flow of Sentencing Information** Where an individual associated with an organization previously identified in the record is able to coordinate and transmit sentencing-related materials on a collective basis, the integrity of the information pipeline itself becomes susceptible to distortion.

**In sum, when an individual who asserts victim status while maintaining continuous affiliation with an organization identified in government filings as a criminal instrumentality mobilizes and transmits previously untested, sentencing-critical materials on the eve of sentencing, that conduct itself presents a material procedural risk. Such circumstances undermine source neutrality, compromise the formation of the sentencing record, and raise substantial concerns regarding control over information bearing on punishment.**

# **II. Fabricated "Choice" Narrative by Purported Victims to Chill Witness Participation Through False Allegations of Non-docketed Defense–Prosecution Agreements**

However, Qingteng's attitude toward witnesses providing evidence to defense counsel was starkly different on October 15, 2025 compared to after January 20, 2026. In a video from October 15, 2025<http>(after 1 hr 9 mins), Qingteng and current NFSC spokesperson Ava Chan (also a "victim" registered at defendant Yvette Wang'sentencing hearing on January 6,

2025) disseminated false claims, asserting that Guo Wengui was presented with a so-called "choice" during trial: either sign a stipulation (DX001, Exhibit B to ECF No. 718) acknowledging he was the subject of a "Fox Hunt" operation, or call favorable witnesses. While the stipulation exists, any person with basic legal understanding would recognize that the prosecution would never risk such an agreement, and it would be fully documented in the trial record. **Ava's statements were therefore fabricated, attempting to explain why Miles Guo did not present key witnesses at trial. Not only did Ava fabricate allegations that would, if true, amount to serious prosecutorial misconduct, but the continued circulation of this false narrative during the sentencing phase affirmatively interfered with the defendant's sentencing process.**

Critically, Ava framed the presence of "key witnesses" and the "protection of NFSC allies' political asylum" as mutually exclusive. Under this logic, any witness who might have appeared at trial — with critical evidence, or sought to provide evidence after the fact would, in Ava's narrative, be violating Guo's "choice" and acting against the alliance. This effectively turned the act of presenting crucial evidence into a disloyal act toward NFSC, **creating both a chilling effect on witness participation and a mischaracterization of witness intentions**. Additionally, Roy and Ava in the video asserted, without any legal basis, that antialliance individuals in Canada who sought asylum were deported, implicitly threatening potential witnesses. This conduct effectively chilled potential witnesses, deterring those who had not testified during trial from providing posttrial evidence, especially individuals who might seek asylum through Alliance channels.

In contrast, after January 20, 2026, Qingteng encouraged witnesses to submit sentencing-relevant evidence to defense counsel in his capacity as NFSC Secretary-General and self-identified "victim." Taken together, these actions demonstrate a pattern of selectively controlling the flow of evidence—first discouraging testimony at trial, then intervening to supply materials at sentencing—raising serious procedural concerns:

### **Witness Statements and Context**

● **The October 15, 2025 video includes statements by Qingteng and Ava Chan regarding potential witnesses, their participation, and considerations such as personal safety or asylum.**

**Evidence Controlling and Role Conflict**

**1: After January 20, 2026, Qingteng, in his dual role as NFSC Secretary-General and "victim," actively encouraged witnesses to submit materials to the defense .**

**2: Combined with prior witness implication in the October 15, 2025 video—where Qingteng and Ava Chan fabricated a non-docketed agreement between the defense and the prosecution, thereby stigmatizing witness participation—this conduct reflects selective control over the evidence pipeline, influencing the sentencing record through misinformation and creating a non-neutral channel for sentencingrelevant information.**

# **III. Observations Regarding Trial Record and Post-Trial Submissions**

Based on my personal knowledge as a former member of the Himalaya DC Farm, from which I was later expelled, I am aware of certain facts relevant to documenting the trial and sentencing record. During the trial, there was a witness referred to here as "Witness DM," who aligns with the description in ECF No. 799: an individual reported to have been approached regarding submission of reports, and who also invested in the G-Series projects. To my knowledge, defense counsel did not call the witness DM to testify during the trial.

During the trial, the only defense witness whose experience bore material similarity to that of Witness DM was Yijian Hu. However, because Mr. Hu's testimony lacked sufficient corroborating evidence, it ultimately carried limited weight and did not meaningfully affect the outcome of the trial.

Based on my personal knowledge, Witness DM was situated in a materially comparable position, in my view, had Witness DM been permitted to testify at trial, his testimony could have provided critical corroboration and contextual completeness to the defense case, and may have altered the evidentiary balance presented to the jury.

Nevertheless, The Witness DM was never called to testify. To this day, it remains unclear why defense counsel did not authorize or pursue his appearance at trial.

The absence of any explanation on the record regarding this decision underscores the incompleteness of the trial record with respect to witnesses similarly situated to Mr. Hu.

Witness DM entered the United States using a method considered high-risk, and Zhang Yongbing—identified as a co-conspirator in ECF order 388—served as an immigration attorney handling legal matters for the Alliance. This background provides context for understanding the timing and availability of witnesses.

# **IV. Observations Regarding Witness Communications and Post-Trial Submissions**

On February 5, 2026, the NFSC Alliance conducted another public broadcast, <http> during which Zhang Yongbing appeared on-air with Qingteng. In that broadcast, at approximately the thirtyminute mark, Zhang repeatedly stated that *any individual who had been "forced to file false reports" should contact the Alliance first, and that the Alliance would then contact defense counsel on their behalf.*

This instruction is legally significant. It formalizes a closed-loop process in which the Alliance positions itself as the mandatory intermediary between witnesses and legal counsel. When viewed in light of the Alliance's October 2025 messaging—which discouraged potential witnesses from coming forward after the failed trial—this February 2026 broadcast completes a structural cycle: witnesses are now directed to submit information only through Alliance-controlled channels at the sentencing stage.

Zhang Yongbing, as a recognized co-conspirator, has collaborated with Qingteng and Ava—both self-identified victims—to direct and control witnesses in the submission of sentencing-related materials, thereby directly interfering with the sentencing process. Such conduct not only undermines the independence and integrity of the sentencing record but may also give rise to formal legal liability, including obstruction of justice or witness tampering.

# **V. Counsel's Failure to Address Judicial Fraud and Procedural Contamination**

In my prior mandamus filings before the Second Circuit (ECF 765) , I documented that over the course of three years and three successive defense counsel, no attorney identified or addressed the judicial fraud embedded in the record—despite its material impact on the proceedings. I did. That failure was not cured by the appointment of new counsel. Even after the Second Circuit declined to reject my Rule 60 mandamus on the merits and instead denied it *without prejudice to renewal*, current counsel continued to proceed as if no judicial fraud existed.

Now, counsel purports to rely on newly submitted, sentencing-relevant materials. As detailed above, however, these materials emerge from a process in which witnesses were discouraged from submitting critical evidence and later funneled through non-neutral intermediaries to influence the sentencing record. **Counsel's failure to recognize or confront these risks reflects a continuation of the same pattern that has characterized prior representation.**

**Moreover, if counsel were to accept and rely upon a volume of materials collected or curated through the Alliance—purporting to document individuals who were allegedly coerced into filing false reports—such evidence would be irreparably tainted**. **Given the Alliance's demonstrated involvement in witness chilling, selective controlling, and role confusion among purported "victims", spokespersons, and identified coconspirators, any evidentiary submissions emerging from this structure lack the indicia of reliability required for sentencing consideration.**

Under these circumstances, the problem is not merely one of weight or credibility, but of admissibility and fundamental fairness. As a result, reliance on such materials would collapse the integrity of the sentencing record itself, rendering the submissions functionally void for judicial purposes and exposing the proceeding to reversible procedural error.

# **VI. A Brief History of Alliance-Based Interference Affecting Sentencing Integrity**

Following Guo Wengui's conviction on July 16, 2024, Qingteng replaced former Alliance Secretary-General Xia Qidong ("Long Island Brother") and assumed leadership of the NFSC alliance. From that point forward, the Alliance's involvement with matters bearing on Mr. Guo's criminal case did not diminish; rather, it persisted in a continuous and escalating manner.

While the October 15, 2025 broadcast and the February 5, 2026 broadcasts represent particularly visible manifestations of interference with the sentencing process, they were not isolated incidents. Under Qingteng's leadership, the

Alliance has repeatedly involved itself in matters touching sentencing, victim narratives, witness behavior, and the transmission of sentencing-relevant materials. This involvement has continued from the outset of Qingteng's tenure and has never meaningfully ceased. Based on publicly observable conduct, such involvement includes, but is not limited to, the following: *(Some of the links below were posted directly by NFSC management, while others are reposted by third parties; where applicable, they are marked "reposted.", others are marked as "member"All videos, court documents, and other materials referenced are known to exist and are authentic; the use of third-party reposts is solely for illustrative purposes, as retrieving the original sources can be difficult.)*

### 1. **Public Programs by Victims (Qingteng, Ava) Claiming Bi-Weekly Access to the Defendant and Relaying Instructions Without Verifiable Basis**

Qingteng and another NFSC member known as "Cangtian" <http> co-hosted a program titled *Xiangjian* ("Meeting"), in which they repeatedly discussed alleged meetings with Guo Wengui in MDC and purported to convey instructions or messages attributed to him. These assertions were never supported by verifiable evidence. The program also routinely disseminated demonstrably false information regarding detention conditions, including claims that Mr. Guo was living comfortably in MDC and receiving luxury food items.

### Examples:

<http> (reposted) <http> (reposted)

### **Qingteng, Ava, and Roy claimed that they had visited the defendant at MDC, with the legal identity of Qingteng and Ava as Yvette Wang's victim:**

[http](http) [http](http)

Without reaching any conclusion as to whether such meetings occurred in fact, the public claims themselves present a serious legal identity conflict. Qingteng and Ava Chan, while asserting formal victim status in a related

co-defendant proceeding, publicly represented on social media that they had in-person access to the defendant during pre-sentencing detention and that they were conveying his instructions. The act of invoking victim status while simultaneously portraying direct access to, and communicative authority from, a detained defendant collapses otherwise distinct legal roles. Such role confusion—independent of the truth or falsity of the underlying claims—undermines the clarity of legal identities, distorts public understanding of the proceedings, and further destabilizes the integrity of the sentencing framework.

### 2. **Dissemination of False Information Regarding Case Disposition**

Alliance-affiliated figures repeatedly circulated false claims that Guo Wengui would be imminently released, or that the prosecution intended to withdraw the case entirely. No such developments ever occurred, and these statements had no grounding in the public record.

Examples: <http> (member) [http](http) (reposted) <http> (reposted)

### 3. **Promotion of a Dubious Account Purporting to Be a Family Member**

The Alliance promoted and interacted with an account claiming to belong to Guo Wengui's daughter, "Guo Mei," without verification. The account publicly supported Alliance narratives. Notably, upon stepping down, former Secretary-General Qidong Xia acknowledged that the so-called "Guo Mei" account was in fact controlled by the Alliance: Example:<http> [\(member\)](http)

Xia Qidong's statement that Guo Mei's account is controlled by the Alliance[:http](http) (reposted)

### 4. **Use of Defendant's Name to Promote a Speculative Cryptocurrency**

### **Scheme**

**Qingteng and Cangtian promoted a TDCCP-themed meme cryptocurrency on behalf of the alliance, explicitly invoking Mr. Guo's name as endorsement.** The primary promoters included Alliance-affiliated figures Tang Ping and William Wang. After aggressive promotion, the asset suffered a sudden collapse following large sell-offs by insiders, resulting in substantial losses to participants. During this period, the Alliance circulated audio and video materials purporting to feature Guo Wengui's voice endorsing the project, **the authenticity of which has been widely questioned and bears indicia consistent with AIgenerated fabrication.**

Example:<http> 46:43 (member, direct video link)

TDCCP victims protested near former Alliance member Tangping's house: <http>(reposted)

5. **TDCCP victims likely reported the case to the FBI, and Cangtian was scapegoated and expelled by the Alliance.**

Example: <http> (reposted)

### 6. **Repeated Claims by Victims (Qingteng, Ava) of Frequent Unauthorized Prison Communications with the Defendant**

Alliance figures repeatedly asserted that Guo Wengui had made telephone calls from detention to Alliance members, often at frequencies exceeding MDC's permissible call limits. These claims were never corroborated and were inconsistent with known detention communication restrictions.

Example: <http> (reposted) <http> (member) [http](http) (former member) [http](http) (member and spokesperson)

Notably, Qingteng and Ava Chan have each asserted formal victim status in connection with Yvette Wang who is a co-defendant, yet have repeatedly claimed in public forums that they received telephone calls from Mr. Guo while he was detained. This conduct raises two independent and serious concerns.

First, these alleged communications have never been verified by detention records or any court-authorized disclosure, and their factual accuracy remains entirely unsubstantiated. In the absence of verification, such claims cannot be treated as reliable and instead introduce untested and potentially false narratives into the public and procedural environment surrounding sentencing.

Second, even assuming these claims were fabricated or exaggerated, the act of invoking victim status to publicly assert direct communications with a detained defendant itself constitutes a profound blurring of legal identity. A purported victim claiming privileged or repeated access to a defendant in custody undermines the conceptual separation between victim, affiliate, and intermediary, and creates structural confusion regarding role, authority, and credibility. Whether true or false, these statements—made by individuals occupying dual and conflicting roles within an organization previously identified in government filings as connected to the charged conspiracy—further erode source neutrality and contaminate the reliability of information advanced by Alliance leadership in the sentencing and forfeiture context.

### 7. **Advocacy for Improper Ex Parte Communications with the Court and Resulting Mass Participation**

In addition to the Alliance's role in mobilizing post–status conference sentencing submissions, Qingteng also publicly supported and amplified calls by Alliance-affiliated figures—including Tang Ping and an individual known as "Witch Peace"—urging supporters to submit **ex parte letters directly to the presiding judge**. Other senior NFSC figures, including but not limited to Tang Ping, William Wong, and Eglise, likewise endorsed or promoted these calls.

Following the initial advocacy, Qingteng received warnings from previous defense counsel, who made clear that such ex parte communications were potentially harmful to the defendant. In response, Qingteng publicly modified his instructions, stating that supporters should submit materials to defense counsel rather than directly to the prosecutor or the presiding judge. However, prior counsel explicitly clarified that they had not authorized or agreed to accept such submissions.

This conduct must be understood in light of the Alliance's unique structural position. As described in the Background section, following Mr. Guo's arrest and detention, the NFSC Alliance and its affiliated farms functioned as the **sole perceived source of authoritative information** for a substantial portion of Mr. Guo's supporters. Supporters had no independent or direct channel to verify case developments, legal strategy, or permissible modes of participation. Consequently, directives or encouragements issued by Alliance leadership were reasonably understood by supporters as accurate representations of what Mr. Guo wanted or what the legal process required.

Within this context, the Alliance's advocacy of ex parte communications did not operate as isolated speech or individual misconduct. Rather, it predictably generated mass participation by supporters who, acting in reliance on Alliance leadership, believed they were appropriately assisting the defendant. The result was not merely the encouragement of improper communications, but the activation of a collective response directed at the Court outside the adversarial process. Following warnings from prior defense counsel that such ex parte submissions were misinformed and potentially harmful to the defendant, Qingteng publicly modified his instructions, directing supporters to submit materials to counsel instead of directly to the Court or prosecutor. This redirection, however, produced another wave of mass submissions: supporters inundated counsel with letters and materials, prompting counsel to reiterate that they had not

authorized or agreed to receive these communications. This sequence illustrates the persistent structural confusion and procedural risk created by the Alliance's dual role as both perceived informational intermediary and de facto gatekeeper for supporters.

Despite these warnings, per ECF No. 700, the defendant terminated counsel, further demonstrating the absence of effective internal checks and the de facto control the Alliance exerted over information flow.

Notably, this ex parte campaign—and the subsequent redirection instructing supporters to send materials to defense counsel instead of the presiding judge or prosecutor without counsel's permission—mirrors the same operational pattern reflected in Qingteng's January 23, 2026 call for witnesses to submit sentencing-related materials to defense counsel, an effort that directly preceded the creation of ECF Nos. 797 and 799. **In both instances, Alliance leadership leveraged its informational monopoly and organizational authority to mobilize supporters to intervene in the legal process at critical post-trial stages.**

Examples:

<http> (reposted, image 2)

<http> (reposted, Ex parte communication timeline) <http> (reposted)

Previous counsel's attitude on Ex-parte communication to the Judge:

<http> (reposted)

<http> (reposted)

<http>(reposted)

<http>(reposted )

# **VII. Public Impact and Systemic Failures in Victim Management**

The conduct of the NFSC Alliance, led by Qingteng, has had a demonstrably

negative impact on the public and on the integrity of judicial proceedings. In particular, Qingteng and Ava Chan—both of whom assert victim status—have actively engaged in efforts to influence sentencing, often through the dissemination of false or misleading information. Throughout these events, the prosecution has consistently failed to address or counter these interventions, effectively remaining passive despite the clear influence of Alliance-affiliated individuals on the evidentiary process. Similarly, the Court's oversight regarding the management and verification of victim-submitted information has been insufficient, reflecting a broader systemic failure in ensuring that victim involvement does not compromise procedural fairness. The combined effect of these actions—misleading public communications, strategic manipulation of witness participation, and inadequate governmental oversight—demonstrates both a tangible harm to public perception and a procedural risk to the sentencing and evidentiary record.

### **VIII. Reservation of Opinion Regarding Sentencing and Forfeiture**

The events detailed above—including Qingteng's January 23, 2026 call prompting witnesses to submit sentencing-relevant materials, which directly preceded the creation of ECF Nos. 797 and 799, combined with my personal knowledge of Victim DM—**demonstrate that the trial record is materially incomplete.** The chilling effect imposed by the NFSC Alliance's October 15, 2025 video, **through the fabrication of a non-docketed agreement between the defense and the prosecution**, and the February 5, 2026 broadcast in which Zhang Yongbing instructed individuals allegedly coerced into filing false reports to contact the Alliance first, together illustrate a coordinated process of **witness chilling, evidence gatekeeping, and controlled information flow that directly places the sentencing process at risk.**

Moreover, the ongoing interference by Qingteng, Ava Chan, Cangtian, and other senior Alliance figures—including repeated public programs purporting to relay defendant instructions, dissemination of unverified or demonstrably false narratives, promotion of speculative financial instruments using the defendant's name, and coordinated encouragement of ex parte communications demonstrates that this pattern of interference has been continuous and escalating since Qingteng assumed leadership. Notably, prior defense counsel explicitly identified these actions as misinformed and materially harmful to the defendant, warning that such conduct posed substantial procedural and evidentiary risks to Mr. Guo.

The Alliance's advocacy and amplification of ex parte communications directed at the presiding judge—particularly when undertaken by the same individuals who simultaneously discouraged witnesses to testify in Oct 2025 and later mobilized post-trial submissions—**reflects a continuation of the same intervention model.** When viewed against the background that the NFSC Alliance and its affiliated farms functioned as the sole perceived source of authoritative information for supporters of a detained defendant, such encouragement predictably resulted in mass, non-neutral attempts to influence the Court outside the adversarial and docketed process.

Critically, the legal and organizational roles of key Alliance figures remain ambiguous and conflicted. Qingteng and Ava Chan, while asserting victim status in related proceedings—specifically as purported victims of Yvette Wang—also maintain ongoing affiliation with an organization previously identified in government filings as connected to the charged conspiracy. Zhang Yongbing, meanwhile, is a designated co-conspirator who has handled legal matters for the Alliance, yet publicly claims support for Mr. Guo. Within the NFSC Alliance, individuals holding such dual or conflicting roles are not isolated cases; multiple senior figures simultaneously occupy positions as victims, purported allies of the defendant, and participants in or affiliates of the alleged conspiracy. This structural entanglement amplifies the risk of partiality, non-neutral influence, and procedural contamination in the collection and presentation of sentencingrelevant materials.

Taken together, these coordinated actions do not merely raise concerns about the credibility of individual submissions; they create a risk of structural corruption of the sentencing record itself, undermining source neutrality, adversarial testing, and the integrity of the information upon which sentencing and forfeiture determinations would rest.

**Moreover, the incidents described above represent only publicly observable and documented examples of such interference. They are illustrative, not exhaustive. As an external observer, I cannot reasonably capture or account for every instance in which Alliance-affiliated actors may have attempted to influence, redirect, or interfere with the sentencing process. Accordingly, the full scope, frequency, and extent of such interference remain unknown, further compounding the risk to the integrity of the sentencing record.**

**Against this backdrop—including the dual and self-contradictory roles of**

**Qingteng, Ava, Zhang Yongbing and other Alliance figures as both purported victims and individuals affiliated with an organization previously identified in government filings as connected to the charged conspiracy, as well as their collective interference with the sentencing process as described above—I expressly reserve all opinions and objections regarding any determinations of sentencing or forfeiture, and submit this recordpreservation notice to ensure that the Court is fully apprised of these serious procedural and evidentiary concerns.**

The foregoing statements are true to the best of my knowledge and based on my personal experience and observations.

Respectfully submitted, Ryan Bai February 07, 2026

#### 关于近期**发展对量刑程序完整性构成重大风险的记录保存通知**

尊敬的Torres法官:

我,Ryan Bai,谨以此信仅为保存记录并明确保留异议之有限目的而提交。本提交仅用于记录保 存,不寻求地区法院的任何救济,亦不请求对本文所述问题进行裁决。相同材料将同时提交至我 的第二巡回法院案件25-2726,以确保上诉记录的连续性。本英文版本在所有法律目的上仍为控 制版本,所附中文译本仅供便利参考。这份英文版本在所有法律目的下具有**约束力和优先效力**, 所附中文译本**仅供理解和参考之用**。

#### NFSC**联盟的背景**

NFSC联盟及其附属"农场"作为Miles Guo的主要支持者组织网络,充当了郭先生与其更广泛支持者 基础之间的非正式桥梁。在郭先生被捕并拘押后,其支持者失去了直接或独立的渠道来获取有关 其法律地位、拘押条件或案件进展的信息。在实践中,该联盟及其附属农场成为唯一声称反映郭 先生情况的信息来源。

因此,大量支持者继续将联盟及其领导层视为权威且可信的来源。这种依赖在审判后时期持续存 在,并至今明显。近期向辩护律师传送材料的个人并非出于独立主动,而是响应联盟秘书长 Qingteng(以其组织身份行事)的号召。他们的参与基于长期培养的信念,即联盟及其农场传播 的信息准确反映了郭先生的利益和意图。

这一结构性现实之所以重要,并非因为它确立了意图或可信度,而是因为它解释了联盟如何实际 获得动员、汇总并集体渠道化与量刑相关提交的能力。当一个组织成为被拘押被告与其支持者之 间的唯一信息中介时,其领导层必然对进入法律程序的信息的时机、内容和流动拥有不成比例的 影响力。

#### I. 状**态会议后与量刑相关材料的出现**

正如ECF Nos. 797和799所反映,辩护律师在记录中表示,在2026年1月20日状态会议后,律师收 到了直接涉及量刑的额外材料。律师进一步陈述,这些材料与量刑考虑因素相关,表明与量刑相 关的信息宇宙在状态会议后继续发展。

公开可得的声明显示,状态会议后的提交是由Qingteng(又名Forrest Zhou / Yue Zhou)所鼓励 的,他目前担任NFSC联盟秘书长。<http> 虽然法院在此阶段无需评 估此类声明的准确性或可信度,但存在协调努力以征求并传送状态会议后量刑相关材料这一事实 本身即为相关背景情境。

另有公开报道称,在相关程序中另一被告Yvette Wang的量刑听证(2025年1月6日)后, Qingteng和NFSC发言人Ava Chen随后登记为受害者。 <http>

### 法律上的重大含**义**

这些情况共同引发了若干与量刑程序完整性相关的法律重大考量:

首先,辩护律师已在记录中确认新收到的材料"涉及量刑"。ECF No. 797。此外,正如ECF No. 799 所反映,律师表示某些所谓受害者可能受到中华人民共和国当局压力而提交虚假报告。审判中并 未呈现此类证据。这些问题在量刑阶段的出现突显审判记录未包含现被承认对量刑具有实质性的 信息。

其次,Qingteng作为NFSC联盟秘书长的职位反映了一种组织能力,即征求、汇总并传送未在审判 中引入的信息,包括现被代表为影响量刑的材料。单一行为者协调产生审判记录外量刑相关信息 的能力,突显此类提交的非中立来源。

第三,政府先前已将NFSC关联的"联盟农场"结构认定为犯罪工具。参见ECF No. 344。此外,在 ECF No. 388中,法院批准将前NFSC秘书长Xia Qidong指定为共谋者。虽然法院尚未在定罪后就 NFSC作为组织的法律地位作出认定,但Qingteng所占据的领导职位鉴于该组织在现有记录中的处 理方式,必然带有敏感性。

#### 程序性关切

综合上述事实,呈现出若干程序性风险:

1. 来源与角色冲突 Qingteng同时主张受害者地位,同时在政府备案中先前被认定为犯罪工 具的组织中担任高级角色,且他登记为Yvette Wang(本案被告、Miles Guo助理)的受害 者。在此情况下,他鼓励向辩护律师提交材料,反映了受害者地位与潜在共谋者关联之间 的结构性紧张,其法律身份亦存在自我矛盾与模糊性。

- 2. 第三方对量刑记录的实质干预 状态会议后动员量刑相关材料反映了第三方在审判证据框 架外实质参与塑造量刑记录。 - 3. 对量刑信息流动的潜在把关 当与记录中先前认定组织相关联的个人能够集体协调并传送 量刑相关材料时,信息管道本身的完整性即易受扭曲。

总之,当一名主张受害者地位同时保持与政府备案中认定为犯罪工具的组织持续关联的个人,在 量刑前夕动员并传送先前未经检验的、对量刑至关重要的材料时,该行为本身即构成重大程序风 险。此类情形削弱来源中立性,损害量刑记录的形成,并对控制涉及刑罚的信息提出重大关切。

#### II. 所**谓受害者通过虚假指控未入卷的辩护**-**检方协议**,捏造"**选择**"叙事以寒蝉**证人参与**

然而,Qingteng对证人向辩护律师提供证据的态度,在2025年10月15日与2026年1月20日之后形 成了鲜明对比。在2025年10月15日的视频中(<http>,1小时9分钟后 ),Qingteng与现任NFSC发言人Ava Chan(Ava Chen,亦于2025年1月6日在另一被告Yvette Wang的量刑听证中登记为"受害者")散布虚假主张,声称郭文贵在审判期间面临所谓"选择":要 么签署一份承认其为"猎狐"行动对象的约定(DX001,ECF No. 718的附件B),要么传唤有利证人 。虽然该约定确实存在,但任何具备基本法律常识的人都会认识到,检方绝不会冒风险达成此类 协议,且此类协议将完整记录在审判记录中。因此,Ava的陈述纯属捏造,试图解释为何Miles Guo在审判中未传唤关键证人。Ava不仅捏造了若属实将构成严重检方不当行为的指控,而且在量 刑阶段持续传播这一虚假叙事,积极干扰了被告的量刑程序。

关键的是,Ava将"关键证人"的出庭与"保护NFSC盟友的政治庇护"框定为相互排斥。根据这一逻辑 ,任何本可在审判中出庭的证人——携带关键证据,或事后寻求提供证据——在Ava的叙事中, 都将被视为违反郭的"选择"并背叛联盟。这实际上将提供关键证据的行为转化为对NFSC的不忠行 为,从而对证人参与产生寒蝉效应,并误传证人意图。此外,视频中的Roy和Ava在没有任何法律 依据的情况下断言,在加拿大寻求庇护的反联盟人士被驱逐出境,隐含威胁潜在证人。此类行为 有效寒蝉了潜在证人,阻吓那些审判中未作证的人提供审判后证据,尤其是那些可能通过联盟渠 道寻求庇护的个人。

相反,在2026年1月20日之后,Qingteng以NFSC秘书长及自称"受害者"的身份,积极鼓励证人向 辩护律师提交与量刑相关的证据。综合这些行为,显示出一种选择性控制证据流动的模式——先 在审判中阻吓证言,然后在量刑阶段介入提供材料——引发严重的程序关切:

#### **证人陈述与背景**

● 2025年10月15日的视频包含Qingteng和Ava Chan关于潜在证人、其参与以及个人安全或 庇护等考量的陈述。

#### **证据控制与角色冲突**

- 1. 2026年1月20日之后,Qingteng以NFSC秘书长与"受害者"的双重身份,积极鼓励证人向辩 护方提交材料。 - 2. 结合2025年10月15日视频中先前对证人的暗示——Qingteng和Ava Chan捏造辩护与检方 之间未入卷的协议,从而污名化证人参与——此类行为反映了对证据管道的选择性控制, 通过虚假信息影响量刑记录,并创造了一个非中立的量刑相关信息渠道。

### III. 关于审判记录与审判后提交的观察

基于我作为前喜马拉雅DC农场成员(后来被开除)的个人知识,我了解某些与记录审判和 量刑记录相关的事实。在审判期间,有一位在此称为"证人DM"的证人,其情况符合ECF No. 799的描述:据报道,该个人曾被接触要求提交报告,且也投资了G系列项目。据我所 知,辩护律师在审判中并未传唤证人DM出庭作证。

在审判期间,唯一与证人DM经历具有实质相似性的辩方证人是胡一坚(Yijian Hu)。然 而,由于胡先生的证言缺乏足够的佐证证据,其最终权重有限,并未对审判结果产生实质 影响。

根据我的个人知识,在我看来,证人DM处于实质上可比的位置。如果证人DM被允许在审判 中作证,其证言本可为辩方案件提供关键佐证和语境完整性,并可能改变呈现在陪审团面 前的证据平衡。

尽管如此,证人DM从未被传唤作证。至今,记录中仍未说明为何辩护律师未授权或追求其 在审判中出庭。这一决定的任何解释缺失,突显了审判记录在类似胡先生处境的证人方面 的不完整性。

#### Case: 25-2726, 02/10/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24 of 30

证人DM使用一种被视为高风险的方式进入美国,而ECF命令388中被认定为共谋者的张永冰 (Zhang Yongbing)曾担任联盟处理法律事务的移民律师。这一背景为理解证人的时机和 可用性提供了语境。

### IV. 关于证人沟通与审判后提交的观察

2026年2月5日,NFSC联盟进行了另一场公开直播,

<http>,在该直播中,张永冰与Qingteng一同出镜 。在该直播中,大约在30分钟处,张永冰反复表示,任何"被迫提交虚假报告"的人应首先 联系联盟,联盟随后将代表他们联系辩护律师。

这一指示具有法律重大意义。它正式化了一个闭环流程,其中联盟将自身定位为证人与法 律顾问之间的强制中介。结合联盟2025年10月的讯息——该讯息在审判失败后阻吓潜在证 人出面——这一2026年2月的直播完成了一个结构性循环:证人现被指示仅通过联盟控制 的渠道在量刑阶段提交信息。

张永兵作为已认定的共谋犯,与青藤及 Ava 这两名自称受害人联合,通过公开指示和控 制渠道操控证人提交量刑相关材料,直接干涉量刑程序。这种行为不仅破坏了量刑记录的 独立性和公正性,还可能构成妨碍司法或证人操纵等形式上的刑事责任。

### V. 律师未能处理司法欺诈与程序污染

在我先前向第二巡回法院提交的曼达姆斯申请中(ECF 765),我记录了在三年内连续三 位辩护律师的过程中,没有任何律师识别或处理嵌入记录中的司法欺诈——尽管其对程序 产生了实质影响。我做了。那一失败并未因新律师的任命而得到纠正。即使第二巡回法院 未在实质上驳回我的Rule 60曼达姆斯申请,而是无偏见地拒绝续期,现任律师仍继续行 事,仿佛不存在司法欺诈。

现在,律师声称依赖新提交的、与量刑相关的材料。然而,如上详述,这些材料源于一个 过程,其中证人先被阻吓提交关键证据,随后通过非中立中介被引导,以影响量刑记录。 律师未能认识到或对抗这些风险,反映了先前代理特征的同一模式延续。

此外,如果律师接受并依赖通过联盟收集或策划的大量材料——声称记录那些据称被胁迫 提交虚假报告的个人——此类证据将受到不可挽回的污染。鉴于联盟在证人寒蝉、选择性 控制以及所谓"受害者"、发言人与已认定共谋者之间的角色混淆中已证明的参与,任何 从这一结构中产生的证据提交均缺乏量刑考虑所需的可信度指标。

在此情况下,问题不仅仅是权重或可信度,而是可采纳性和基本公平。因此,依赖此类材 料将使量刑记录本身的完整性崩溃,使提交在司法目的上功能性无效,并使程序暴露于可 逆转的程序错误。

### VI. 基于**联盟的干扰影响量刑完整性的简要历史**

在郭文贵于2024年7月16日被定罪后,Qingteng取代了前联盟秘书长夏启东("长岛哥"),并接管 了NFSC联盟的领导权。从那时起,联盟对涉及郭先生刑事案件的事务的参与并未减少;相反,它 以持续且不断升级的方式延续。

虽然2025年10月15日和2026年2月5日的广播代表了干扰量刑程序的特别显眼的体现,但它们并非 孤立事件。在Qingteng领导下,联盟反复卷入涉及量刑、受害者叙事、证人行为以及传送量刑相 关材料的事务。这种参与从Qingteng上任之初即持续存在,从未真正停止。

自接管NFSC联盟领导权以来,Qingteng及其他联盟高级人物反复从事公开活动,提及、援引或声 称传送有关郭文贵刑事案件的信息。根据公开可观察的行为,此类参与包括但不限于以下内容: (以下部分链接由NFSC管理层直接发布,其他由第三方转帖;如适用,标明"转帖",其他标明"成 员"。所有引用的视频、法院文件及其他材料均已知存在且真实;使用第三方转帖仅为说明目的, 因检索原始来源可能困难。)

### 1: 受害者(Qingteng、Ava)公开**节目声称每周接触被告并转达指示**,但无任何可**验证依据**

Qingteng与另一位NFSC成员"苍天"共同主持名为《相见》("Meeting")的节目,在节目中他们反 复讨论所谓在MDC与郭文贵会面,并声称转达归属于他的指示或信息。这些主张从未得到可验证 证据支持。该节目还常规散布关于拘押条件的明显虚假信息,包括声称郭先生在MDC生活舒适并 收到奢侈食品。

示例:<http>(转帖) <http>(转帖)

Qingteng、Ava和Roy声称他们曾访问被告在MDC,其法律身份为Yvette Wang的受害者: [http](http)

[http](http)

在不对此类会面事实上是否发生作出任何结论的前提下,这些公开主张本身即构成严重的法律身 份冲突。Qingteng和Ava Chan一方面在相关共同被告程序中主张正式受害者地位,另一方面在社 交媒体上公开表示他们在量刑前拘押期间有面对面接触被告的机会,并转达其指示。主张受害者 地位的同时又描绘对被拘押被告的直接接触及沟通权威,这种行为使原本截然不同的法律角色崩

溃。此类角色混淆——独立于底层主张的真伪——削弱了法律身份的清晰度,扭曲了公众对程序 的理解,并进一步动摇量刑框架的完整性。

#### 2: 散布关于案件**处置的虚假信息**

联盟关联人物反复传播虚假主张,称郭文贵即将被释放,或检方打算完全撤案。此类发展从未发 生,这些声明在公共记录中毫无依据。

示例:

<http>(成员) [http](http)(转帖)

<http>(转帖)

#### 3: 推广可疑的声称属于家庭成**员的账户**

联盟推广并互动一个声称属于郭文贵女儿"郭美"的账户,而未进行验证。该账户公开支持联盟叙 事。值得注意的是,前秘书长夏启东在卸任时承认所谓"郭美"账户实际上由联盟控制:

示例:<http>(成员)

夏启东关于郭美账户由联盟控制的声明:

<http>(转帖)

### 4: 使用被告姓名推广投机性加密**货币计划**

Qingteng和苍天代表联盟推广以TDCCP为主题的模因加密货币,明确援引郭先生姓名作为背书。 主要推广者包括联盟关联人物唐平(Tang Ping)和William Wang。在大力推广后,该资产在内幕 大规模抛售后突然崩盘,导致参与者遭受重大损失。在此期间,联盟传播声称包含郭文贵声音背 书该项目的音频和视频材料,其真实性受到广泛质疑,并带有AI生成伪造的迹象。

示例:<http> 46:43(成员,直接视频链接)

TDCCP受害者在前联盟成员唐平家附近抗议:

<http>(转帖)

### 5.TDCCP受害者可能已向FBI**报案**,**苍天被联盟当作替罪羊并开除**。

示例:<http>(转帖)

### 6.受害者(Qingteng、Ava)反复声称与被告有**频繁的未经授权监狱通讯**

联盟人物反复断言郭文贵从拘押中向联盟成员拨打电话,频率往往超过MDC允许的通话限制。这 些主张从未得到证实,且与已知的拘押通讯限制不符。

示例:

<http>(转帖) <http>(成员) [http](http)(前成员)

[http](http)(成员及发言人)

值得注意的是,Qingteng和Ava Chan各自在与共同被告Yvette Wang相关的程序中主张正式受害 者地位,却在公开论坛中反复声称他们在郭先生被拘押期间收到其电话。此类行为引发两个独立 且严重的关切。

首先,这些所谓通讯从未通过拘押记录或任何法院授权披露得到验证,其事实准确性完全未经证 实。在缺乏验证的情况下,此类主张不能视为可靠,反而将未经检验且可能虚假的叙事引入围绕 量刑的公共和程序环境。

其次,即使假设这些主张被捏造或夸大,以受害者身份公开主张与被拘押被告的直接通讯本身即 构成对法律身份的深刻模糊。所谓受害者声称享有特权或反复接触在押被告,破坏了受害者、关 联者和中介之间的概念分离,并造成关于角色、权威和可信度的结构性混淆。无论真伪,这些由 在政府备案中先前与指控共谋相关联的组织中占据双重且冲突角色的个人所作的声明,进一步侵 蚀来源中立性,并污染联盟领导层在量刑和没收语境中推进的信息的可靠性。

#### 7: 倡**导不当的单方**(Ex-parte)与法院通**讯并导致大规模参与**

除了联盟在动员状态会议后量刑提交方面的角色外,Qingteng还公开支持并放大联盟关联人物( 包括唐平和一位名为"魔女"的人)的号召,敦促支持者直接向主审法官提交单方信函。其他NFSC 高级人物,包括但不限于唐平、William Wong和Eglise,亦认可或推广这些号召。

在最初倡导后,Qingteng收到前辩护律师的警告,后者明确表示此类单方通讯可能对被告有害。 作为回应,Qingteng公开修改其指示,称支持者应将材料提交给辩护律师而非直接提交给检察官 或主审法官。然而,前律师明确澄清他们并未授权或同意接受此类提交。

此类行为必须置于联盟独特结构性位置的背景下理解。如背景部分所述,在郭先生被捕并拘押后 ,NFSC联盟及其附属农场成为郭先生大量支持者所感知的唯一权威信息来源。支持者没有独立或 直接渠道验证案件进展、法律策略或允许的参与方式。因此,联盟领导层发出的指示或鼓励被支 持者合理理解为郭先生意愿或法律程序要求的准确代表。

在此背景下,联盟对单方通讯的倡导并非孤立的言论或个人不当行为,而是可预见地引发支持者 的大规模参与,他们依赖联盟领导层行事,相信自己是在适当协助被告。其结果不仅是鼓励不当 通讯,而是激活针对法院的集体回应,绕过对抗程序。在前辩护律师警告此类单方提交系误导且 可能对被告有害后,Qingteng公开修改指示,引导支持者将材料提交给律师而非直接提交法院或 检察官。这一重定向却引发另一波大规模提交:支持者向律师淹没信函和材料,促使律师重申他 们并未授权或同意接收这些通讯。这一序列说明了联盟作为感知信息中介与事实把关者的双重角 色所造成的持续结构性混淆和程序风险。

尽管有这些警告,根据ECF No. 700,被告终止了律师,进一步证明缺乏有效的内部制衡以及联盟 对信息流动的事实控制。

值得注意的是,这一单方运动——以及随后指示支持者未经律师许可将材料发送给辩护律师而非 主审法官或检察官——反映了与Qingteng 2026年1月23日号召证人向辩护律师提交量刑相关材料 的相同操作模式,后一努力直接先于ECF Nos. 797和799的创建。在两种情况下,联盟领导层利用 其信息垄断和组织权威,在关键审判后阶段动员支持者干预法律程序。

示例:<http>(转帖,图像2) <http>(转帖,单方通讯时间线) <http>(转帖)

前律师对向法官单方通讯的态度:

<http>(转帖) <http>(转帖) <http>(转帖)

<http>(转帖)

### VII. 公众影响与受害者管理中的系**统性失败**

由Qingteng领导的NFSC联盟的行为,已对公众以及司法程序的完整性产生了可证明的负面影响。 特别是Qingteng和Ava Chan——两者均主张受害者地位——积极参与影响量刑的努力,往往通过

散布虚假或误导性信息实现。在这些事件全程,检方始终未能处理或反驳这些干预,尽管联盟关 联个人对证据程序产生了明显影响,检方却始终保持被动。同样,法院在管理和验证受害者提交 信息方面的监督不足,反映出在确保受害者参与不损害程序公平性方面的更广泛系统性失败。这 些行动的综合效应——误导性公众沟通、对证人参与的策略性操纵以及政府监督的不足——既对 公众认知造成了切实损害,也对量刑和证据记录构成了程序性风险。

#### VIII. 关于量刑与没收的意**见保留**

上述详述的事件——包括Qingteng于2026年1月23日号召证人提交量刑相关材料(该号召直接先 于ECF Nos. 797和799的创建),结合我对受害者DM的个人知识——证明审判记录在实质上不完 整。NFSC联盟2025年10月15日视频通过捏造辩护与检方之间未入卷协议而施加的寒蝉效应,以及 2026年2月4–5日广播中张永冰指示据称被胁迫提交虚假报告的个人首先联系联盟,一同展示了协 调的证人寒蝉、证据把关以及受控信息流动过程,直接将量刑程序置于风险之中。

此外,Qingteng、Ava Chan、苍天及其他联盟高级人物的持续干扰——包括反复公开节目声称转 达被告指示、散布未经证实或明显虚假的叙事、使用被告姓名推广投机性金融工具、以及协调鼓 励单方通讯——证明自Qingteng接任领导以来,这种干扰模式持续且不断升级。值得注意的是, 前辩护律师明确将这些行为认定为误导性且对被告造成实质损害,并警告此类行为对郭先生构成 重大的程序性和证据性风险。

联盟对直接针对主审法官的单方通讯的倡导与放大——特别是在同一批人在2025年10月阻吓证人 出庭作证、随后又在审判后动员提交的情况下——反映了相同干预模式的延续。鉴于NFSC联盟及 其附属农场作为被拘押被告支持者唯一感知的权威信息来源的背景,此类鼓励可预见地导致大规 模、非中立的尝试,在对抗性和入卷程序之外影响法院。

关键的是,联盟关键人物的法律与组织角色仍处于模糊且冲突状态。Qingteng和Ava Chan一方面 在相关程序中主张受害者地位(具体为据称Yvette Wang的受害者),另一方面继续保持与政府 备案中先前被认定与指控共谋相关联的组织的关联。张永冰则作为被指定的共谋者,曾为联盟处 理法律事务,却公开声称支持郭先生。在NFSC联盟内部,此类双重或冲突角色的个人并非孤例; 多名高级人物同时占据受害者、被告所谓盟友以及指控共谋的参与者或关联者的位置。这种结构 性纠缠放大了在收集和呈现量刑相关材料过程中的偏见、非中立影响以及程序污染风险。

#### Case: 25-2726, 02/10/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 30 of 30

综合来看,这些协调行动不仅仅是对个别提交可信度的关切;它们创造了量刑记录本身结构性腐 败的风险,削弱来源中立性、对抗性检验以及量刑与没收裁定所依据信息的完整性。

此外,上述事件仅为公开可观察且有文档记录的此类干扰示例,具有说明性而非穷尽性。作为外 部观察者， 我无法合理捕捉或说明联盟关联行为者可能尝试影响、重定向或干扰量刑程序的每一 实例。因此,此类干扰的全部范围、频率和程度仍属未知,进一步加剧了对量刑记录完整性的风 险。

在此背景下——包括Qingteng, Ava, 张永兵及其他联盟人物作为所谓受害者与政府备案中先前被 认定与指控共谋相关联的组织关联者的双重且自我矛盾角色(其既以所谓"受害人"自居,或被认 定为共谋犯,或与此前在政府文件中被认定与所指控共谋行为有关联的组织保持隶属关系),以 及如上所述他们对量刑程序的集体干扰——我明确保留对任何量刑或没收裁定的一切意见和异议 ,并提交本记录保存通知,以确保法院充分知悉这些严重的程序性和证据性关切。

此致

敬礼

Ryan Bai

2026年2月7日