--- type: court_doc id: "court_2cir_26-1476_dkt_24" court: "2Cir" case_no: "26-1476" doc_number: 24 doc_type: "EXHIBIT" filed_date: "2026-07-20" lang: "en" machine_translated: false url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_2cir_26-1476_dkt_24" json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_2cir_26-1476_dkt_24" --- # Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — appeal · EXHIBIT · ECF #24 **Supplemental Exhibit Letter of Pro Se Petitioner — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), 2Cir 26-1476 Dkt #24 (filed 2026-07-20). Pro se petitioner Sarah submitted this supplemental letter (designated Supplemental Exhibit D-1) for the limited purpose of record preservation for appellate review without seeking emergency relief. The submission details alleged extrajudicial statements, social media campaigns by "pro-Guo" and "anti-Guo" factions (including commentary by Bingceng Gao), and potential interference affecting the integrity of the record and pro se participants.** Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (1 of 39) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT IN RE: Sarah, Pro Se Petitioner Docket No: 26-1476 (Consolidated with Related Matters) SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT D-1: LETTER SUBMISSION OF PRO SE PETITIONER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF RECORD PRESERVATION (Supplementing Exhibit D, Dkt. 18.7 [July 20, 2026] and Dkt. 22.1 [August 21, 2026]) Dear Clerk of Court and Honorable Judges: I, Sarah, respectfully submit this supplemental letter as a pro se petitioner for the sole purpose of further preserving the evidentiary record for appellate review, without seeking substantive or emergency relief at this time. Supplementing Exhibit D of Dkt. 18.7 (filed July 20, 2026) and the Letter Submission of Dkt. 22.1 (filed August 21, 2026), this submission (designated as Supplemental Exhibit D-1) is provided to inform the Court of ongoing extrajudicial statements and social media activities that bear directly upon the integrity of the record in this matter. Whether originating from self-identified "pro-Guo," "anti-Guo," or various Alliance- affiliated entities, these coordinated online campaigns and non-neutral extrajudicial representations risk confusing the factual record and intimidating pro se participants. Furthermore, within the pro se claimant community itself, conflicting representations have emerged; these warrant the Court's awareness to ensure the integrity of judicial review. To ensure the historical accuracy and appellate reliability of this matter, this submission presents seven key areas of observed record interference and systemic vulnerabilities, supported by attached screenshots and documentary records: 1/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (2 of 39) Chapter I: The symbiotic information manipulation between "Pro-Guo" and "Anti-Guo" factions; Chapter II: The operational mechanics of community mobilization and the systemic conversion of investors into a standardized "victim" framework; Chapter III: Pseudo-dissidents and the non-judicial diversion of victim energy away from statutory remedies; Chapter IV: Cross-platform extrajudicial pressure campaigns and narrative deification by specific network agents; Chapter V: Facial defects, structural cross-contamination, and assembly-line duplication in bad-faith pro se filings; Chapter VI: Recent malicious network acts, including private mail interception, direct doxing, and manufactured assassination narratives; and Chapter VII: Systemic vulnerabilities, extraterritorial pressure, and the forced disappearance of independent grassroots pro se pioneers. 2/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (3 of 39) Chapter I THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF "PRO-GUO" VS. "ANTI-GUO" FACTIONS: COORDINATED INFORMATION MANIPULATION AND THEATRICAL POLARIZATION Contrary to the public optics of fierce ideological opposition, the self-proclaimed "Anti- Guo" and "Pro-Guo" social media factions operate not as genuine opposing interests, but as a coordinated, symbiotic ecosystem. Both sides manipulate public perception, exploit victim resources, and distract from the objective realities of these proceedings. §1.1 The "Anti-Guo" Faction: Commercialized Ridicule and Superficial Framing A prominent figure within the "Anti-Guo" commentary network is Canadian-based commentator Bingceng Gao (known online as "Huanghebian" / 黄河边). Maintaining an active presence across YouTube (@huanghebian) and X (@huanghebian), Gao produces commercialized commentary targeting Defendant Guo Wengui and his network of figures. However, rather than offering objective or substantive exposure of the underlying network, Gao’s commentary fails to address the operational reality of these actors, reducing complex information operations to superficial mockery. Superficial Ridicule as Diversion: Rather than conducting neutral analysis or exposing structural covert operations, Gao systematically reduces key Alliance figures to a simplistic, theatrical narrative of "blind followers" or "infatuated victims." This superficial framing is epitomized in Gao’s public graphics (Figures 1B-E), which fail to objectively reveal how these supposedly "pro-Guo" figures actually operate to the Defendant’s grave legal detriment. Analysis of the 16 x 10 Matrix (Fig. 1D): On July 11, 2024, Gao published a matrix depicting 160 female figures as a "Fangirl Family Portrait". As an early and persistent observer who closely followed these broadcast platforms since late 2017—frequently liking, supporting, and respecting these individuals in their early streams—the petitioner possesses direct, first-hand familiarity with these 160 featured figures. While initially presented as devout supporters, long-term 3/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (4 of 39) observation and procedural developments reveal that their coordinated conduct is fundamentally malicious: under the disguise of devotion, they systematically engineered actions that heightened Defendant Guo’s legal liabilities and ensured his prolonged detention. Yet, Gao’s commentary over the years has remained entirely static, endlessly recycling surface-level mockery that shields these bad- faith actors from meaningful public and judicial scrutiny. Analysis of the "Eight Female Cadres" Post (Fig. 1E) & Judicial Interference: On August 24, 2026, Gao published a 13-minute YouTube commentary and corresponding X post featuring an AI-generated graphic of eight prominent female figures. The original text of Gao’s X post reads: "President Guo Wengui and his eight female provincial and ministerial-level cadres: half are lovesick, half are cannon fodder!" Gao explicitly labeled these eight individuals as Guo’s loyal followers: Back Row: An Hong (安红, @maryann_3040 in X, see Fig.1D at grid E3), Zhengdao Zhuyi Xiaocao (Grass Roots, Angelina, 正道主义小草, @GrassRoots79741 in X), Witch (魔女/摩女), and Zhimakaimen (ZMKM, 芝麻开门). Front Row: Rushui / Hao Yumei (如水/郝玉梅), Rebecca, Fengqiyunyong Sarah ( 风起云涌, FQYY Sarah), and Karl Alice (卡尔爱丽丝). While the petitioner was once intimately familiar with and respectful of all eight individuals, extensive observation demonstrates that they are false supporters who, under the banner of "protecting Guo," actively push for his ultimate incarceration. Gao— who has covered this ecosystem for years—cannot be unaware of this reality. Crucially, Gao’s fabrication of a "President Guo" narrative actively interferes with the judicial process by reinforcing a false premise. In truth, Defendant Guo opposed authoritarian dictatorship, advocating explicitly for a "one-person, one-vote" democratic system in the official NFSC Declaration, never held any official corporate or governmental title, never coerced others, and expressed no ambition for a presidency. However, both the "Pro- Guo" Alliance leaders and "Anti-Guo" commentators like Gao have symbiotically manufactured a narrative framing Guo as an autocratic "Boss" or "Commander-in- Chief." This misrepresentation conveniently aligns with the prosecution's RICO framing: 4/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (5 of 39) when individual network actors commit independent wrongful acts, this manufactured top-down hierarchy allows them to shift sole liability onto Guo as the alleged "commander." By echoing and perpetuating this false hierarchy for online traffic, Gao actively obstructs judicial clarity and aids in framing Defendant Guo within a RICO structure while shielding autonomous actors from individual accountability. §1.2 The Pro-Guo Faction: Manufactured Loyalty and Control of Supporter Narrative On the opposing side, public "Pro-Guo" figures maintain a posture of extreme personal devotion to the Defendant. However, as documented across related Circuit filings (e.g., Case No. 25-2726, Dkt. 35 and Case No. 26-1476, Dkts. 8.1 and 18.7), these figures function primarily as gatekeepers. They cultivate an emotionally charged environment that deters followers from seeking independent legal counsel or filing objective Pro Se petitions before this Court. First-Hand Evidence of Supporter-Group Exclusion and Monitored Pro Se Forums: While "Pro-Guo" factions appear exponentially larger in membership than "Anti-Guo" networks, their operations rely on strict ideological filtering. The petitioner’s direct experience demonstrates that independent, objective voices are actively purged from primary "Pro-Guo" Alliance chat groups within days, as the NFSC organizers fear any discourse that challenges their controlled narrative or influences rank-and-file members. Conversely, genuine Pro Se legal inquiry has been forced to operate independently. A primary example is a dedicated Pro Se legal discussion group established on Discord by an independent grassroots pioneer, Chunk Chyi (known online as "Brother Screw" / "Luosi-Ge," a welder by trade), who first identified and mapped out the Pro Se petition pathway for victims. Unlike top-down Alliance channels, this community grew organically from a few individuals to over 500 independent petitioners. However, prominent public figures from both "Pro" and "Anti" factions strictly avoid participating under their public identities, instead deploying anonymous secondary accounts ("spies") to covertly monitor group activity. 5/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (6 of 39) §1.3 The Symbiotic Reality: Mutual Preservation and Record Pollution Despite their surface-level hostility, neither faction exposes the true underlying dynamics of the other: Absence of Substantive Exposure: "Anti-Guo" commentators like Gao consistently focus on superficial mockery of low-level supporters rather than exposing how key Alliance figures manipulate funds, petitions, and legal representations. Fabricated Hostility for Engagement: The endless feud between "Pro" and "Anti" factions serves as theatrical entertainment to capture supporter attention, monetize online traffic, and create overwhelming noise ("pumping sand") to obscure legitimate judicial filings. Chilling Effect on Independent Pro Se Petitioners: Independent victims and pro se petitioners who refuse to align with either the "Pro-Guo" Alliance or the "Anti-Guo" online commentary circle are systematically harassed, doxed, or blocked by both sides, depriving them of a neutral forum to preserve their rights. §1.4 Explicit Proof of Content Recycling and the Qmay- Huanghebian (Gao) Direct Information Pipeline The symbiotic mechanism between the "Pro-Guo" hype apparatus and the "Anti-Guo" commentary network is vividly demonstrated by the direct information pipeline between Min Chen (known online as "QMAY" / @Q_May_007 in X and @ QMAY007 in GETTR, see Chapter VI for more details), a key spokesperson for the alleged Defendant’s supporters, and Bingceng Gao ("Huanghebian"). Information Origin: On August 21, 2026, Min Chen published posts on X (formerly Twitter) asserting that the Defendant's transfer between federal correctional facilities (FCI Schuylkill to Danbury) involved "coordination between the CCP and U.S. government entities" and framing Danbury as a safer, luxury facility. She further scheduled a live broadcast (Episode 147 of The Qmay Show) to disseminate these claims. Immediate Repurposing: Within hours, Bingceng Gao extracted Min Chen’s live broadcast feeds and X posts, presenting them verbatim in his own YouTube and X streams to manufacture breaking commentary. 6/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (7 of 39) Evidentiary Significance: This direct pipeline demonstrates that "Anti-Guo" commentary does not conduct independent investigation. Instead, it relies entirely on fed narratives provided by primary "Pro-Guo" organizers. This mutually beneficial arrangement generates traffic and monetization for both parties while saturating public and judicial record channels with dramatic, conflicting, and unverified noise. Legal Implication for Judicial Proceedings: This total absence of adversarial scrutiny between the "Pro" and "Anti" factions proves that the public commentary surrounding these cases does not offer genuine counter-perspectives. Instead, it forms an uncritically recycled echo chamber that obscures factual records, misleads victim investors, and distorts the true nature of proceedings before this Court. 7/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (8 of 39) Fig. 1A: Gao’s Profile in X (Bilingual, @huanghebian) Fig. 1B: Screenshot on Mocking Alliance Members Fig. 1C: Post Targeting “Pro-Guo” Women Fig. 1D: Matrix of 16x10(A-J) =160 Female Influencers Fig. 1E: Screenshots of Attacks on “Supporters” Fig. 1F: Content of Recycling of Qmay's Allegation Fig. 1A: Public profile of Bingceng Gao's X account (@huanghebian) shown in Chinese original and auto-translated English. Fig. 1B: Screenshot of YouTube video published by Gao on Nov. 28, 2025, titled "Huanghebian Comments on the Nonsense of Two Infatuated Followers", ridiculing two key Alliance figures in Europe, Zhou Zhe and “Xiaopijiang” (偷窥皮皮, @ToukuiP82522t in X). Fig. 1C: Screenshots of Gao's X post showing the auto-translated English version beside the Chinese original, titled "Guo Wengui’s Infatuated Fan Family Portrait", categorizing 160 prominent Alliance figures into a simplistic matrix. Fig. 1D: Gao’s X post compiling portraits of 160 prominent female Alliance figures, framing them collectively as "infatuated followers” Fig. 1E: Screenshots of Gao’s X post and YouTube video commentary dated August 24, 2026, wherein Gao falsely constructs a narrative of a "President Guo" and his "cadres," symbiotically reinforcing a top-down hierarchy that aligns with RICO liability theories while diverting attention from the autonomous misconduct of individual network actors. Fig. 1F: Screenshots of Gao’s broadcast overlaying and playing "QMAY's" live video feed verbatim within his own channel, proving the instantaneous recycling of primary Alliance content for secondary commentary monetization. Specifically, Gao reposts and comments on Qmay’s sensationalized narrative alleging that Guo was subjected to a "prison assassination plot" and emergency transfer, adopting these unsubstantiated assertions uncritically as factual premises for his own commercial broadcast content . Fig. 1: Uncritical Content Recycling, Manufactured Hierarchy and Theatrical Mockery 8/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (9 of 39) Chapter II: OPERATIONAL MECHANICS OF COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION, PROCEDURAL PIVOT, AND THE UNRESOLVED PROVENANCE OF ATTORNEY BRADFORD L. GEYER’S REPRESENTATION OF OVER 6,000 HEX USERS §2.1 Community Trust Exploitation, Legal Framing Evolution, and Public Solicitation via Alliance The mechanism by which Attorney Bradford L. Geyer (“Geyer”)—previously an unknown practitioner to the investor base—secured authorization from over 6,000 individual Himalaya Exchange (“HEX”) users relies entirely on the structural influence of the Himalaya Alliance (“Alliance”). The targeted investor pool comprised ordinary individuals globally whose primary language is Chinese, most of whom lacked proficiency in English, complex U.S. federal court procedures, or administrative law. Driven by a shared political aspiration to support Defendant Miles Guo (“Guo”) in advocating for democratic reform in China, these investors entrusted both their political faith and personal assets to the movement. Following Guo’s arrest on March 15, 2023, the investor community experienced widespread vulnerability. Rather than fracturing, the Alliance leadership actively projected an image of absolute solidarity and resolve. To construct institutional authority and consolidate trust, the Alliance orchestrated large-scale public demonstrations across two key locations: high-profile rallies opposite the Sherry-Netherland in Manhattan where Miles Guo was residing before his arrest, as well as maritime demonstrations on the Hudson River directly opposite the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where a chartered vessel carrying over 400 supporters chanted "Free Miles Guo" during live broadcasts. The gathering at the plaza featured invited members of the local American media. These public actions elevated the Alliance’s credibility and community authority to an all-time high. Leveraging this peak institutional trust, Alliance leadership introduced Geyer to the community. Prominent Alliance figureheads, including primary spokesperson Little Sarah (Real Name: Xingfang Zhang, @LittleSarah in GETTR), who re-emerged on live broadcasts following a prolonged absence after Guo’s arrest, utilized 9/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (10 of 39) emotional and ideological messaging ("anti-CCP movements" and "resisting unlawful government seizures") to rally support. Through GETTR live-streams, leadership actively encouraged retail investors to sign retainers with Geyer, presenting his legal representation as a unified defense of their assets and Guo’s cause. Unaware of the underlying legal implications or conflicting interests, thousands of investors deferred to the organization’s direction. Initial Framing and Asset Recovery Mandate (Sept–Dec 2023): In September 2023, HEX distributed mass communications to customers (Exhibit 28, ECF No. 740), framing Geyer as an "entirely independent counsel" (ECF No. 526-1) and directing users to complete HID registration on himalayarestoration.com. Acting on this initial mandate, Geyer filed a Rule 41(g) Motion for Return of Property on behalf of 3,345 HEX customers (ECF Nos. 184, 186), explicitly asserting distinct third-party ownership interests ("distinct, identifiable third-party interest") and directly challenging government asset freezing without alleging fraud against Defendant Guo. Government Scrutiny and Identity Verification Concerns (Jan 2024): The prosecution formally challenged Geyer’s independence and representation scope in ECF No. 223, noting to the Court that "it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer." The government highlighted that Geyer’s client acquisition and verification mechanics relied almost exclusively on HEX database HIDs rather than direct attorney-client engagement. Subtle Procedural Expansion (Nov 2024): In ECF No. 478, Geyer’s filings began incorporating terms such as "victims/investors" alongside citations to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), blending original third-party property arguments with victim-based relief language. Alignment with the Remission Process (Feb–Mar 2025): As the government moved for a consolidated remission framework (ECF No. 493), Geyer engaged in direct communications with prosecutors, offering to alter filings to prevent objections ("Let me know what I need to cut or alter... so that I can file this without triggering an objection," ECF No. 506). The USAO expressed intent to collaborate with Geyer to streamline the claims administrator process (ECF No. 506). Multi-Track Relief and Authorization Controversies (Apr–Aug 2025): In ECF No. 676, Geyer formally asserted claims for approximately 6,575 members across restitution, 10/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (11 of 39) ancillary forfeiture, and remission tracks. This systemic transformation triggered severe internal client disputes, culminating in numerous termination demands (ECF Nos. 506, 612) and formal pro se motions seeking to nullify original engagement agreements (ECF Nos. 508, 709, 734, 740). §2.2 Operational Conversion: Instructions to Choose "Victim" Status Despite public messaging assuring investors that Geyer’s representation aimed to recover seized assets on behalf of independent owners, internal operational directives diverted from this premise. The Alliance drafted, standardized, and circulated step-by- step instructional guides (e.g., Forfeiture-Petition-Filling Guide.pdf) to assist members in submitting administrative claims on forfeiture.gov. Specifically, these instructional materials did not allow investors to independently assess their legal standing among the statutory options provided by the government portal (i.e., Owner, Lienholder, or Victim). Instead, the Alliance's tutorials explicitly instructed applicants—via mandatory directional markers—to select "Victim". Furthermore, the guide supplied uniform, pre-formulated English text templates for submission. Applicants were directed to assert that their funds were "misappropriated as part of the underlying criminal offense" and to declare their financial loss strictly "as a victim". This standardized instruction systematically funneled thousands of investors—who initially sought to assert independent, third-party ownership interests—into a formal administrative posture acknowledging the underlying criminal offense. §2.3 Evidentiary Realization in the Criminal Record and Subsequent Organizational Disavowal The structural conversion of investors into "victims" directly impacted the government’s sentencing submissions in the underlying criminal matter: Integration into Government Submissions: In its Sentencing Memorandum (See ECF No. 833), the prosecution established "Section IV: VICTIM STATEMENTS," referencing approximately 225 victim impact statements submitted across multiple dockets (See ECF Nos. 477, 482, 486, 832). The government relied heavily on these 11/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (12 of 39) statements to corroborate its loss calculations under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and to justify a minimum sentence of 30 years. Emergence of Internal Dissidence and Evidentiary Conflicts (The "Chunk Chyi" Precedent) : As individual investors realized that their administrative filings contradicted their true intentions—or that their identities were being leveraged to substantiate criminal loss—dissident filings emerged. A pivotal turning point occurred when pro se petitioner Chunk Chyi ("Brother Screw") filed ECF No. 508 (Motion to Revoke the Representation Agreement with Attorney Geyer and Declare the Agreement Invalid). Citing Section 162 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Chyi formally moved to void his representation agreement with Geyer, asserting that his signature was procured through third-party fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. Crucially, Chyi’s motion requested that the Court declare Geyer's broader representation agreement covering thousands of HEX clients invalid in toto, thereby exposing the structural flaw in Geyer’s "master roster." Defensive Organizational Severance: In response to increasing pro se independence and potential legal liability, the Alliance altered its public guidance. The Alliance issued public notices stating it would no longer assist or organize forfeiture petitions, explicitly declaring that it "does not support members participating in any organized forfeiture petition/claim." This shift represented a calculated structural retreat—attempting to insulate the organization from legal liability after having successfully facilitated the creation of a standardized victim pool for administrative and sentencing purposes. 12/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (13 of 39) Descriptions for Fig.2 on the following page: Fig. 2A: Profile page of "Justice Little Sarah" on Gettr alongside archival photos of her with Defendant Guo and Feifei, used to construct institutional authority within the movement. Fig. 2B: Photographs of large-scale public demonstrations organized by the Alliance outside the Sherry- Netherland in Manhattan. Fig. 2C: Video stills of primary spokesperson Little Sarah during live-stream broadcasts, mobilizing investor participation and driving legal petition initiatives following her public re-emergence. Fig. 2D: Video stills showing Geyer introducing and pitching legal retainer services on Alliance platforms across two broadcasts with Alliance/HEX backgrounds. Initially framed as an "independent counsel" to help HEX depositors recover seized assets, his representation eventually expanded to over 6,000 claimants. Fig. 2E: Official Discord announcement issued by the Alliance Committee on March 27, 2025, distributing standardized forfeiture petition guides, application templates, and operational FAQs. (English translation added by the Petitioner.) Fig. 2F: Screenshots of Pages from the Alliance’s Forfeiture-Petition-Filling Guide, explicitly directing applicants to select "Victim" status and providing standardized template language linking asset losses to the "underlying criminal offense." 13/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (14 of 39) Fig. 2A: Justice Little Sarah (@ LittleSarah in GETTR，张星芳) Fig. 2B: Large-scale Gatherings Organized by the Alliance Fig. 2C: Little Sarah Mobilizing Investor Participation Fig. 2D: Geyer Introducing Himself and Pitching Legal Retainer Services Across Alliance Platforms Fig. 2E: Official Discord Announcement Issued by the Fig. 2F: Screenshots of Pages from the Alliance Committee and its English Translation Alliance’s Forfeiture-Petition-Filling Guide Fig. 2: Operational Funneling of Community Mobilization into Standardized "Victim" Relief Frameworks 14/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (15 of 39) Chapter III PSEUDO-DISSIDENTS, CONTROLLED DIVERSION, AND THE DECOUPLING OF COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION FROM JUDICIAL REMEDIES §3.1 Opportunistic Dissent, Historical Alignment, and the Strategic Co-optation of Community Disillusionment Following the conviction of Defendant Miles Guo in July 2024, the investor community entered a state of severe disillusionment. The operational credibility of the original Himalaya Alliance leadership ("Old Alliance"), exemplified by figures such as "Brother Island" (aka Changdao, David Xia, Qidong Xia), collapsed after fulfilling their temporary role during the trial proceedings. Although the newly installed leadership under Qingteng (aka Forrest Zhou, Yue Zhou) ("New Alliance")—who retains the chairmanship—initially maintained a degree of obscurity, its rapid and overt suppression of rank-and-file participants accelerated its institutional exposure. Capitalizing on this institutional breakdown, a figure operating under the moniker "Little Lamb" (identifying as Yunfei Zhu, residing on the West Coast of Canada) emerged as the primary public commentator to simultaneously attack both the Old and New Alliance leaderships. However, Zhu’s public posture as an independent challenger is completely undermined by his historical track record within the movement. Prior to Guo’s conviction, Zhu was an active insider of the organization, physically visiting Alliance Headquarters in New York on April 8-9 2023, participating in official broadcasts (such as the "4/19" live streams), and posing for promotional photographs with key figureheads during the visit, including Changdao and Jessica G (Fig. 3C). During this period, Zhu maintained a distinct personal image marked by a prominent long beard, which he later shaved under the pretext of legal proceedings and court decorum. It was only after July 2024 that Zhu executed a calculated pivot to sever visible ties with both factions. Far from acting as a genuine reformer, Zhu’s total repudiation of prior leadership functioned as a calculated bid by a former insider to position himself as a prospective "third-tier" figurehead. When rational independent observers and retail participants publicly exposed this opportunistic repackaging on platforms like X, Zhu’s network responded with severe personal 15/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (16 of 39) retaliation and hostilities, underscoring the friction between genuine grass-roots critique and opportunistic political positioning. Unlike systemic opposition figures, Zhu established initial credibility by pioneering aggressive public criticism against both the Old Alliance and the New Alliance, going so far as to publicly condemn prominent movement figures and trial attendees. Notably, Zhu was among the early commentators to publicly critique Attorney Bradford L. Geyer’s master representation model—an observation that independently alerted pro se litigants such as Chunk Chyi to the structural legal risks of Geyer's retainer structure. However, subsequent operational shifts reveal that this initial critique functioned not as an entry into legal self-help, but as controlled co-optation. Instead of channeling community awareness toward independent judicial intervention, Zhu’s platform abruptly halted legal exposure once Geyer’s credibility was eroded. By absorbing disillusioned investors who had rejected institutional Alliance leadership, Zhu’s network effectively neutralized potential pro se legal filings, sequestering vulnerable participants within non- judicial online discussion channels. Calculated Dissidence and Strategic Hind-sight ("Hind-sight Manipulation"): Zhu’s strategic fracture from the Alliance leadership was primarily executed through two calculated public stances designed to build credibility and absorb disillusioned followers: Exploiting Trial Attendance Contradictions: Following July 16, 2024, Zhu aggressively criticized Alliance organizers for suppressing general supporter attendance under the pretext of "Guo’s telephonic instructions," while simultaneously organizing their own privileged delegation to dominate trial coverage and narratives. While mathematically sound and resonant with frustrated victims, this critique served to boost Zhu’s personal audience rather than provide legal redress. Retrospective Condemnation of the Geyer Retainer: Zhu publicly exposed the Alliance’s compromise of the legal defense through Attorney Bradford L. Geyer’s master representation scheme, which tied together over 6,000 Himalaya Exchange users. The Strategic Pattern: Crucially, Zhu never preemptively warned victims or intervened to prevent these compromised arrangements; instead, he waited until the damage was fully executed by the Alliance before issuing scathing "post-mortem" commentary. This hind-sight tactic achieved a dual operational objective: it permitted the Alliance to 16/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (17 of 39) complete its structural obstruction, while simultaneously positioning Zhu as a visionary, truth-telling figurehead to capture victim traffic. Having consolidated this follower base under the guise of superior insight, Zhu systematically steered these absorbed supporters away from direct Pro Se judicial remedies and channeled their momentum toward non-binding congressional petitions. §3.2 Non-Judicial Diversion via Congressional Petitions and Social Media Information Control Rather than pursuing statutory remedies available under federal criminal and asset forfeiture procedure, Zhu and an associated network of aligned accounts initiated external, non-judicial campaigns, primarily centering on an online petition platform (Petition: Request for Congressional Hearing on Miles Guo's Case, launched via Change.org). Through broadcast statements, Zhu framed legislative petitioning as the primary avenue for relief, explicitly discouraging participants from engaging in direct court interventions or challenging the forfeiture framework through independent legal filings. This operational diversion was enforced through strict digital information control within private platforms: Suppression of Pro Se Legal Dialogue: Investors who raised inquiries regarding independent court filings (Pro Se motions) or questioned the legal efficacy of non- binding congressional petitions were systematically removed from discussion groups (such as Discord channels managed by the network) and blocked across public platforms (e.g., X). The petitioner herself experienced being quietly kicked out of his Discord chat group (named “True Fellow Fighters”) without any notice on July 4th, 2025. Delegitimization of Independent Litigants: Pro se litigants who filed formal court papers to invalidate compromised retainer agreements—most notably Chunk Chyi (ECF No. 508)—were publicly labeled as hostile actors or intelligence operatives. As documented in public exchanges (e.g., Chunk Chyi’s response filed March 24, 2025), these accusations served to isolate independent litigants from the broader victim pool, preventing the adoption of effective judicial remedies. 17/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (18 of 39) §3.3 Institutional Alignment and Structural Impact on the Forfeiture Framework The systematic diversion of investors away from judicial intervention into non-binding legislative petitions produced a dual operational effect: Protection of the Master Victim Roster: By dissuading claimants from filing individual Rule 41(g) or ancillary forfeiture challenges under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), the network prevented mass invalidations of Geyer’s consolidated client list (ECF No. 676). This ensured that the administration’s victim-remission framework (ECF No. 493) remained unencumbered by widespread pro se objections. Subversion of Dissident Energy: Under the guise of continued loyalty to the underlying movement ("Take Down the CCP"), this pseudo-dissident strategy co-opted political energy while insulating the ongoing judicial proceedings from meaningful third- party property claims. By steering retail investors away from standard federal procedure, the operational mechanics effectively served to finalize asset forfeitures and secure sentencing parameters without internal evidentiary interference. The Cultivation of a "Devout and Truth-Seeking" Public Persona: To solidify his standing as a prospective figurehead and retain follower trust, Zhu carefully curated a public persona centered on Christian faith, moral rectitude, and unyielding loyalty to Defendant Guo. A prime illustration is documented in Fig. 3B (Left Image), taken from Zhu’s 233rd YouTube broadcast—a three-hour solo stream. In the opening segment, Zhu displayed images of Jesus Christ's passion and suffering, explicitly drawing a parallel between Christ's martyrdom and Guo's legal predicament. Zhu asserted that Guo, like Christ, was suffering for speaking the truth, proclaiming that "speaking truth demands a price, including liberty and life itself." By framing Guo's criminal prosecution through the lens of religious martyrdom, Zhu maintained an online persona anchored in unshakeable devotion to Guo's innocence, thereby emotionally binding disillusioned followers to his channel while shielding them from objective judicial realities. 18/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (19 of 39) Fig. 3A: Digital Footprint of Zhu’s YouTube Channel Fig. 3B: Archival Recordings of Zhu’s Online Live Broadcast (Showing Appearance Progression) Fig. 3C: Historical Alignment: Zhu Visiting Headquarters Fig. 3D: Historical Participation in Official Alliance Live (“3C Office”) in NY (Apr. 9 2023) Broadcast on Apr. 19 2023 Fig. 3E: Social Media Posts Promoting Non-Judicial Fig. 3F: Rhetorical Mobilization, Digital Exclusion, and Congressional Petitions Public Rebuttal on Platform X Fig. 3: Evidence of Zhu’s Media Operations, Historical Alliance Ties, Non-Judicial Petition Promotion, and Online Rhetorical Mobilization (Yunfei Zhu: known online as "Little Lamb" / @xiaoyangshiping in X) 19/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (20 of 39) Chapter IV CROSS-PLATFORM COORDINATION: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF "JAPAN WITCH" AND EXTRAJUDICIAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGNS §4.1 Identity Evolution, Psychological Persona, and Platform Dynamics The operator managing the social media presence under @peace8774949 (X, formerly Twitter) and @witchpeace (GETTR) functions as a key narrative agent for the "Japan Galaxy" (日本银河系) Farm. Whistleblower intelligence and court-adjacent archives identify her behind reported real-name aliases including Guo Nannan (郭楠楠), Guo Chunli (郭春莉), and Guo Xiaonan (郭晓楠). She is identified at grid coordinates E7 in Fig. 1D. To build fanatical authority among base followers, she constructed a specialized narrative persona—a passionate, infatuated devotee portraying a "hero-worshiping beauty." She occasionally engages in public displays of personal jealousy against other female figures in the ecosystem (e.g., publicly disparaging figures like Yang Lanlan in Australia) while romanticizing Miles Guo’s incarceration. Her digital branding and cross-platform operations reflect calculated optics and adaptation to platform decline: Branding and Handle Evolution: Across platforms, her social media identities exhibit a mix of display names incorporating both "魔女" (Witch) and its homophonic variant "摩 女" alongside "peace." Crucially, while her Chinese display titles have shifted over time, her registered GETTR handle (@witchpeace) explicitly retains the English root "witch," anchoring her core digital identity (Fig. 4A). VIP Status Amidst Purges: While the accounts of former top NFSC Alliance leaders— such as former Chairman Long Island Weige (David Xia, Qidong Xia) and former Secretary-General "Old Monitor" (Wang Xuebing, 老班长)—as well as ordinary dissenting members have been systematically banned and erased, Guo Nannan’s GETTR account uniquely retains the gold crown VIP badge (Fig. 4A). This official verification demonstrates that her operations remain directly endorsed and protected by the movement’s current platform proxies ("NFSC Proxies"). 20/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (21 of 39) Cross-Platform Mobilization Strategy: The reliance on mainstream platforms like X (@peace8774949) reflects a strategic necessity caused by GETTR's internal decay. Following aggressive censorship and purges that turned GETTR into a dead-end echo chamber, key operatives like Witch (Guo Nannan) were forced to shift their primary propaganda, recruitment, and mass-mobilization efforts back to X to reach external audiences (Fig. 4A and 4C). §4.2 Systemic Interference in Judicial Protocols: The Letter-Writing Campaign A central operational directive executed by Guo Nannan involves organizing and enforcing large-scale extrajudicial pressure campaigns targeting the U.S. federal judiciary following Guo’s conviction in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). She repeatedly instructed followers across X, GETTR, and Discord to send standardized, emotional appeals directly to presiding Judge Analisa Torres and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SDNY ECF Docket 482). To manipulate followers into participating, her posts systematically deployed structured psychological conditioning: Frame Interference as "Civic Duty": She explicitly instructed followers that writing to the court is not "judicial harassment" but a rightful exercise of citizenship, asserting that "judges work for us" and are funded by taxpayers. Manufacture Narrative Hegemony: Citing internal ideology (e.g., "Dr. Eglise's logic" , see Fig. 1D at grid J15), she argued that if 99% of followers remain silent, the public will assume 100% of victims were defrauded, framing letter-writing as a tool to control public perception rather than legal evidence. Equate Compliance with Loyalty: She repeatedly framed letter-writing as a loyalty test telling followers that if they truly believe in her and want to "save Seventh Brother" (Miles Guo), writing to the court is mandatory. Targeting Official Email Channels: She publicly disseminated official court and prosecutorial email addresses (Torres_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov and Wendy.Olsen@USDOJ.gov), directing followers to flood these endpoints under the guise of grassroots advocacy. 21/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (22 of 39) §4.3 Internal Financial Frictions and Infiltration Motives Despite her high-profile campaigns rallying followers to defend Guo, public records and internal Discord archives (魔女 tracking threads) reveal deep financial contradictions, predatory exploitation, and evidence of hostile infiltration within her operation: Capital Interception and Grassroots Exploitation: During her tenure as a farm leader during the launch of "Himalaya Coin", Guo Nannan retained and accumulated massive crypto assets—reportedly over 7 million coins. As the asset was artificially pumped from an initial issue price of $0.10 to over $50.00, she profited enormously by cashing out substantial fiat capital. While securing personal wealth, she treated lower-tier rank-and- file followers as disposable shields and financial targets ("leeches"), weaponizing sweet- sounding devotion to mask predatory motives ("口蜜腹箭"). MDC "Prison Phone Call" Deceptions and TDCCP Token Promotion: Following Guo’s incarceration in MDC Brooklyn, Witch and affiliated network figures heavily leveraged unverified claims of direct phone communications with Guo to manufacture artificial divine authority. On X (@peace8774949), she routinely cited these reported "MDC phone calls" to glorify Guo ("he has achieved godhood") and drive promotion for secondary speculative assets like TDCCP (MEME coin), framing coin ownership as a badge of allegiance. These speculative schemes, coupled with fierce internal infighting over illicit financial distribution, resulted in massive financial losses for grassroots investors, with a known individual victim losing tens of thousands of dollars in a year. Attempted Assassination and Covert Infiltration Motives: Far from being a genuine "hero-worshiping" follower, evidence indicates covert operations aimed at neutralizing Guo as CCP's primary adversary. On July 7, 2020, Miles Guo publicly disclosed shipping receipts from Tokyo on GETTR, directly accusing "peace 魔女" and Sara of mailing packages containing lethal poison disguised as health supplements. Her willingness to operate publicly without fear of retaliation aligns with an endgame of systemic destruction: extracting maximum financial wealth while ensuring Guo remains permanently incarcerated or eliminated, thereby securing her own impunity. This structural analysis reveals that her ultimate operational objective goes beyond mere financial fraud—it reflects a hostile mechanism to exploit the movement, siphon assets, and ensure the permanent silence of its core leadership. 22/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (23 of 39) Descriptions for Fig. 4 on the following page: Fig. 4A: Digital Footprint across Platforms. Profiles on X (formerly Twitter) and GETTR, showing account setup, follower metrics, and active block/moderation parameters targeting dissenting accounts. Fig. 4B: Promotion of Alternative Speculative Token (TDCCP). Posts and profiles from key operators—including "Taishan" (real name: Jiao Jianhai, 焦建海) (@S1lzF6u0WSo0BzD), a prominent figure dedicated to crypto promotion, and "Japan Witch" (@peace8774949)—actively driving subsequent speculative assets (TDCCP / MEME tokens) to followers after previous schemes were targeted by law enforcement. Fig. 4C: Historical Ties to NFSC Core Figures and Amplification of Post-Conviction Leadership (QMAY Broadcasts) and Deification of Miles Guo. Media broadcasts and promotional materials highlighting affiliations with alliance leadership, post-conviction operational directives, and rhetoric elevating Guo to divine status. Fig. 4D: Unverified "MDC Direct Call" Claims. Posts in Chinese alongside automated English translations showcasing claims of repeated direct phone contact with Miles Guo (referencing 22 alleged calls) from MDC Brooklyn to engineer divine authority and consolidate movement control. Fig. 4E: Coordination of Non-Judicial Letter-Writing Campaigns. Structured campaign posts urging followers to flood federal court and prosecutorial email endpoints with standardized emotional appeals targeting presiding Judge Analisa Torres and SDNY prosecutors. Fig. 4F: Historical Evidence of Poisoning Allegations and Infiltration Tactics (July 7, 2020). Archive of Miles Guo's official GETTR disclosure featuring Tokyo EMS postal receipts, packaging details, and public statements accusing "peace 魔女" and Sara of mailing deadly poison disguised as nutritional supplements to New York. Figure 4: Multi-Platform Operational Evidence and Narrative Dynamics of "Japan Witch" (@peace8774949 / @witchpeace). 23/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (24 of 39) Fig. 4A: Digital Footprint across Platforms Fig. 4B: Secondary Token Promotion (TDCCP/MEME Coin) Fig. 4C: Ties to NFSC Core Figures, Amplification of Post- Fig. 4D: Unverified "MDC Direct Call" Claims Conviction Leadership (Qmay) and Deification of Miles Guo Fig. 4E: Coordination of Non-Judicial Letter-Writing Fig. 4F: Historical Evidence of Poisoning Allegations and Campaigns Infiltration Tactics (July 7, 2020) Fig. 4: Multi-Platform Operational Evidence and Narrative Dynamics of "Japan Witch" (@peace8774949 in X / @witchpeace in GETTR) 24/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (25 of 39) Chapter V FACIAL DEFECTS IN PRO SE SUBMISSIONS: INDICATIONS OF COMMON ORIGIN AND PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES Preamble: Respect for Pro Se Access and Objective Observations of Record Irregularities As a pro se litigant appearing before the court, I hold deep respect and gratitude for the American legal system, which guarantees citizens the constitutional right of direct access to justice. The overwhelming majority of pro se litigants engage with the court in good faith, upholding the solemnity of the judicial process. Pro se access is a cornerstone of equal justice. However, precisely because this mechanism is so vital, preserving its integrity against bad-faith exploitation is paramount. In complex proceedings, judicial scrutiny is often drawn to objective irregularities appearing on the face of the record. A comparative review of formal court entries reveals observable patterns—evidenced by document layouts, timelines, and technical formatting—that strongly suggest a shared origin and mechanical duplication across filings purportedly submitted by independent pro se litigants. These observations indicate that alongside genuine pro se filers, improper attempts have been made to dilute and disrupt the record by deploying assembly-line filings through the pro se channel. §5.1 Cross-Contamination of Case Numbers and Verbatim Repetitions: Objective Indications of Shared Origin In the Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (Case No. 26-1296 / ECF 848) submitted to the Second Circuit, the case number box on the cover page explicitly designates the matter as Case No. 26-1129. [Fig. 5A] (Cover page of ECF 848 / Page 1 of 65, showing the erroneously inserted Case No. 26-1129) [Fig. 5B] (Cover page and pages 1–2 of ECF 842, showing the earlier 26-1129 petition containing verbatim repeating paragraphs) A chronological review of the docket records establishes the following facts: 25/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (26 of 39) Case No. 26-1129 corresponds to an earlier appellate petition uploaded on April 23 under the moniker "Anonymous Registered Crime Victim" (ECF 842). Case No. 26-1296 (ECF 848) represents a subsequent, standalone petition filed by Bao Chu. From an objective evidentiary standpoint, if Bao Chu and the prior Anonymous petitioner were entirely independent litigants, the pre-emptive inclusion of a separate petitioner’s prior appellate case number (26-1129) within a new filing raises a reasonable inference of document cross-contamination. This error strongly points to the use of a common underlying template or preparation within the same operational framework. Furthermore, within the body of ECF 842 (as highlighted in Fig. 5B), two consecutive paragraphs setting forth sealing requests are repeated verbatim. Such mechanical copy-paste errors provide further objective support for the inference that these filings were assembly-prepared. §5.2 Discrepancies between Textual Assertions and Attachment Logs: Internal Inconsistencies In addition to case number misallocations, the record reveals marked disconnects between narrative assertions in the body of submissions and the actual attached exhibit logs. [Fig. 5C] (Gmail record dated April 23, 2026, from ECF 848 Page 15 of 65, showing narrative claims versus actual attachment entries) [Fig. 5D] (Gmail record from ECF 848 Page 52 of 65, provided for comparative standard formatting) In the email log at Page 15 of ECF 848 (Fig. 5C), the submitter explicitly represents that four specific files are attached, including a dated audio file (Exhibit_Extra_Judicial_Admission_by_Yongbing_Zhang_Apr_10_2026.mp3). However, the actual attachment field reflects five files, containing duplicate file extensions (.mp3.mp3), omitting the key date identifier, and adding an unmentioned PDF document. By contrast, the record at Page 52 (Fig. 5D) illustrates a filing where text entries and attachments correspond fully. This internal conflict demonstrates a pattern of structural 26/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (27 of 39) carelessness and discrepancy between proffered representations and actual record submissions. §5.3 High-Frequency Saturated Filings and Their Procedural Impact Docket entries confirm that within a narrow window (spanning April 17, 21, 23, 28, and 29), the submitter transmitted numerous pro se filings and emergency requests to the SDNY Pro Se Intake Unit. Observed through a procedural lens, this filing pattern created a distinct sequence of events: Docket Congestion: The high frequency of incoming submissions placed an immediate administrative burden on the district court's processing docket. Basis for Appellate Relief: Following the administrative delay inherent in processing such high-frequency submissions, the submitter of those saturated filings relied on the resulting delay to seek mandamus relief from the Circuit Court, citing a structural deprivation of Due Process. §5.4 Substantive Divergence and Conflicting Procedural Goals among Pro Se Filers Building upon these observed technical irregularities, a substantive review of the record further reveals deep fracture lines and acute conflict among pro se litigants themselves. Specifically, the submitter of Case No. 26-1129 (ECF 842)—filing under the designation of "Anonymous Registered Crime Victim"—explicitly declared within the petition that they were also the author of prior district court submissions ECF Nos. 739 and 742. Notably, ECF Nos. 739 and 742 directly challenged the legal standing and victim status of Ryan Bai (the submitter of ECF Nos. 733, 744, and Case No. 25-2726). This directly demonstrates that the pro se cohort is by no means a unified entity. Rather, two distinct procedural pathways have emerged: one group prioritizes the strict enforcement of statutory rights under the CVRA to expedite criminal forfeiture and DOJ remission compensation; conversely, another group focuses on challenging underlying procedural regularity, seeking to stay or void forfeiture proceedings altogether rather than claiming direct financial remission. This fundamental divergence in litigation 27/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (28 of 39) strategies confirms that filings within the pro se docket serve markedly different procedural objectives. Synthesis: Safeguarding the Integrity of Pro Se Access In sum, whether viewed through facial cross-contamination of docket numbers, structural duplication, and internal exhibit discrepancies, or through the lens of opposing litigation objectives, the record reflects improper efforts to exploit the pro se channel. Identifying both procedural defects and substantive conflicts provides this Court with objective grounds to evaluate the independence, credibility, and procedural intent of these submissions, thereby safeguarding both authentic pro se litigants and the court's process from administrative abuse. 28/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (29 of 39) Fig. 5A: Erroneously Inserted Case No. 26-1129 in Filing 26-1296 Fig. 5B: Verbatim Repeated Paragraph in Filing 26-1129 Fig. 5C: Key Attachment Omitted from Actual Attachment List Fig. 5D: Proof of the Omitted Attachment Entry Fig. 5:Facial Defects and Structure Discrepancies Across Filings 29/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (30 of 39) Chapter VI MALICIOUS ACTS OF THE ALLIANCE AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: INTERCEPTION OF PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE, DOXING, AND MANIPULATION OF "ASSASSINATION" CONSPIRACY NARRATIVES §6.1 Digital Footprints, Intolerance to Dissent, and the Hypocrisy of Free Speech Advocates The core figures of the NFSC and Alliance have long presented themselves as champions of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. However, an analysis of their digital presence reveals a stark contradiction: extreme fragility, intolerance toward legitimate inquiry, and a pattern of censorship. Fig. 6A: Qmay Accounts: Digital Footprints and Block Records across Platforms  Left & Right: The homepages of Qmay’s official X (formerly Twitter) account (@Q_May_007) and her crown-verified GETTR account (@QMAY007), demonstrating her primary broadcasting channels.  Center: A screenshot showing that Qmay blocked the Petitioner on X following a legitimate inquiry. As shown in Fig. 6A, Qmay (Min Chen) leverages prominent social media setups to disseminate daily narrative content. Yet, when independent observers raise rational questions, these figureheads instantly resort to blocking and silencing dissent. This pattern exposes the fragile ego behind their self-righteous facade; despite claiming to champion open expression, they display an inability to withstand even minor public scrutiny. §6.2 Coordinated Exposure of Intercepted Private Mail and Contempt for Judicial Order On July 17, 2026, the Alliance escalated its control tactics from platform censorship to the unauthorized public exposure of private mail. Fig. 6B: On 7/17, Qmay and Forrest Post an Identical Intercepted Inmate Letter 30/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (31 of 39)  Left & Right: Synchronized posts published on July 17, 2026, by Alliance Chairman Forrest (Qingteng/Forrest Zhou, @Forrest01 in GETTR)) and key spokesperson Qmay, both sharing an identical PDF-formatted letter addressed to Miles Guo at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). As documented in Fig. 6B, Forrest and Qmay published the exact same private letter on the same day, claiming it was provided to them directly by Guo. This claim is highly improbable. A far more reasonable assumption is that the communication was illicitly obtained through compromised access or internal leaks at the MDC facility. By publicly broadcasting stolen inmate mail, the Alliance leadership displays an arrogant disregard for standard judicial procedures and individual privacy rights. §6.3 Doxing of Private Correspondents and Intimidation Tactics On August 12, 2026, Alliance media channels escalated their public intimidation campaign through direct doxing. Fig. 6C: On 8/12, Qmay Exposed the Name of the Letter Sender during Live Stream  Main Panel: Broadcast screenshots from Qmay’s August 12, 2026 live stream showing her explicitly reading aloud the full identity of an individual who wrote to Guo. As captured in Fig. 6C, Qmay read out the full name of a private correspondent during a live show. This act was designed to dox, humiliate, and intimidate independent individuals into silence. Such coercive tactics reflect the network's overwhelming obsession with controlling all external communication channels with Guo, raising critical questions about who authorizes and supports their operations. §6.4 Unverified Prison Visitations and the Influence of Key Financial Operatives In mid-August 2026, Alliance leaders began recounting claimed prison visitations with Guo to solidify their authority over followers. 31/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (32 of 39) Fig. 6D: On 8/18, Forrest and Jiajia (also see Fig. 1D at grid 7A) Claimed They Visited Guo at Danbury  Main Panel: Broadcast and social media posts from August 18, 2026, in which Forrest and Jiajia recount an August 17 visitation with Miles Guo alongside Rushui (Yumei Hao, also refer to Fig. 1D at grid E4) and Wenkang. As shown in Fig. 6D, Alliance figures claimed that four individuals – Rushui (Yumei Hao), Forrest, Jiajia, and Wenkang – visited Guo at the facility on August 17. Whistleblower documentation (such as Tony's filing) identifies Rushui not as a minor participant, but as a key operative managing movement finances. Lacking physical proof, the leadership used these verbal accounts to establish themselves as the sole legitimate conduits of Guo's instructions. §6.5 Manufacturing "Assassination" Plots and Heroic Mythology On August 21, 2026, the Alliance deployed psychological manipulation by fabricating safety threats during Guo's facility transfer. Fig. 6E: On 8/21, Qmay Promoted Conspiracy Theories Alleging an "Assassination Attempt" During Prison Transfer:  Main Panel: Screenshots of Qmay's August 21 broadcast detailing alleged assassination plots against Guo during his transfer, while framing his detention as a "VVIP" experience. As documented in Fig. 6E (and noted in Sarah's August 21 records, Entry 22.1), Qmay devoted extensive airtime to claiming that Guo survived an "assassination attempt" during his transfer from FCI Schuylkill to Danbury. Concurrently, the broadcast elevated Guo into an invincible, heroic figure receiving "VVIP treatment" wherever he goes. By combining manufactured existential threats with deification, the Alliance maintains emotional panic and dependency among its base. §6.6 Systematic Deification, "Temple" Narratives, and Strategic Sabotage 32/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (33 of 39) The Alliance leveraged multiple visitation narratives to transform standard correctional facilities into symbolic centers of spiritual authority. Fig. 6F: On 8/31, Reports of Subsequent Facility Visits and Public Deification of Guo  Top Panel: Shared images forwarded by critic Mr. A (@dDiVul8m3g82864) in X) identifying the four August 17 visitors (left to right: Wenkang, Rushui, Forrest, and Jiajia).  Center Panel: GETTR post by crown-verified operative Ava describing her August 30 visit to Guo.  Bottom Panel: Screenshot of the August 31 live stream hosted by Forrest (Qingteng), featuring panel guests Ava (@S7gril in X and @S7Gril in GETTR), Jiajia, and Luoyi (Roy / Hai Guo, @royguo in GETTR and @roy_guo64 in X), who recounted their August 30 visit to Danbury along with Rushui and Wenkang (who were absent from the stream).  As shown in Fig. 6F, following a second reported visit on August 30 by five operatives [Rushui, Wenkang, Ava, Jiajia, and Roy], the Alliance hosted a live broadcast on August 31 with Forrest as the host. During the stream, Jiajia explicitly stated that visiting Guo did not feel like being in a prison, but rather like standing in a sacred temple receiving teachings from a saint. This deliberate deification serves a specific psychological function: by elevating Guo to sainthood while feeding his hubris, the Alliance operatives effectively isolate him and sabotage his legal appeals (such as the Second Circuit proceedings), ensuring he remains incarcerated while they retain control over money and messaging. §6.7 Proxy Operation of Social Media and Questionable "Guo Mei" Narrative as a Stability Tool The available record indicates that Guo’s official media channels have remained active under proxy operation post-detention, conspicuously featuring a pinned post attributed to a family member in a manner that appears designed for audience control. Fig. 6G: Guo's Proxy-Managed GETTR Account and "Guo Mei" Posts: 33/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (34 of 39) Main Panel: Screenshots of Miles Guo’s official GETTR account (@milesguo) remaining active long after his arrest, prominently displaying a pinned post attributed to "Guo Mei" (@nizi17) comforting followers. As illustrated in Fig. 6G, Guo's GETTR account continues to be managed by proxy entities long after his detention. There is strong reason to question whether the "Guo Mei" posts are written by Guo's actual daughter. Given the prolonged incarceration of Defendant Guo, keeping such an unverified, pacifying message permanently pinned at the top of the profile raises reasonable concerns that it serves primarily as a psychological stabilization tool. Furthermore, the absence of independent verification— such as authentic audio, video, or verifiable photos of Guo Mei—strongly suggests that maintaining this pinned post is a calculated effort to appease followers, quell internal anxiety, and preserve narrative control over the movement's follower base. 34/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (35 of 39) Fig. 6A: Qmay Accounts: Platform Footprints and User Fig. 6B: 7/17 Identical Interception of Inmate Private Mail by Blocking Qmay and Forrest Fig. 6C: 8/12 Live Stream Doxing of Letter Sender's Fig. 6D: 8/18 Alliance Broadcast Claiming Facility Visitation Identity: 灵娟 (Lingjuan!) Fig. 6E: 8/21 Qmay Broadcast Alleging "Assassination Fig. 6F: Two Subsequent Fig. 6G: Guo’s GETTR Account Plot" Facility Visits and Managed by Proxy with Pinned Deification Narratives “Guo Mei” Post Fig. 6: Alliance Leadership Tactics: Interception of Mail, Doxing, Narrative Manipulation, and Proxy Control 35/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (36 of 39) Chapter VII SYSTEMIC VULNERABILITIES AND EXTRATERRITORIAL PERSECUTION OF GRASSROOTS PRO SE PIONEERS: THE CASE OF CHUNK CHYI The Emergence of an Autonomous Pro Se Community: Independent Pro Se litigation within this proceeding was first mapped out by Chunk Chyi (legal name Chunhong Qi / 齐春宏, born January 1, 1987; X/Twitter: @baoliaogeming)—a welder by trade who became widely recognized as a foundational figure among independent victim-petitioners. Following his initial pro se submission before the District Court (ECF No. 508) in April 2025, his Petition for Writ of Mandamus before the Second Circuit (Case No. 26-77), and his establishment of the Discord Pro Se discussion group in May 2025, Chyi built a primary platform for victim discourse. As documented in Fig. 7A–7C, Chyi serves as the primary Server Owner/Administrator of this Discord community. This forum functions as an open-access space with dynamic, fluid membership exceeding 500 participants (Fig. 7B–7C depict a real-time tally of 20 online members and 493 offline members, yielding over 500 total accounts). Crucially, the group is unvetted and freely accessible to all sides: it includes genuine Pro Se petitioners, curious observers, and actively hostile anti-Pro Se operatives who attempt to manipulate narratives from within. Notably, prominent figures and high-profile leaders from the Alliance strictly avoid participating under their verified public identities to engage in open debate or face public scrutiny, choosing instead to covertly monitor or influence this specific Discord discussion group on the Guo case via secondary accounts. Recent observations over past months strongly suggest that certain prominent Alliance figures have used alternate accounts to infiltrate this Discord community, adopting "anti-Guo" or dissenting personas specifically to discourage independent Pro Se filings and oppose victim intervention under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) across both the District Court and Second Circuit proceedings. This pattern of covert suppression—under active observation—exposes a profound paradox: while publicly projecting a "pro-Guo" stance, these key figures actively sabotage independent legal avenues for victims, effectively aligning with interests that leave the defendant indefinitely incarcerated while systematically neutralizing genuine Pro Se advocacy. 36/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (37 of 39) Abrupt Disappearance and State Intervention: Having maintained a prominent, daily public presence via video broadcasts and audio spaces on X and Discord for nearly a year and a half, Chyi abruptly vanished. His final public communication (Figs 7D–7F)—a video broadcast posted on X on August 20, 2026—utilized sharp satire regarding his presence in Cangzhou, Hebei, mockingly asserting that local authorities would not persecute him for his public dissent. He has been completely unresponsive across all platforms for over two weeks since. Prior to his sudden disappearance, Chyi entrusted trusted group members with emergency contact info. A recent phone call placed to his mother revealed that local village officials notified her of his situation, though she has received no formal written legal notice regarding his detention. He is reportedly detained by mainland Chinese public security authorities—a stark, real-time illustration of the extreme risks and systemic vulnerabilities facing independent Pro Se petitioners who attempt to engage with the judicial process outside controlled factional networks. 37/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (38 of 39) Fig. 7A: Discord member directory Fig. 7B: Consecutive Discord member Fig. 7C: Consecutive Discord member screenshot identifying Chunk Chyi list screenshots documenting the list screenshots documenting the (@baoliaogeming) as the founder and dynamic membership scale, displaying dynamic membership scale, displaying owner (indicated by the crown icon) of 20 active online members 493 offline members (demonstrating the open-access Pro Se legal an aggregate pool exceeding 500 discussion group. accounts). Fig. 7D: Profile and X post Fig. 7E: Chinese original video frame Fig. 7F: Auto-translated English screenshots of Chunk Chyi screenshot from Chyi’s final public version generated by Grok from the (@baoliaogeming) dated August 20, broadcast on August 20, 2026 same post shown on the left (Fig. 7E). 2026, displaying his public identity (accumulating over 7,400 views), details (National ID: wherein he satirically addressed 130926198701013057) and location in mainland authorities shortly before his Cangzhou, Hebei. forced disappearance Fig. 7: Evidentiary Documentation of the Open-Access Pro Se Discord Community and the Final Public Broadcast and Disappearance of Pioneer Chunk Chyi (@baoliaogeming in X). 38/39 Case: 26-1476, 09/13/2026, DktEntry: 24.1, (39 of 39) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Sarah respectfully submits this Supplemental Letter (Supplemental Exhibit D-1) for the sole and limited purpose of preserving a complete, transparent, and accurate record for appellate review. As documented across the attached materials, the presence of competing extrajudicial narratives, ongoing social media campaigns, facial irregularities in certain pro se filings, and the severe external vulnerabilities faced by independent grassroots petitioners (as highlighted in Chapter VII) underscore the complex environment surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner does not seek substantive or emergency relief through this submission, but respectfully requests that this Court take note of these record observations to assist in maintaining the integrity, objectivity, and historical clarity of the appellate record. Respectfully submitted, XXXXXXXXXVVXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sarah (Pro Se Petitioner) September 9, 2026 cc: United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (Attn: AUSA Nathan Rehn) 39/39