Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — criminal case · MOTION · ECF #871

Pro Se Aug 25 2026

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN RE: Lionheart Docket No.

Petitioner, Lionheart, proceeding pro se, respectfully petitions this Honorable Court for a Writ of Mandamus directed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), compelling the District Court to docket and judicially address Petitioner’s third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) in Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT.

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue compelling the District Court to docket Petitioner’s § 853(n) petition, which has remained undocketed and without judicial consideration since its submission on July 13, 2026. 2. Whether the District Court's ongoing failure to docket the petition deprives Petitioner of the statutory ancillary proceeding mandated by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), creating a substantial risk that the property may be distributed, liquidated, or otherwise disposed of before Petitioner's statutory claim receives judicial consideration.

Petitioner does not ask this Court to adjudicate the underlying merits of Petitioner’s property claim or pre-judge factual issues in the first instance. Rather, Petitioner requests that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Court to:

1. Docket Petitioner’s July 13, 2026 submission, titled "THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) AND THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT (CVRA)"; 2. Refer the petition to the presiding District Judge for a judicial determination regarding standing, timeliness, and legal sufficiency under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n); 3. Conduct the mandatory ancillary proceeding required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) if the petition is determined to be sufficient; and 4. Preserve the status quo regarding the disputed corporate equities and assets potentially subject to Petitioner’s claim, to the extent necessary to prevent disposition before judicial consideration of the petition.

1. Petitioner asserts a legal property interest in property and corporate interests allegedly subject to the forfeiture orders, as described in the underlying petition and its supporting materials.. 2. On July 13, 2026, within the applicable statutory period following forfeiture notices, Petitioner submitted a redacted copy of Petitioner’s "THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF" to the SDNY Clerk’s Office / Pro Se Intake Unit via electronic mail (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 3. As of the date of this Petition, the filing has remained undocketed for more than thirty days. 4. Without an official docket entry, no judicial officer has reviewed the filing to determine whether it satisfies the procedural requirements of § 853(n)(2) or whether an ancillary proceeding must be formally initiated.

5. Petitioner acknowledges that the July 13, 2026 submission did not contain a separate declaration expressly stating that it was signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is prepared to promptly cure that formal defect and to submit a corrected and properly verified petition if permitted by the District Court. Petitioner does not seek mandamus relief requiring the Court of Appeals to adjudicate the merits of the underlying third-party claim; he seeks only to have the District Court receive, docket, and judicially determine the sufficiency and timeliness of Petitioner’s claim.

A. Petitioner Satisfies the Cheney Prerequisites for Mandamus Relief Under Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004), a writ of mandamus is appropriate where: (1) the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right; (2) no other adequate means exist to attain the desired relief; and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. All three elements are met here. 1. Clear and Indisputable Right: At a minimum, where a person submits a filing expressly invoking 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and asserting a legal interest in forfeited property, the District Court should provide a judicial determination as to whether the submission satisfies the statutory requirements, rather than leaving the submission without any docket entry or judicial disposition. Section 853(n)(2) grants third parties a statutory right to petition the court, and Rule 32.2(c)(1) provides that, when a third party files a petition asserting an interest in forfeited property as prescribed by statute, the court must conduct an ancillary proceeding. Petitioner has a clear right to judicial consideration of a timely petition asserting a legal interest in forfeited property under § 853(n). At minimum, the petition must be placed before a judicial officer for a determination of its timeliness, sufficiency, and any resulting entitlement to an ancillary proceeding.

2. No Other Adequate Means of Relief: Petitioner has no alternative remedy. Because the Clerk’s Office has not docketed the petition, there is no appealable order, no pending motion, and no judicial record from which to seek interlocutory or direct appellate review. Mandamus is the sole mechanism to compel the District Court to open the judicial door. 3. Immediate Threat of Irreparable Harm Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(7): Following the District Court's June 25, 2026 order authorizing administrative remission, the Government may attempt to dispose of or liquidate the subject corporate entities and assets. Section 853(n)(7) provides that the United States obtains clear title only after the court has disposed of all timely petitions filed under § 853(n), or after the statutory period for filing such petitions has expired. Leaving Petitioner’s petition undocketed creates a dangerous procedural vacuum where assets may be distributed while Petitioner's filing remains ignored without a judicial ruling. Mandamus is urgently required to force the docketing of the petition so that judicial consideration precedes any administrative disposition or transfer of clear title. B. The CVRA Provides an Additional Basis for Relief, To the Extent Applicable To the extent Petitioner qualifies as a “crime victim” under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, the CVRA provides an additional statutory basis for appellate review. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), if the District Court fails to afford a victim these statutory rights, the victim may petition the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus. If Petitioner qualifies as a “crime victim” within the meaning of the CVRA, the failure to provide any judicial consideration of Petitioner's asserted rights also implicates the rights protected by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), including the right to be reasonably heard at public proceedings and to receive timely notice. Section 3771(d)(3) further provides an express mandamus mechanism for enforcement of those rights.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant this Petition and issue a narrow Writ of Mandamus directed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to: 1. Direct the District Court to docket Petitioner’s July 13, 2026 petition; 2. Direct the District Court to determine the timeliness, standing, and sufficiency of Petitioner's petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) in the first instance; 3. Direct the District Court, if the petition is judicially determined to be sufficient, to proceed with the ancillary proceeding required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), including such discovery and evidentiary procedures as the District Court determines necessary and appropriate; 4. Direct the District Court to preserve the status quo, to the extent necessary to prevent final disposition or liquidation of corporate equities potentially subject to Petitioner's claim, pending judicial consideration of the petition; and 5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)

v.

Defendant.

THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE

RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) AND THE CRIME

I respectfully request that the Court Clerk only docket the redacted version of my document

and file Exhibit A under seal.

My name is . Due to safety concerns, I would like to use the

pseudonym Lionheart in this case.

I am an investor in the G Enterprise. As set forth in Exhibit A, I invested a total of

$_____ in the G Enterprise projects.

The innocent third-party Petitioner (hereinafter, the "Petitioner"), as a legitimate and bona

fide investor in the "G Enterprise" projects (including, but not limited to, Himalaya Exchange, G

Clubs, and GTV, among other entities), hereby submits this Third-Party Petition and Motion for

Alternative Restitutionary Relief. This submission is made pursuant to Title 21, United States

Code, Section 853(n) (21 U.S.C. § 853(n)), Rule 32.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771).

The Petitioner respectfully objects the Court’s Order of Forfeiture entered against the G

Enterprise entities and assets, and respectfully requests that this Court:

Grant the vast community of innocent investors a meaningful opportunity to be heard in

an open court through an ancillary evidentiary hearing; and

Modify the forfeiture order to the extent necessary to protect innocent third-party

property interests, adopt an alternative restitutionary remedy whereby the corporate equities of the

G Enterprise are transferred in-kind in their entirety to the innocent investors.

I. PROCEDURAL INJUSTICE AND EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCIES: REQUEST FOR

AN ANCILLARY HEARING AND THE SUBPOENA OF CRITICAL WITNESSES

1. The Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Is Insufficient to Justify a Massive

Deprivation of Innocent Third-Party Property Rights

The Petitioner notes that, pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. 858) and related judicial

rulings, the Court’s determination that the G Enterprise entities constitute the "Alter Ego" of the

Defendant—and the subsequent issuance of the forfeiture orders—relied strictly upon the civil

"Preponderance of the Evidence" standard.

The Petitioner asserts that the alleged preponderance of evidence used to establish an alter-

ego relationship contains substantial factual and legal deficiencies. As a matter of corporate law,

the Defendant was never a shareholder, director, or designated legal representative of the G

Enterprise entities, nor did he receive salary or compensation therefrom. The forfeiture, based upon

this lower standard of proof, lacks conclusive factual foundation. This constitutes a severe and

prejudicial deprivation of the investors' legitimate private property rights.

2. The Complete Deprivation of a Non-Party’s Opportunity to Defend Violates

Previously, because the investors were categorized as non-parties to the underlying criminal

trial, the electronic court system blocked them from filing pleadings or defense entries directly onto

the main case docket. The Court has effectively severed the mechanism by which investors could

speak for their own financial survival, while simultaneously executing an Order of Forfeiture that

seizes the very assets tied to the investors' livelihoods. This adjudication model—depriving

property without affording a prior, meaningful opportunity to be heard—stands in direct violation

of the core protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Accordingly, the Petitioner urgently demands that the Court convene an open

Ancillary Hearing to restore the investors' constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to be

heard..

3. The Evidence Purporting to Show the Defendant's Control Is Factually Deficient and

Petitioner respectfully submits that the evidence cited in Doc. 858 does not establish that the

G Enterprise entities were alter egos of the Defendant.

The Rule of Law Organizations: The Court relied on the testimony of Karin Maistrello

(Trial Tr. at 424) to conclude that the Defendant controlled the Rule of Law funds. However, as a

matter of corporate law, the Rule of Law organizations were governed by an independent Board of

Directors who made collective decisions. The Petitioner hereby requests that the Court subpoena

the other directors and employees of the Rule of Law organizations to testify regarding their

corporate independence. By extension, the allegations regarding farm loan fraud require the

testimony of the respective Farm Owner and key volunteers; similarly, G Clubs and the Himalaya

Exchange require the testimony of their respective directors and staff.

The Misleading Nature of the "Top Boss" Label: The Court cited testimonies (Trial Tr. at

1941, 1995, 1996, 2975, 2980, 2999) depicting the Defendant as the "Top Boss." The petitioner

does not know how to access the cited evidence and has had no opportunity to challenge its

reliability. In fact, the nexus between the Defendant and his vast base of followers was a loose,

voluntary online dynamic between a public figure and digital supporters. The New Federal States of

China, the Farms, and the Himalaya Farm Alliance legally operated in a manner akin to an

expansive fan club. No evidence demonstrates that these organizations possessed any formal,

contractual, or legally enforceable authority over their members or individual Farm Owners. Farm

members are entirely free to disregard the farm owner's orders. The farm owners are also entirely

free to disregard the defendant's orders.

Factual Refutation of Control (The Phoenix Farm Case): Take the "Phoenix Farm," in

which the Petitioner personally invested, as a concrete counterexample. When the Phoenix Farm

Owner, Lihong Wei (also known as Sara), unlawfully misappropriated the investors' funds and

blocked them from being wired to the Himalaya Farm Alliance, the Defendant publicly expressed

his intent on a live broadcast that she should be prosecuted and sent to prison. However, the

subsequent legal actions were entirely driven by the Secretary-General, Qidong Xia (“长岛伟哥”),

who filed suit under his privately controlled entity MOS (Mountains of Spices LLC)(see Mountains

of Spices LLC v. Lafrenz (2:21-cv-01497) District Court, D. Arizona). And the final outcome

completely bypassed the Defendant's directives. Lihong Wei was never imprisoned. Furthermore,

the capital stolen by Lihong Wei was never recovered by the Himalaya Farm Alliance or injected

into the G Enterprise; instead, it was privately pocketed by Qidong Xia. This sequence of events

tends to demonstrate that the entities operated through separate corporate decision-makers rather

than under the Defendant's unilateral control, thoroughly undermining the prosecution's claim of

4. The Prosecution’s Discretionary Non-Prosecution Agreements Have Inflicted Massive

The Petitioner notes with grave concern that the Government has handed out Non-

Prosecution Agreements to the very individuals who actively misappropriated investor capital,

while failing to claw back the stolen funds. This has caused severe financial losses to the true

victims.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), the Petitioner requests that this Court issue subpoenas

to compel the presence of critical shareholders, insiders, and farm operators for direct, cross-

examination and accounting. These individuals include: William Je, Yvette, Qidong Xia (长岛伟

哥), Ya Li (木兰传奇), Xuebing Wang (老班长), Lihong Wei (Sara), Jianfeng Dai (大卫), Cosmos,

and Ha En(哈恩). It is procedurally imperative to uncover the truth through these examinations and

initiate a formal clawback of the investor capital stolen by these farm operators.

II. THE GENUINE COMMERCIAL VALUE, SCARCE CREDIT PREMIUM, AND

SUBSTANTIAL APPRECIATION OF THE G ENTERPRISE

The prosecution utilized alter-ego doctrines to paint the G Enterprise entities as mere

instruments of fraud, did not address whether these businesses possessed genuine commercial

viability. To the contrary, entities like the Himalaya Exchange possessed robust technological

achievements, an established user base, and irreplaceable market advantages:

An Absolute, Rigid Demand for Offshore Financial Accounts:

Due to the severe capital flight controls imposed by mainland China (restricting individuals

to an annual foreign exchange quota of $50,000 USD), coupled with the continuous regulatory

crackdowns on regional offshore brokers like Futu Holdings and Tiger Brokers, a diaspora

population of over one billion people faces a critical shortage of secure, unmonitored financial

sanctuaries to preserve their wealth. Concurrently, major U.S. financial institutions, such as East

West Bank and Bank of America (BOA), enforce over-inclusive, hostile screening against Chinese

nationals, often resulting in arbitrary account freezes and closures (as experienced firsthand by the

Petitioner). The streamlined online KYC and compliance onboarding provided by the Himalaya

Exchange solved a massive structural pain point, serving as both the genesis and terminal anchor

for Chinese offshore wealth management.

Demonstrable Commercial Assets and Track Record:

Trial evidence confirmed that the Himalaya Exchange maintained anti-money laundering

and KYC (Know Your Customer) screening standards that were far more rigorous than those of

many mainstream global cryptocurrency exchanges. Its fully constructed database, network

infrastructure, high-net-worth client acquisitions, and the functional HPAY real-time payment

gateway represent immensely valuable, revenue-generating startup assets.

Sustainable Interest Yield Generation:

The Himalaya Exchange operated under a reserve asset management model analogous to

traditional banking logic. The surplus fiat reserves remaining outside of the daily inflow/outflow

liquidity requirements could be safely deployed into short-term U.S. Treasury bills, yielding

consistent, low-risk interest income. Circle Internet Group Inc., which currently has a market

capitalization of $16 billion, is a company of this type; Himalaya Exchange could become a

company similar to Circle.

Institutional Validation by Sovereign Wealth Capital:

Prior to the intervention of the Government, the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund was

actively conducting institutional due diligence to execute a major strategic investment into the

Himalaya Exchange. This external corporate validation proves that the business plan possessed an

exceptionally high probability of commercial success. Unlike purely speculative "meme" or

commemorative tokens circulating in the U.S. market—such as those issued by Donald Trump or

Melania Trump, which lack underlying operating entities or asset injections yet sustain hundreds of

millions in market cap—Himalaya Coin (HCN) was anchored by concrete utility and enterprise

infrastructure.

The "Scarce Credit Premium" Derived from Shared Universal Values:

The G Enterprise was built by Chinese dissidents dedicated to the pursuit of freedom and

democracy. Navigating relentless transnational repression from a totalitarian regime required an

ironclad corporate promise: the absolute refusal to yield to political coercion and the unyielding

protection of client privacy. In a financial industry where trust is the supreme currency, this

resistance created an extraordinary credit premium. This premium explains why the market price of

HCN sustained a steady average above $20 USD during the three months preceding the exchange’s

forced offline status. This immense valuation and digital asset appreciation belong entirely to the

innocent third-party investors—not the Defendant. The Court’s mandatory shutdown and

liquidation of the exchange do not punish the Defendant; rather, they destroy the legitimate private

property of the victims.

III. THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY: FORMATION OF AN "INVESTOR

MUTUAL FUND" TO RECEIVE AND REHABILITATE THE CORPORATE ASSETS

To maximize the preservation of the innocent investors' capital and avoid the immense

value-destruction, delays, and high administrative overhead typical of government-managed

remission and civil forfeiture asset sales, the Petitioner formally requests the implementation of the

following Alternative Restitutionary Relief:

1. The Structure and Capitalization of a New "Investor Mutual Fund"

Exclusion of Implicated Corporate Intermediaries: Because the "Himalaya Farm Alliance"

has been named in the prosecution’s RICO conspiracy framework, and because it has entirely lost

the confidence of the investors base due to an absolute lack of governance, internal feuds, and

arbitrary account terminations (such as the widespread banning of users on Gettr and Discord under

the management of Yue Zhou, aka 青藤), it is disqualified from serving as a fiduciary trustee. A

new, fully independent "Investor Mutual Fund" must be incorporated.

In-Kind Restitution of Corporate Shares and Physical Assets: The Petitioner requests that

the Court order an in-kind restitution of 100% of the frozen and seized corporate equities of the G

Enterprise companies, as well as the seized real estate, luxury vehicles, yachts, and high-value

furnishings, transferring them directly to this newly formed, investor-owned Mutual Fund.

Severing the Alter-Ego Chain of Control: Upon the complete transfer of all corporate shares

and governance rights to this independent, victim-owned fund, the G Enterprise entities will be

legally and operationally decoupled from the Defendant. The Defendant will retain zero control,

beneficial interest, or residual equity. Consequently, the entities will cease to be his "alter ego" and

must be permitted to resume lawful commercial operations under independent regulatory

compliance.

2. Implementing Democratic Corporate Governance and Volunteer-Led Ledger

Equity-Proportional Shareholder Democracy: Shareholder equity percentages within the

Mutual Fund will be calculated based on a rigorous reconciliation of the existing Himalaya Farm

Alliance investment ledgers. All investors, as legitimate shareholders, will exercise voting rights

proportional to their capital contributions at general shareholder meetings (which may be

transparently hosted within organized pro-se litigant groups, such as the forum established by

investor Chunk Chyi, http). Shareholders will

democratically elect or replace the Fund’s Board of Directors, and the Board will appoint CEOs to

manage Himalaya Exchange and other G Enterprise entities.

The Efficiency of Reconciling the Existing Himalaya Farm Alliance Ledgers:

Standard U.S. receivership accounting and forensic liquidations are prohibitively expensive

and logistically slow. This case involves tens of thousands of Chinese investors dispersed

worldwide. The investor community possesses an abundance of highly qualified financial,

accounting, and legal professionals who are eager to work pro bono as volunteers to audit and

cross-reference the Himalaya Farm Alliance ledgers against prosecution data and G Enterprise bank

records. The investor collective is fully prepared to adopt and validate these audited Himalaya Farm

Alliance ledgers, and they are even willing to absorb existing bad debts through the company's

future operating revenues. This level of transactional efficiency is completely unachievable through

the government's bureaucratic remission process.

Value Protection Against Forced Judicial Asset Fire Sales:

The Court should consider enjoining the Government from executing rushed, fire-sale

auctions of the seized real estate, vehicles, yachts, and furniture. Seized secondary luxury goods

rarely fetch fair market value when liquidated under time-sensitive judicial mandates. To the

investor community, these assets carry an immense brand heritage and historical value that far

exceeds their raw market appraisal. By transferring these assets to the Mutual Fund, the investors

can generate continuous revenue through commercial exhibitions and curated experiential access,

or execute strategic, high-value asset liquidations when market conditions maximize returns.

3. The Implementation of a Dual-Track "Cash-Out vs. Equity-Retention" Election

To balance the differing desires of the investor base, the Petitioner requests that the Court

direct the Government, upon completing its final claims tally, to establish a fixed pro-rata

restitution ratio based on the current available cash pool (approximately $634 million USD) against

the total valid claims submitted (approximately $889 million USD), yielding an approximate 71%

cash recovery baseline.

Investors Electing Cash Restitution: Shall have the right to immediately draw down their

cash share at the designated pro-rata percentage and completely exit the liquidation pool.

Investors Electing the Mutual Fund: Shall have their corresponding cash allocation securely

preserved within the Fund to serve as operating capital. This capital will be converted into equity

shares of the revitalized G Enterprise and the reopened exchange, allowing these investors to retain

their upside potential, future dividend distributions, and long-term asset appreciation.

IV. COMPELLING EQUITABLE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING VULNERABLE AND PERSECUTED INVESTORS

The Petitioner explicitly cautions the Court that a rigid, traditional "notice-and-claim, first-

come, first-served" administrative remission framework will result in an absolute denial of justice

and a massive unconstitutional taking of private property for the following populations:

Innocent Investors Residing in the Mainland China Under Totalitarian Regimes: Clear

evidence exists within the record (including documents associated with "Tony") establishing that

the Chinese Ministry of State Security and domestic police apparatus have categorized personal

capital investments into the G Enterprise as an act of "Endangering National Security." If this Court

rigidly mandates that every individual claimant must register their true identity, upload national

identification documents, and expose their physical domicile to a public, searchable U.S. judicial

database—thereby triggering international mail deliveries—these files will be intercepted. These

vulnerable investors will face imminent, severe political persecution, asset confiscation inside

China, and prolonged loss of personal liberty. Allowing the Mutual Fund to utilize the existing

Himalaya Farm Alliance ledgers to verify investment tranches collectively and anonymously is the

one appropriate mechanism to preserve both the physical safety and the property rights of these

persecuted victims.

Severe Document Disruption via Informal Foreign Exchange Channels:

Due to China's draconian banking walls, a substantial portion of the investor base was

forced to deploy indirect, informal third-party wire transfers, or utilize peer-to-peer USDT

cryptocurrency clearing to move their capital out of the mainland. The SEC’s prior GTV Fair Fund

administration systematically disqualified vast numbers of real, bona fide investors simply because

they could not produce a pristine, direct wire receipt matching their legal names. If this Court

mechanically demands that individual, unsophisticated foreign claimants provide a perfect banking

chain that complies with U.S. institutional standards, it will cause an immediate forfeiture of

property for the most vulnerable victims.

Barriers of Language, Lapsed Deadlines, and Deceased Claimants:

A vast percentage of the investor base possesses zero English literacy and lacks any

comprehension of complex U.S. federal asset forfeiture timelines. Because these multi-

jurisdictional proceedings have dragged on for years, many investors have lost tracking capabilities,

and some have passed away entirely, leaving heirs completely unaware of the existence of these

offshore accounts. Applying a strict "statute-of-bar" or "first-come, first-served" asset exhaustion

rule is fundamentally inequitable and directly violates the substantive purpose of restitution.

For the foregoing reasons, an in-kind transfer of corporate assets to an Investor Mutual Fund

represents an equitable and practical alternative to achieve comprehensive equity.

V. SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AND COMPROMISE CLAUSE

The Petitioner explicitly affirms that the historical development and scale of the G

Enterprise are inseparable from the extensive early capital capitalization and execution provided by

major shareholder William Je, alongside other large-scale silent shareholders.

However, given the current situation, William Je and other shareholders may choose not to

appear in court due to fears of retaliation by the CCP. Their absence has severe negative impact on

the fair adjudication of the case.

The Petitioner does not seek to unlawfully expropriate or permanently dilute the legitimate

holdings of these shareholders. The temporary, full transfer of corporate equity to a Mutual Fund

comprised of fellow fighter investors is an emergency, protective legal mechanism to rescue the

company from permanent administrative destruction. Should the defendants and other shareholders

succeed in overturning the case in accordance with the law in the future, the mutual fund will

immediately initiate a negotiation mechanism to return the corresponding equity interests.

For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Recognize Petitioner's standing as a bona fide, innocent investor entitled to robust

property protection under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA;

2. Permit Petitioner reasonable access to the materials necessary to litigate this ancillary

proceeding, subject to appropriate protective orders.

3. Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1)(B), a targeted period of

discovery and the issuance of subpoenas to compel the presence and cross-examination of William

Je, Yvette Wang, the operating directors of the respective G Enterprise entities, and the primary

farm organizers—including Qidong Xia (长岛伟哥), Ya Li (木兰传奇), Xuebing Wang (老班长),

Lihong Wei (Sara), Jianfeng Dai (大卫), Cosmos, and Ha En (哈恩)—to definitively map out the

corporate financial truth and trace the investor capital misappropriated by individual farm owners;

and subsequently schedule an open, ancillary evidentiary hearing on these matters; and

4. Vacate or modify the Order of Forfeiture that mandates the corporate dissolution and

bankruptcy of the G Enterprise, and authorize the creation of the investor-governed "Investor

Mutual Fund" to receive the corporate equities and assets in-kind, enabling the businesses to safely

return to normal commercial operations under independent fiduciary oversight.

By:

Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT 871DktEntry:

THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF -23_cr_00118 - UNITED STATES OF

ail.com> Jul 13, 2026, 11:22 PM

to ProSe, ryan.finkel, justin.horton, micah.fergenson, nathan.rehn, juliana.murray, msarafa, idratel, jkaley

I am a non-party moving pro se in justin.horton@usdoj.gov, PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM, TO FILI micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov, A REDACTED PETITION. pdf] and an accompany nathan.rehn@usdoj.gov, RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF - unredacted.pdf] for filing juliana.murray@usdoj.gov,

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil F jdratel@dratellewis.com, to file the redacted versions publicly and the unredact jkaley@doarlaw.com y

File 1: MOTION TO PROCEED ND TO PERMIT

PUBLIC FILING OF A REDACTED eudonym "Lionheart") mailed-by: gmail.com

File 2: THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF - redacted.pdf (Public version of the main motion, with true name and dollar amounts redacted)

File 3: THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF - unredacted. pdf (Contains my true name and financial details. Highlighted text indicates redacted portions)

File 4: Exhibit A investment_evidence.pdf (Contains full Discord screenshots and translations)

Instructions for Docketing:

Reply « Reply all > Forward

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

Docket Number(s): ________________________________________ _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________

Motion for: ______________________________________________

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: An order compelling the U.S. District Court

for the SDNY to docket Petitioner's filings

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

MOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ NATHAN REHN, USA SDNY OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________

___Appellant/Petitioner ___Appellee/Respondent

MOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________ [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________

Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has this request for relief been made below? ___Yes ___No

___Yes ___No (explain):__________________________ Has this relief been previously sought in this court? ___Yes ___No _______________________________________________ Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ________________

Opposing counsel’s position on motion:

___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know

Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:

Is oral argument on motion requested? ✔ (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has argument date of appeal been set? ✔ ___ Yes ___No If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________

Signature of Moving Attorney:

Date:__________________ Service by: ___CM/ECF ___Other [Attach proof of service]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CAPTION:

Docket Number: v.

I, Lionheart , hereby certify under penalty of perjury that (print name) Form T-1080,Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, on August 18, 2026 , I served a copy of

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,Certificate of Service,Exhibit A,Exhibit B

___ Personal Delivery ___ United States Mail ___ Federal Express or other

___ Commercial Carrier ___ E-Mail (on consent) on the following parties: Nathan Rehn 26 Federal Plaza,37th Floor New York NY 10278 Name Address City State Zip Code Hon. Analisa Torres 500 Pearl Street, Room 2110 New York NY 10007 Name Address City State Zip Code

Name Address City State Zip Code

Name Address City State Zip Code

*A party must serve a copy of each paper on the other parties, or their counsel, to the appeal or proceeding. The Court will reject papers for filing if a certificate of service is not simultaneously filed.

**If different methods of service have been used on different parties, please complete a separate certificate of service for each party.

Certificate of Service Form (Last Revised 12/2015)