Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 528

摘要

Order Regarding Letters and Motions from Nonparties · April 3, 2025

A two-page order signed by Judge Analisa Torres on April 3, 2025, addressing certain nonparty filings and email correspondence the Court had received in connection with this case.

There are only two doors

The order opens by stating the rule: there are four parties to this case — the United States, Miles Guo, Kin Ming Je, and Yvette Wang. No other party has standing to intervene or to file any motion, letter, document, or request, with two exceptions:

• a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) (citing United States v. Kozeny, No. 05 Cr. 518, 2011 WL 1672473, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011));
• a motion under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), which applies only to persons "directly and proximately harmed" by a defendant's commission of a federal offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A).

Disposition of the Bei Bei Zhu filings

This nonparty filed a "Motion to Intervene Pro Se" by letter dated April 1, seeking among other things to "access relevant evidence and court filings." The Court noted that all court filings and evidence in the record, except materials properly under seal, are already available to the public, so this is not a valid basis to intervene; that any claims regarding victim compensation or asset recovery must be pursued through the procedures of 21 U.S.C. § 853 or the CVRA, which the nonparty had not done; and that as a nonparty to a criminal case, the filer lacks standing to intervene in order to offer unsolicited testimony or evidence. The motion was denied.

The same nonparty also moved to unseal the victim list in this case, stating that they had never received a victim notification under the CVRA and wished to know whether they appear on the Government's victim list. On that point the Court directed the Government to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, to communicate with the nonparty directly. To the extent the motion sought to unseal all sealed or redacted filings concerning victims' identifying information, it was denied for lack of standing and, alternatively, on the merits.

Disposition of the Chunk Chyi filings

This nonparty had filed near-daily letters on the docket for the preceding two weeks (Dkts. 505, 507, 508, 510, 513, 517, 519, 522, 524). With the exception of Dkt. 505, which the Court said may be liberally construed as a pro se petition under § 853(n), the Court found the filings improper because the filer had repeatedly disclaimed victim status; numerous filings concerned private matters beyond the scope of this criminal prosecution; and certain filings could be construed as threatening or harassing to the Government and to the victims of the defendants' crimes. The motions were denied, with a warning that any further filings by the nonparty or any alias or representative in violation of the order or applicable rules may be construed as frivolous, vexatious, or harassing and may subject the filer to a permanent filing injunction.

Emails sent directly to Chambers

The Court noted that it had received numerous unsolicited nonparty email communications sent directly to the Chambers email account over the preceding several months, and stated that such communications are prohibited: any communication with the Court must be directed to the Clerk of Court and/or the Pro Se Intake Unit and filed in accordance with court rules.

The order directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at Dkts. 508, 510, 524, 526, and 527 and to send a copy of the order to both nonparties. Within twenty-four hours of docketing, the two filed six further improper filings, and on April 4 the Court found them vexatious nonparties and imposed a pre-filing screening requirement (Dkt. 596).