Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 848

摘要

Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus · Bao Chu

This 65-page document is the Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed by Bao Chu (S.D.N.Y. Himalaya Identification Number F56BDDZ) on May 7, 2026 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case No. 26-1296). The petition is brought against the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and District Judge Analisa Torres in connection with United States v. Miles Guo et al., 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y.).

Statutory Bases

The petition is brought under:

• The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651;
• Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21;
• 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), asserting standing as a bona fide third-party property owner.

Relief Sought

The petition asks the Second Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus to:

1. Compel the SDNY Clerk to docket, within 24 hours, all 18 unlawfully suppressed pro se filings — including the Emergency Motion for a Mandatory Rule 104 Hearing of May 4, 2026 and Exhibits FF–NN — on the public CM/ECF docket for Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT;
2. Compel Judge Torres to convene a mandatory evidentiary hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104 to review what the petition characterizes as suppressed evidence of the government's reliance on coerced, unverified, and fabricated data;
3. Compel issuance of subpoenas to AUSA Ryan Finkel and Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee Luc Despins to testify under penalty of perjury about their alleged coordinated receipt of bulk fabricated evidence and the unverified transfer of 1,600 creditor files.

I. The Clerk's Alleged Violation of Rule 5(d)(4)

The petition states that between April 17 and May 7, 2026, the petitioner transmitted more than eighteen separate emergency motions, supplemental memoranda, and evidentiary exhibits to the SDNY Pro Se Office and to Judge Torres's chambers. Physical copies of critical motions and 29 exhibits were delivered via international EMS from Austria, receipted by the SDNY (tracking numbers 1000250003756541000001 and 1000250003756551000008). Despite this service, the petition states that none of the eighteen submissions has been uploaded to the public CM/ECF docket as of the filing.

The petition characterizes this as an unconstitutional "pocket veto" violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(4), which mandates: "The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice." The petition argues that docketing is a purely ministerial duty devoid of substantive review authority, and that the SDNY's continuous administrative blockade is an ultra vires act designed to silence a verified property owner.

II. The Motive for Alleged Suppression: Fraud on the Court

The petition asserts that the SDNY is risking severe procedural violations to suppress the 18 filings because, in the petition's characterization, they contain physical evidence destroying the legitimacy of the government's $1.4 billion forfeiture action. The petition identifies what it calls a "coordinated Fraud on the Court":

1. AUSA Ryan Finkel's Receipt of "Manufactured Perjury": The petition asserts that suppressed exhibits provide "incontrovertible written proof" that an extrajudicial RICO syndicate, called the "Alliance/Qingteng," established a "perjury-manufacturing assembly line" that pre-filled "victim" remission forms and coerced thousands of investors internationally to mail fabricated claims directly to AUSA Finkel.
2. Trustee Luc Despins's Alleged Unlawful Data Transfer: The petition asserts that a sworn declaration in the suppressed exhibits confirms that Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee Luc Despins transferred the data of 1,600 unverified bankruptcy creditors to the prosecution to artificially manufacture the initial criminal "victim pool." The petition argues that when genuine investors disclaimed their status under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), the government became dependent on the alleged RICO syndicate to fabricate replacement claims.

The petition argues that the SDNY's refusal to docket this evidence facilitates the wrongful confiscation of assets belonging to more than 6,500 bona fide investors, stripping them of Article III judicial remedies.

III. Relief Requested

The petition's prayer for relief reiterates the three specific orders sought (Clerk to docket within 24 hours; Court to convene Rule 104 hearing; subpoenas to Finkel and Despins).

Conclusion and Verification

The petitioner declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that the accompanying Exhibit Index of 18 suppressed emails and EMS receipts accurately reflects the SDNY's "structural deprivation" of constitutional rights.

Attached Exhibits and Materials

The 65-page filing includes:

• The Second Circuit Motion Information Statement (Form T-1080) identifying the petition as not an emergency motion in the FRAP sense but seeking immediate return-date treatment;
• Email correspondence between Bao Chu (from email address huangkeke2185@gmail.com, mailing address Postfach 888, 1010 Wien, Austria) and the SDNY Pro Se Intake Unit (ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov);
• EMS tracking receipts for the physical packages dispatched from Austria on April 17, 2026;
• A Notice of Pro Se Status and Strictly Limited Scope of Representation clarifying that while petitioner is concurrently a client of attorney Bradford L. Geyer, his representation is strictly limited to the recovery of assets in ancillary forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and/or DOJ remission, and does not extend to the criminal proceedings, sentencing enhancements, or fraud-on-the-court allegations addressed in this pro se petition.