Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 867

摘要

Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus · Vacatur, Victim-List Hearing, Forfeiture Stay

A 28-page filing entered on the district docket of United States v. Miles Guo, 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), on August 3, 2026. It reproduces a petition for a writ of mandamus lodged with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case 26-2102, docket entry 10.1, dated July 31, 2026); the petitioner's cover letter is dated July 19, 2026. Pages 1–19 are scanned exhibits and were recovered by OCR, so wording is approximate in places.

Petitioner and Posture

The petitioner appears pro se (without counsel) as a third-party claimant under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), asserting non-victim status, an investment purpose, and protection under Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1. Jurisdiction is invoked under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), on the ground that the underlying action lies within the court of appeals' appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner describes himself as an innocent G-Series investor with no other adequate legal avenue to raise the issues.

Relief Sought

The petition asks the Second Circuit to direct the district court and the prosecution to:

1. Vacate the June 29, 2026 sentencing and forfeiture orders, which the petitioner characterises as premature and built on a record he alleges was contaminated by "actively orchestrated, coerced and falsified claims" attributed to the Ministry of State Security (MSS) of the People's Republic of China.
2. Hold an adversarial evidentiary hearing on the prosecution's victim list (SDNY docket entry 833), requiring the government to substantiate the identity, validity and voluntariness of each of the 225 listed claimants, so that victim calculations are not derived from stolen identities, coerced statements or state-sponsored manipulation.
3. Stay all forfeiture proceedings — enjoining permanent forfeiture or transfer of the restrained res — until the district court assesses on the record whether the process and asset pool have been subverted by foreign intelligence organs targeting political dissidents.

Grounds Argued

The petitioner contends the judgment is structurally invalid for, among other reasons, the district court's asserted failure to conduct mandatory adversarial testing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) and its refusal to adjudicate third-party property claims under § 853. A further question presented invokes the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine against the prosecution's reliance on cooperating co-defendant Yvette Wang, citing public records (Exhibit 5) and appellate submissions (Docket 26-1192, Doc. Entry 25) said to establish an 18-year self-declared membership in a Chinese state-linked organisation. He argues mandamus is the exclusive mechanism to compel the lower court to perform a clear legal duty.

Attached Personal Statement (Exhibit)

An exhibit reproduces a "Personal Statement, Denying Being the Defendant's Victim" by a pro se G-Series investor, which states:

• The declarant is a legitimate G-Series investor and was never a victim of the defendant, who "has always acted with honor and integrity";
• Any financial loss was caused by the Government's own seizures and enforcement actions (naming the SEC and DOJ), not by the defendant;
• The declarant's digital nickname was placed on the prosecution's victim list without knowledge or consent, with statements falsely attributed to them;
• A formal demand that the prosecution remove the name and nickname and investigate how the identity entered the record, plus a request that the Court appoint an independent third party to conduct forensic accounting and line-item verification of all purported victim claims, on the assertion that most entries are unverified anonymous nicknames;
• Revocation of any prior authorisation for any person or entity to speak on the declarant's behalf.

The certificate of service records filing through the S.D.N.Y. Pro Se Intake Unit by email, with service on the Assistant United States Attorneys (Finkel, Horton, Fergenson) and on defence counsel (Sarafa, Dratel, Kaley).

Note

This is a party's own filing, not a ruling: every characterisation above is the petitioner's. The exhibits include an attached personal identity document; no identifying details from it are reproduced here.