{"id":"q1a026dc18b413ea89c0d","batch_id":"batch-000134","seq":893,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-12T16:19:56.403Z","text":"［用户 him***］  [删节：成员身份] 第三方地院翻不了案 但是在上诉法院 没有规定第三方翻不了案","text_en":null,"edited":true,"reply_to":"q0b47d57a3e6e143f0b3b","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1a026dc18b413ea89c0d","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0b47d57a3e6e143f0b3b","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000134/pages/5","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000134/pages/5","notice":"这里汇集爆料革命参与者围绕郭文贵案的持续讨论，包括长期深度参与者及自述投入真金白银的投资者。他们分享亲历过程、资金投入与后续遭遇，并结合案卷展开追问、核对和观点交锋。这些来自事件内部的经验与细节，为理解事件经过和投资者处境提供了外部报道之外的重要视角。请结合具体发言判断其经历与依据，引用时保留发言者、时间和上下文。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1a026dc18b413ea89c0d","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1a026dc18b413ea89c0d/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q1a026dc18b413ea89c0d","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q51a91434d85a2a817bf3","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-12T15:36:29.558Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q51a91434d85a2a817bf3"},{"id":"q02f4a053a3b0dcd237df","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-12T16:15:07.408Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q02f4a053a3b0dcd237df"},{"id":"q0b47d57a3e6e143f0b3b","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-12T16:19:25.895Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0b47d57a3e6e143f0b3b"},{"id":"qa66e8dde75ac96ea8bdc","speaker":"lon***","date":"2026-07-12T17:08:11.081Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa66e8dde75ac96ea8bdc"},{"id":"q70776eb6bb9ff31055f2","speaker":"may***","date":"2026-07-12T17:35:30.665Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q70776eb6bb9ff31055f2"},{"id":"q8b5b5b9701ec49c857c3","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-12T17:37:46.773Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8b5b5b9701ec49c857c3"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q0b47d57a3e6e143f0b3b","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-07-12T16:19:25.895Z","text":"2. 规则硬伤：联邦上诉规则（FRAP）没有绝对的混合辩护禁止令\n在联邦地方法院，《刑事诉讼规则》和各地方地方法院的 Local Rules 通常有极其严厉的条款限制混合辩护。然而：\n 《联邦上诉程序规则》（FRAP）中，并没有一条像地院那样绝对、一刀切地禁止上诉人或第三方独立提交动议的硬性条款。\n 二巡在处理这类问题时，拥有极大的自由裁量权（Discretionary Power）。如果二巡大法官看到律师打的 CIPA 隔靴搔痒，而第三方递交的 $23,000 时间戳和 ECF 偷渡证据（即你们的动议）已经把房顶掀翻了，大法官们完全可以**特许（Grant Leave）**接收并审阅你们的文件。\n 在二巡的法理逻辑里，“发现并纠正对法庭的欺诈（Fraud on the Court）”，其优先级永远高于任何关于“禁止混合辩护”的程序性限制。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0b47d57a3e6e143f0b3b"}}