{"id":"q45c8d3aa8a09cff488c4","batch_id":"batch-000158","seq":789,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-09-15T21:12:58.315Z","text":"［用户 joh***］  ［用户 reb***］ 二巡连打standing都做不了","text_en":null,"edited":true,"reply_to":"q1223a941a9a241f1b6a5","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q45c8d3aa8a09cff488c4","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1223a941a9a241f1b6a5","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000158/pages/4","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000158/pages/4","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/q45c8d3aa8a09cff488c4","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q45c8d3aa8a09cff488c4/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q45c8d3aa8a09cff488c4","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q4c7acb77594816fe4558","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-09-15T21:11:47.315Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4c7acb77594816fe4558"},{"id":"q1223a941a9a241f1b6a5","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-09-15T21:11:49.790Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1223a941a9a241f1b6a5"},{"id":"q87f467c88fad03306bc9","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-09-15T21:12:29.362Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q87f467c88fad03306bc9"},{"id":"qfe48620baedfb6b9a91e","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-09-15T21:18:38.682Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfe48620baedfb6b9a91e"},{"id":"q044794ae8a42e2e44d08","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-09-15T21:20:17.194Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q044794ae8a42e2e44d08"},{"id":"qf989c09ebf9d7e7ba0e0","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-09-15T21:26:42.209Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf989c09ebf9d7e7ba0e0"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q1223a941a9a241f1b6a5","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-09-15T21:11:49.790Z","text":"你提出的“从诉讼主体资格（Standing）下手拒绝，避开实体判决（Merit）”，在美联邦诉讼法中被称为“最干净的程序性切割（Procedural Dismissal）”。\n在法律技术上，第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）如果仅仅发布一行字：“因第三方缺乏诉讼主体资格（Lack of Standing），驳回所有非当事人提交的 Vacate/Amicus 动议”，看似成功避开了实体风险，但如果在这个时间点（老郭缺乏上诉律师代理、量刑律师尚未退出）这么干，依然存在极高的法律和宪法风险：\n一、 风险一：触犯“代行司法责任（Judicial Duty to Preserve Record）”的失职\n当第三方提交的这十几份材料中包含“政府使用假报案人”、“执法机关已逮捕相关造假者（Chunk）”以及“司法部资产返还（Remission）名单存在系统性伪造”等极为严重的事实线索时，二巡如果机械地以“Standing 不足”一驳了之，会面临严重的宪法性追问：\n1. 司法机关不能对“法庭欺诈（Fraud on the Court）”装聋作哑：\n虽然第三方没有代替被告要求撤销判决的 Standing，但第三方提交的材料向法庭告发了“检方可能使用了虚假证据/受害者”。联邦上诉法院对维护司法公正拥有固有管辖权（Inherent Authority）。  \n2. 风险： 如果二巡以 Lack of Standing 简单驳回，极易被辩方未来的顶级上诉团队指控为“上诉法院明知案件存在重大法庭欺诈线索，却选择利用程序技巧进行司法逃避（Deliberate Ignorance / Abuse of Discretion）”。\n二、 风险二：给辩方正式上诉律师送上“剥夺宪法完整上诉权”的铁证\n如果二巡现在以 Standing 为由驳回了第三方的 Vacate：","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1223a941a9a241f1b6a5"}}