Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 031

A participant claimed someone was still pushing people to present themselves as victims, and linked a related social post to support that critique. Community statements, not court findings.

The same participant shared another external message, continuing the complaint about victim-label advocacy. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said the exchange had turned into a public quarrel with Tang Ping, signaling further escalation. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant cited United States v. Fafalios, 919 F. Supp. 276 (S.D. Ohio 1996), and argued that § 853(n) is meant to let third parties independently present evidence, so docket refusal can amount to a due-process loss. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asked which specific motion or document was being discussed in that legal argument. Community statements, not court findings.

The same participant responded that they would submit the filing in paper form on the motion day. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant stated they were not HID but still claimed a genuine stakeholder interest in fairness and judicial integrity, and asked whether that should be accepted as a role in the process. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant accepted that this framing was acceptable. Community statements, not court findings.

A third participant challenged the classification as third party and suggested the person may be better characterized as amicus. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked where the ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov filing email was located. Community statements, not court findings.

The same participant queried whether a particular contact number was the correct one and referenced a user. Community statements, not court findings.

The participant then circulated an additional external reference while continuing the filing-channel dispute. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed for anyone who already transferred to farms, recovery follows the forfeiture route but others lacking clear payment records must use Pro Se, which can seek money and also oppose fraudulent claims, while warning that CVRA/claim language was being conflated with § 853(n). Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant argued that Alliance and similar actors oppose victim-position filing and supported using a personal victim-style self-file instead of certain lawyers. Community statements, not court findings.

The same participant reported the thread reached over 5,000 views in two days, showing substantial community engagement. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asked where the HDO/‘喜交所’ white paper could be obtained. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant replied that the website was down, asking where to find the document. Community statements, not court findings.

A follow-up message asked whether anyone had a backup copy. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked whether 718-1, the substitution-hearing record, differed from earlier versions and whether the prosecutor's section was broader. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asked if the referenced record was from the nfsc site. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant confirmed that this was indeed the source. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asserted that submitting form 388 requires an additional fee. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant shared a relevant social-media message in the same recovery-implementation discussion. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant reflected that many in the case were paying fees and struggling in court with little clarity on recovery, noting financial strain and uncertainty. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant pointed out a nickname in the creditor table and suggested checking the correct name entry. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant responded that the name was not present in their check. Community statements, not court findings.

A further reply said they had filed as a creditor but used a different alias-name format. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant remarked that the case contained many loopholes. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant observed that one user did not appear to understand these issues. Community statements, not court findings.

A sharp reply accused that user of inaction and framed the criticism with explicit emotional/insulting language. Community statements, not court findings.