Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 040

A speaker said the deadline was approaching, planned to file 853(n) first, then revise CVRA, and asked for help on drafting. Community statements, not court findings.

Another speaker believed later filings would all be blocked and argued a stronger move was needed. Community statements, not court findings.

A member recommended keeping all filing proofs, sending directly to chambers with DOJ copy near deadlines, and filing a letter motion for timely-filing confirmation if a submission does not appear on the docket. Community statements, not court findings.

A speaker argued the group is self-represented and nonprofessional, suggesting AI guidance for these filings. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued 853(n) should be simple, centered on ownership of funds and opposition to others taking them. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant criticized current strategy, saying the group repeated mistakes from earlier matters, including a Long Island case and a 300-petition loss. Community statements, not court findings.

A member argued that the priority was preventing submission acceptance rather than refining the text of 853. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant observed that the filing recipients were the prosecutor’s email channels. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant questioned whether pro se email filings no longer get auto-receipts and advised preserving sent-email logs plus postal proof or certified numbers for paper documents. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said instant receipts had stopped, confirming the response change. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that many were positioning themselves as CVRA victims, which they suggested aligns with prosecutorial expectations. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant advised, if using that strategy, to cite Geyer’s 478 approach and define participants as financial victims harmed by government or trustee seizure, not as fraud victims. Community statements, not court findings.

A speaker credited Geyer with faithfully representing clients’ wishes, opposing forfeiture, and portraying them as financial victims of government/trustee actions. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant contended that Geyer should be separated from conspirators, signaling concern about the counsel role itself. Community statements, not court findings.

A member identified document 392 as important to the ongoing strategy. Community statements, not court findings.

Another member argued that deciding whether to present as a victim is up to each participant. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed the participants were being treated as petitioners, framing a shared identity issue in the thread. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said they could not read English filings and could not use PACER, affecting their ability to respond. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed others had not understood the central point being discussed. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant referenced an earlier heavily worded motion as context for how the appeal or protest line should be presented. Community statements, not court findings.