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

Community discussion, batch 040 (Sep 21, 2025 – Sep 23, 2025), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Sep 21 to Sep 23, 2025, batch 40 centered on 853(n)/CVRA filing, preserving proof, and avoiding filings being blocked or omitted from the docket. Some participants argued for pro se filings, backups, and appeals; others disputed this as potentially mixing criminal forfeiture with bankruptcy liquidation. The group also split on victim framing, citing 478, 733, 392, a prior 300-petition disappearance, and concerns about return notices, ECF access, and 528-style order. Community statements, not court findings. Community statements, not court findings.

English reading guide and paraphrases; Chinese source messages remain authoritative.

## Urgency of filing 853(n) and CVRA motions and discussion of interception risk

Some participants argued the deadline was near and pushed for filing 853(n) promptly before shifting to CVRA, while another argued likely blocking ahead required escalation. Community statements, not court findings.

- zha***, Sep 21, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8aa241b4d7c9a2967e60)
- rui***, Sep 21, 2025: Another speaker believed later filings would all be blocked and argued a stronger move was needed. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8244552604111c630e91)
## Filing proof retention, no-docket fallback, and escalation or appeal tactics

Participants contended that proof of filing should be preserved across mail and electronic channels and that missing-docket situations should trigger immediate corrective motions; one participant also argued nonprofessional self-represented users should use bots for support. Community statements, not court findings.

- goh***, Sep 21, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5b7f565697ae9fa59524)
- him***, Sep 21, 2025: A speaker argued the group is self-represented and nonprofessional, suggesting AI guidance for these filings. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q74d233cf4b2c6b069895)
## 853(n) and CVRA drafting focus, Brady allegations, and trustee dispute discussion

Some participants argued for a simplified 853(n) message centered on property rights, while others contended the group had not learned from prior case and filing failures. Community statements, not court findings.

- zha***, Sep 21, 2025: A participant argued 853(n) should be simple, centered on ownership of funds and opposition to others taking them. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q606fae578b9346619393)
- hon***, Sep 21, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe873bf66e59c6d388029)
## Further protest and external publicity ideas if filing is not accepted

Some participants argued that the key problem was blocking the filing rather than wording, while another pointed out submissions were tied to prosecution email channels. Community statements, not court findings.

- rui***, Sep 21, 2025: A member argued that the priority was preventing submission acceptance rather than refining the text of 853. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q09167fe61c9bfa49865a)
- chu***, Sep 21, 2025: Another participant observed that the filing recipients were the prosecutor’s email channels. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf68a1c5e13f1d3c7460b)
## Court return notice anomalies and considerations on trustee-related amount allegations

Participants argued that email acknowledgments for pro se filing had disappeared and that evidence should be preserved, while another confirmed earlier instant receipts were no longer available. Community statements, not court findings.

- him***, Sep 21, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf9fd80f4b8ce94abef68)
- ntp***, Sep 21, 2025: Another participant said instant receipts had stopped, confirming the response change. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qce4579a05d57663df8dc)
## Debate over victim identity, revision motives, and whether to cite document 733

Some participants argued that adopting CVRA victim framing could be seen as what prosecutors expect, while others argued identity should be framed as financial harm from government or trustee seizure, with reference to 478 and 733 arguments. Community statements, not court findings.

- an7***, Sep 22, 2025: A participant argued that many were positioning themselves as CVRA victims, which they suggested aligns with prosecutorial expectations. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0f19b7b74917af3559d8)
- an7***, Sep 22, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q438198a70939636f5492)
## Dispute over Geyer’s role, conspiracy risk, and pro se versus counsel strategy

One participant defended Geyer’s role as client-focused asset protection and forfeiture opposition, while another contended the need to distinguish Geyer from alleged co-conspirators. Community statements, not court findings.

- an7***, Sep 22, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q058bb4b47768aef7adf9)
- rui***, Sep 22, 2025: Another participant contended that Geyer should be separated from conspirators, signaling concern about the counsel role itself. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc50b37c6f1d85824ecdf)
## Dispute over whether to focus on prosecution misconduct or Luc in strategy

Some participants argued document 392 was a key reference for strategy, while others contended the choice to claim victim status should be personal rather than imposed by others. Community statements, not court findings.

- chu***, Sep 22, 2025: A member identified document 392 as important to the ongoing strategy. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd5556e86e4cc0e342278)
- him***, Sep 22, 2025: Another member argued that deciding whether to present as a victim is up to each participant. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0b00013269d2bb9c1000)
## Court bounceback reasons, Order 528, ECF access, and participant identity authenticity

Some participants argued members were already being treated as complainants, while others disputed operational capacity, noting language and PACER access barriers in assessing court procedure and identity claims. Community statements, not court findings.

- pz0***, Sep 23, 2025: A participant claimed the participants were being treated as petitioners, framing a shared identity issue in the thread. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q40cd2b0a9e0b9ef059e7)
- pz0***, Sep 23, 2025: Another participant said they could not read English filings and could not use PACER, affecting their ability to respond. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcf7ecb282b4dd2f4e511)
## Speculation on court motives and discussion of appeal thresholds and approach as victims

Some participants argued the group had not grasped the core argument, while another pointed to a prior forceful motion to frame expectations for a victim-based appeal approach. Community statements, not court findings.

- rui***, Sep 23, 2025: A participant claimed others had not understood the central point being discussed. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa922fb744b7fd17837fc)
- rui***, Sep 23, 2025: 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. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q50f4ac6c4daa9944c9ea)