Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 041

ntp*** questions how many members in the group drafting motions are currently located in the United States.

ntp*** contends that doing so might amount to walking into a trap.

tut*** explains that if the district court refuses or delays docketing Section 853 or CVRA motions, victims can file a mandamus petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

rui*** expresses appreciation to pz0*** for providing timely procedural information.

rui*** notes that victims can file an appeal for free by completing a form, though it extends the processing timeline.

rui*** contends that simply filing an appeal would make resolving the matter overly simplistic.

goh*** asks whether an automated confirmation reply is typically received after submitting a pro se email filing.

ntp*** advises participants to consult the judge's formal court order for clarification.

ntp*** suggests inquiring at the post office and notes that registered mail may be an acceptable submission method.

goh*** argues that selective prosecution is standard practice and laments that meaningful breakthroughs are needed rather than minor, isolated efforts.

rui*** contends that disjointed actions are negligible and have virtually no impact on the opposition.

rui*** boastfully claims greater resilience than Guo.

rui*** offers to place a telephone call to the clerk's office to inquire directly.

him*** asks why filings cannot simply be docketed with personal identifying information redacted.

him*** argues that even if motions must be filed under seal, the court should not omit uploading them entirely.

chu*** references court Document 751 concerning the ongoing proceedings.

hon*** argues that a response was demanded from the court regarding forfeiture rather than from the trustee.

rui*** contends that releasing third-party assets would prevent authorities from seizing the funds.

rim*** describes the public victim letters, counting 126 from the Long Island group and over 30 sealed from the Ivy group, arguing the total reaches several hundred rather than the prosecution's alleged thousands.

rui*** asserts that an aggressive motion filed days earlier rattled the opposing parties.

him*** suggests that the parties might have only recently received the filings, remarking on the delay.

chu*** argues that proving prosecutorial evidence withholding under Brady or fraud upon the court is straightforward, contending prosecutors manipulated victims while favoring trustee Luc.

chu*** alleges that prosecutors exhibited selective blindness toward co-conspirators within the Alliance farms.

hon*** shares an external social media link related to the ongoing discussion.

rui*** introduces an alternative third approach to pursuing their strategy.

zha*** asks what broadcasting filings to all parties entails.

rui*** indicates where the specific request should be stated at the conclusion of the motion.

him*** suggests that participants with financial means in the United States or abroad retain an attorney specializing in victims' rights.

ntp*** questions whether phone conversations were recorded, contending that unrecorded interactions allow officials to evade responsibility.

rui*** inquires about the potential compensation amount.