Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 042

him*** advises seeking and hiring an attorney.

rui*** argues for broadcasting to all third parties that prosecutors are defrauding the court and the court is suppressing victims.

zha*** questions whether filing a complaint requires paying a fee and asks if the correct procedure is called a mandamus petition.

him*** contends that the other party is clearly violating the law.

him*** explains that under New York one-party consent law, a participant can legally record a telephone conversation with the court, while noting that courtroom admissibility requires meeting evidentiary standards.

him*** contends that victims do exist, citing Rui En as an example.

tut*** explains that the general pro se email address serves primarily for inquiries, whereas the dedicated pro se filings address is the only one ensuring docketing by the clerk.

zha*** notes that the last docket upload was entry ECF 750, filed by the government on Sep 19, 2025.

him*** shares an external link concerning the ongoing filing disputes.

reb*** outlines that petitioning for a writ of mandamus requires serving three copies across the Second Circuit, the district court, and the prosecutor's office, alongside paying a 505-dollar fee or applying for in forma pauperis relief.

ntp*** inquires whether a motion to compel docketing should be submitted to the pro se email address.

rui*** expresses gratitude to user pz0*** for noting returned correspondence and asserts that it represents a fatal error by the court.

him*** recounts researching the issue and notes that judges are permitted to review pro se emails and decline docketing.

an7*** provides contact information for the New York City Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service to locate an attorney admitted to the SDNY bar.

him*** reports that the alliance has adopted the unified position that creditors are not equivalent to victims.

rui*** taunts another participant, questioning how they can feel overwhelmed before major actions have even begun.

rui*** remarks that they were deceived deliberately.

202*** accuses rui*** of mocking fellow investors rather than observing.

reb*** analyzes the asset transfers, contending that while the process does not meet statutory robbery definitions, it could correspond to bankruptcy fraud, obstruction of justice, or civil RICO violations.

hon*** asks what additional information can be supplemented.

rui*** shares an external link related to the asset and bankruptcy discussions.