Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 045

One participant described the group’s current status as relatively stable. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant argued the defense lawyer had not obtained New York temporary authority and that an early signature marked HPVing suggested a pending application, claiming this supported false-representation allegations and tied the burden to responses associated with ECF No. 709. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant requested help to verify whether the handwriting in the document looked authentic. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant contended the document initially looked real but may be fake after comparison, noting the discrepancy between "wen" and handwritten "wan" as a key sign of inconsistency. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asked whether Guo had volunteered the letter or whether someone else had requested it. Community statements, not court findings.

A different participant argued the letter was self-initiated to show a positive, cooperative image to the judge in hopes of reduced punishment. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant speculated the letter was used as a signal that allies could use AI involvement to alter the case outcome. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asserted there were AI supporters making a statement and suggested a third-party entry into the litigation path. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant questioned whether Pro Se filings should be mailed to the court address or elsewhere. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant argued to send the materials by email instead. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asked if there was also an unfiled copy that had not been uploaded. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant replied that one copy was enough. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant reported receiving a GTV refund with an 8% loss. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant characterized the financial impact as a heavy loss. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant contended that Pro Se intake was not the right recipient because it handles civil cases and said filings in criminal matters should be mailed to the judge’s office. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant acknowledged the guidance and said they would call to confirm. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued the Pro Se email mailbox should not accept email filings because it does not handle criminal cases. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant disputed this by pointing out the inconsistency of previously allowing submission and now refusing it. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed that a related position or document was written by Melinda. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said the conversation had shifted to the CVRA topic. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued that as a victim, confronting defense counsel could be expected but also raised concern about self-exposure. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asserted that victims should indeed challenge defense counsel. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued that sending a letter to Judge Torres would be a “suicide move” because it might be discarded immediately. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant mocked the suggestion as poor judgment. Community statements, not court findings.