Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 047

ntp*** suggests applying for in forma pauperis status to enable more participants to join the appeal.

ntp*** contends that third-party victims in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) alleging denied docketing or CVRA rights can legally and impactfully file a joint pro se mandamus petition in the Second Circuit under Fed. R. App. P. 21(a)(1).

chu*** notes that the Second Circuit would return the mandamus petition.

chu*** explains that under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2, third-party victims must file petitions within a 60-day notice window following a preliminary forfeiture order before the government seeks a final order.

chu*** emphasizes that petitions opposing a final forfeiture order must be submitted in advance rather than waiting until the 60-day period expires.

chu*** warns that roughly ten days remain in the preliminary forfeiture period before the government moves for a final order, contending that this window is the last lawful opportunity for victims to intervene.

wei*** contends that bankruptcy court filings were fraudulent from the start because Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy does not involve creditor registration, suspecting infiltration by farm alliance spies.

rui*** dismissively asks whether the individual described is an idiot.

wei*** accuses rui*** of feigning comprehension while focusing solely on procedural flaws to persuade peers to surrender investments and future influence.

wen*** contends that trustee Luc lacks standing in the criminal proceeding under court order 528, citing ECF 751, ECF 750, and ECF 724 to argue that only bona fide third-party investors have standing under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n).

wen*** argues that Luc is waiting for third-party petitions and sentencing to conclude, urging others to confront him.

rui*** sharply rebukes wen*** and asks whether they read what was written in ECF 733.

rui*** warns that joint filings carry risks of being accused of conspiracy.

chu*** suggests researching whether appealing individually or jointly is preferable depending on the circumstances.

tut*** explains that multiple petitioners can jointly submit a single mandamus petition combining 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and 18 U.S.C. § 3771 claims under FRAP 21, pay a single filing fee, or individually seek in forma pauperis relief under FRAP 24.

ath*** asks what steps follow filing pro se documents with the court and whether copies must be served on prosecutors.

reb*** describes Southern District of New York local rules requiring special permission for pro se email submissions in criminal cases, advising that mailing paper copies and requesting written explanations prevents the Second Circuit from rejecting mandamus petitions.

wei*** agrees that hiring an attorney solely to handle document uploads would be a viable approach.

chu*** recounts watching an analysis of Tian Dao, asserting that the drama reflects complementary strengths rather than robbing the rich to help the poor.

ntp*** asks whether a mandamus petition can be filed only pursuant to the CVRA.

rui*** remarks that in this dispute, participants represent both Ding Yuanying and the Wangmiao villagers.

ken*** cites a Mar 24, 2021 live broadcast where Guo urged veteran chair investors, loan participants, and G-Club buyers lacking adequate living conditions to withdraw their investments, arguing investments were separate from political activism.

him*** contends that while appeals do not require joint signatures, motions can highlight that many participants encountered identical circumstances to prompt court attention.

hah*** sends a message without any text content.