Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 049

A participant says the third version indictment had 13 charges. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant dismisses another speaker as spreading repeated half-true or half-false information. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says the first draft contained 12 charges and an obstruction-of-justice allegation, not 13. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant references Document 307 and labels it as the third indictment draft. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asks for clarification on what the first 23 paragraphs contain. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant states the first 23 paragraphs correspond to the twelve earlier charges. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asserts the indictment does not charge creditor-registration urging as obstruction of justice. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claims the case moved from 13 counts to 12 counts. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says the present vulnerability is interference with judicial proceedings and false claims. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says they added a new paragraph in the updated self-prosecution filing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says the current filing has been revised six or seven times in one day. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says any item with evidence should be included in the filing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says a Notice of Appeal must be filed in district court before appealing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asks whether a Notice of Appeal must be entered on the docket in district court. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant answers that docketing is required in some cases. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant reports a lawyer said the clerk’s office declined to place later petitions on ECF, including counseled petitions, due to prior improper third-party filings. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant reacts sarcastically, suggesting the opposing side may still be smirking. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant responds with a profane exclamation to the same issue. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant details a claimed routing anomaly, arguing the China-to-U.S. document appears to bypass official DOJ-to-court channels and resemble political transmission rather than formal judicial assistance. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says they still do not understand what the anomaly explanation means. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant concludes that the document process is definitely improper. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant shares a social-media status link as supporting material. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asks when the 60-day filing date requirement falls, with part of the identity note redacted. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argues the letter was sent to DOJ and then to the bankruptcy context, contending it was not intentionally routed to evade DOJ channels. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says they are unwilling to identify as a victim. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant replies that, in this case, the victim is effectively the dominant actor. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant questions why someone should claim victimhood if they do not want authority over it. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant notes that defense counsel referenced CVRA in a section-754 motion. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says the case is messy and it is unclear how victim status is defined. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asks for screenshots in response to the uncertainty. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant alleges the AZ side filed last-minute motions opposing claims to reduce response time. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant compares the Guo case to similar conduct, suggesting a post-60-day filing backlog and possible improper tactics. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant concludes the approach is now ineffective. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says the alliance is passing blame and that all comrades act voluntarily. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says the alliance has no real experts. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant reinforces that all claims are voluntary and that the alliance was not organized as a formal body. Community statements, not court findings.