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

chu*** asserts that the third version of the indictment still lists thirteen counts.

rim*** criticizes wei*** for spreading half-true information and urges them to seek medical treatment.

chu*** argues that the twelfth count in the first indictment was obstruction of justice rather than a thirteenth count.

chu*** points to document 307 as representing the third version of the indictment.

rui*** asks about the precise substance contained in paragraphs 1 through 23.

chu*** assumes that the first twenty-three paragraphs outline the preceding twelve counts.

chu*** contends that the indictment does not charge creditor registration as obstruction of justice.

sar*** observes that the counts were adjusted from thirteen to twelve.

rui*** argues that interference with justice and false claims constitute the only vulnerabilities in the case.

sar*** describes incorporating the discussed passage into their newly drafted petition.

sar*** recounts having revised their pro se filing at least six or seven times during the day.

ntp*** advises including anything that can serve as evidence.

him*** cites guidance stating that a notice of appeal must be filed in the district court before proceeding with an appeal.

him*** inquires whether a notice of appeal is required to appear on the district court docket.

rui*** confirms that the notice of appeal is docketed.

wen*** relays an attorney's statement that the court clerk refused to place further petitions on the ECF docket due to previous improper third-party filings.

ntp*** remarks cynically that the opposing party must be privately rejoicing.

rui*** expresses shock upon hearing the report concerning petition docketing.

reb*** contends that a Chinese Ministry of Justice letter bypassed Department of Justice channels under the Hague Evidence Convention and was uploaded directly by trustee Luc in Case 22-50073 without DOJ endorsement.

sar*** acknowledges being confused about the meaning and procedural significance of the filing.

rui*** contends that the document submission clearly violates procedural rules.

ntp*** shares a link to an external social media post regarding the case.

ntp*** asks which docket number corresponds to documents required to be filed within sixty days.

wen*** argues that the Department of Justice was not bypassed, stating the Chinese ministry addressed the letter to DOJ official Krysta Stanford for trustee counsel Patrick Linsey while copying Judge Manning via EMS.

hon*** states that they do not dare to claim victim status in the proceeding.

rui*** contends that victims hold paramount legal standing in the case.

rui*** argues metaphorically that participants should seize victim status rather than subordinating themselves.

him*** notes that defense counsel cited the CVRA in motion 754.

him*** questions how victims are defined given the messy state of the case.

ntp*** requests screenshots of the motion filing.

hon*** describes opponents filing an objection to claims on the final day in Arizona to prevent adequate response time.

chu*** anticipates trustee Luc demanding money or the court uploading backlogged filings after sixty days elapse.

rui*** dismisses these anticipated tactics as having no effect.

him*** argues that the Alliance is evading responsibility by claiming participant actions were entirely voluntary.

rui*** disparages the legal competence of the Alliance leadership.

him*** derides assertions that all claims were filed voluntarily without Alliance coordination.