Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 057

One participant argued for immediate release immediately. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant contended that the listed trial errors could justify vacating the conviction but do not automatically produce an immediate not-guilty verdict, arguing instead for vacatur then possible dismissal with prejudice if the government faces retrial risk. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant disputed the AI use of Burks v. United States, distinguishing trial-error vacatur from evidence insufficiency limits on retrial, while still arguing DOJ could be pressured not to retry. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued that if second review denies acquittal, retrial appears the next step. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant conceded that release remains a distance away. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed the group discussion was being driven by insiders, with one side pressing a pardon narrative and another citing AI guidance, while noting no one was clearly answering the facts. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed only one person had qualified standing to petition the high court at that time. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant contended a pardon would amount to confirming criminality, so that relief would be unnecessary and conceptually self-defeating. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued that process success was already achievable and questioned why pardon should be sought. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant reported spending substantial time reviewing 733 and 765. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed an injunction order exists. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant stated that a Rule 1345 motion was denied. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued SDNY must upload the second-circuit acquittal motion to avoid selective filing and bias. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asserted that an injunction, described as existing, was in place. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant questioned whether SDNY is permitted to upload these materials. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asked whether anyone in the group had actually attended trial. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed prior attendees no longer responded, suggesting communication friction. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant simply affirmed the point. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant disputed that the article’s author was actually the editor, implying source authenticity concerns. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued for letter-writing to the editor instead of giving interviews. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed both victims and non-victims were allowed to submit competing views to the publication. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant urged waiting for substantive progress before speaking publicly, arguing premature response would cede momentum. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed a co-defendant group mobilized suspicious victim actors to seek financial gain. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant described enthusiastic victims as suspicious. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant replied that anyone can participate. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant proposed 5–10 third-party victim mandamus filings to increase pressure on the Second Circuit and SDNY. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asked when prosecutors might be forced to capitulate. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant stated they would not allow the prosecution to surrender. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed third parties are not permitted to file such motions. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant repeated that these issues are not for third parties to handle. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued one cannot exercise defendant rights without filing as defendant. Community statements, not court findings.