Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 061

A participant said that filing a so-called deep-water bomb in second review should compel a case reversal. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that the group must first determine what event would constitute Supreme Court-level intervention. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant maintained that 733 judicial-fraud concerns were already visible even when others initially doubted them. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed that once a matter is already in process, the chance of case opening is much lower than before. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant warned that accepting all third-party motions at once would make the filing stream chaotic. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant cited a Minnesota Somali defendant where a jury conviction was later vacated by a judge as an example of reversal risk. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asserted that nobody can represent the defendant directly. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant suggested that a victim might be able to participate. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant insisted that decisions still must be defendant-led. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the defendant can seek ineffective-assistance relief and seek to overturn conviction. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the Supreme Court can issue a direct order in the matter. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant countered that defendant assent is still needed before such steps proceed. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant mentioned the existence of ex parte evidence in the discussion. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant gave a detailed view that 733/733-1 were not formal case filings, were hearsay-like in their form, lacked discovery status, and could not be treated as direct court evidence. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant contended prior counsel had not preserved core objections and that new counsel can only raise these matters later through fresh, properly built record steps. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that each day of delay equals one more day of injustice. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant stated that the case should be overturned in response to procedural stagnation. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the Southern District had not yet approved delayed sentencing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant accused someone of using another party’s materials as if they were an authorized strike. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed existing results were being rebranded under another person’s name. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant alleged that a fake Guo account was operated by a fraud group. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant implied the arranging identity might be fake and deceptive. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked for clarification of the other person’s point. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed to be working for CCP-linked state-entity interests. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant demanded that the pending $600 contribution be paid immediately. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant told the group it must either pay $600 or file an IFP motion. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asserted that non-payment tied to filing status and “case opening” conditions. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked why the group was not discussing the self-prosecution trap concept. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant dismissed another as just an ordinary developer. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant questioned who would have authority to adjudicate the conflict. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant introduced a social-post reference from the platform to support their position. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant posted a second social-thread reference in follow-up. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant posted a third public-platform reference to continue external circulation. Community statements, not court findings.