Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 062

him*** contends that following the Aug 11, 2025 order 720 under Section 853(n), the district court suppressed third-party petitions, prompting Second Circuit mandamus petitions while citing ECF 733, 765, and 766 in 1:23-cr-00118 ahead of the Jan 20, 2026 sentencing date.

him*** argues that retaining formal counsel requires paying for complete representation across the entire case rather than filing single motions.

him*** queries whether individuals filing petitions in the Second Circuit act as independent petitioners.

him*** insists that the other participant answer outstanding questions first before receiving a response.

him*** asks another participant to evaluate whether the shared analysis is accurate.

him*** conditions providing an answer on whether the interlocutor first validates the stated points.

him*** argues that proceeding pro se preserves direct legal standing under Section 853(n) and the CVRA while asserting that court clerks fail to docket filings.

rui*** points out that non-party participants have previously been permitted to submit court filings.

rui*** states that third parties have submitted roughly seven to eight hundred documents in total.

him*** queries whether the procedural risks of pro se litigation are distinct from a purported pro se trap.

him*** presses the group on whether they understand the distinction between litigation risks and tactical pitfalls.

rui*** contends that the underlying goal of these pro se filings is to ensure maximum imprisonment, calling it a pro se trap.

rui*** relays an inquiry regarding whether hundreds of pro se petitions previously connected to a co-defendant disappeared.

him*** contends that all three hundred submissions mailed to the court ought to be uploaded.

him*** queries whether the prosecution's mention of eighty-eight plus two hundred fifteen submissions corresponds to pro se petitions.

him*** argues that the two hundred fifteen filings omitting Section 853(n) citations represent pro se petitioners opposing forfeiture without knowing the exact statute.

him*** asserts that petitions under Section 853(n) fall under the direct administrative custody of the court.

him*** asserts that none of the submitted materials have been uploaded to the public docket.

rui*** contends that participants in the discussion group are actively working to increase the defendant's sentence.

rui*** questions how avoiding a trap can be reconciled with actions that lead to lifetime imprisonment.

rui*** argues that the purpose of the pro se filings is to subject the defendant to life imprisonment.

rui*** states that consulting an automated model suggested failure to upload filings within two weeks signifies defiance toward the appellate court.

him*** asks what constitutes a reasonable and proper timeframe for the court to docket CVRA motions.

rui*** contends that there is no fixed statutory deadline governing the timeline for uploading these motions.

him*** queries whether the appellate court reviews the substantive content of a mandamus petition.

rui*** quotes a Second Circuit order denying a pro se mandamus petition requesting docketing and a Rule 60(d)(3) ruling under Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

him*** argues that the defendant would be best served by retaining an attorney who is close to retirement.

chu*** recounts being compelled into claiming victim status to avoid a court injunction despite having resisted being labeled a victim.

him*** contends that community commentary and the prosecution in ECF 511 asserted that anyone refusing victim status is either foolish or malicious.

him*** notes that from a legal standpoint, the prosecution currently asserts that everyone involved constitutes a victim.

ntp*** questions whether another participant has abruptly altered their tactics.

nin*** wonders whether they have mistakenly misidentified another participant's true identity.

chu*** demands that an interlocutor stop making nonsensical remarks and take hostile disputes to a confrontation channel.

him*** contends that the community cannot rely on governmental guidance.

rui*** asserts to the group that their efforts will receive explosive mainstream media coverage in the coming months.

gun*** argues that a newly announced national security strategy eliminates any viable political resolution for the defendant.