Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 068

roy*** contends that an in forma pauperis petition is strategically used to halt dismissals and unlock Supreme Court certiorari review rather than merely initiate appeal docketing.

kir*** remarks on using an in forma pauperis filing to proceed to the Second Circuit.

him*** contends that the court should docket a case under ordinary circumstances even without an in forma pauperis submission.

beg*** recounts the Second Circuit's denial of a Section 853(n) writ in United States of America v. Kwok 23-cr-118 because no Crime Victims' Rights Act motion had been filed in district court, asking if seeking CVRA relief below is a prerequisite.

reb*** inquires whether the Second Circuit pro se office replies to email communications.

reb*** argues that the rejection is boilerplate and suggests seeking en banc rehearing or petitioning the Supreme Court if timely Section 853 filings in the Southern District were not uploaded.

chu*** analyzes a mandamus petition challenging Orders 528 and 596 under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and FRAP 21, contending that while the timing argument is strong, overbroad relief, unexhausted district court remedies, and lack of primary docket records present serious dismissal risks.

reb*** recounts that the Second Circuit rejected a filing ostensibly because standard US letter paper size was not used.

roy*** describes completing an in forma pauperis form with the assistance of artificial intelligence.

reb*** describes a prior procedural rejection involving check cashing and suggests petitioning the Second Circuit for mandamus solely citing standing and the Southern District clerk's failure to upload filings.

ntp*** recounts being assigned a different clerk and experiencing another change in filing rules.

kir*** notes that items mailed by the Second Circuit cannot be tracked.

him*** contends that under current conditions victims will recover very little money.

roy*** argues that whether civil bankruptcy claims can take priority over seized criminal forfeiture assets raises sensitive issues of subject-matter jurisdiction and Justice Department control.

roy*** argues that the government is attempting an improper procedural inversion by prioritizing administrative remission ahead of Crime Victims' Rights Act hearings, warning that this creates potential reversible structural error.

kir*** argues that victims are divided into those who register with the prosecution and those who invoke Crime Victims' Rights Act protections in court.

him*** interprets Order 785 as indicating that general creditors are also relegated to administrative remission.

him*** asks whether the term general creditor refers to standard creditors.

roy*** contends that statutory procedures strictly mandate resolving Crime Victims' Rights Act issues before Mandatory Victims Restitution Act awards and remission distribution can proceed.

him*** argues that courts will likely ignore procedural objections raised under Section 853(n) because the statute exists solely for asset distribution.

roy*** argues that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is legally dependent upon and constrained by Crime Victims' Rights Act protections, citing mandamus case 25-2726.

roy*** contends that Order 783 demonstrates the district court lost control over forfeiture proceedings, providing supplemental evidence for the mandamus petition in 25-2726.

roy*** questions whether Order 783 represents Judge Torres's first public admission of a breakdown in criminal forfeiture management.

him*** notes that a special master was appointed to handle Section 853(n) matters.

roy*** contends that pursuing Crime Victims' Rights Act claims in the Second Circuit operates as a fundamental procedural challenge positioned above simple restitution or administrative remission.

roy*** argues that the case diverges into three distinct pathways: administrative remission, appellate judicial review under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and mandamus, and political or diplomatic legal challenges.

roy*** contends that reducing the dispute strictly to monetary compensation forfeits procedural legitimacy, constitutional challenges, and appellate review before the Supreme Court.

him*** surmises that the Second Circuit added specific language in response to receiving numerous mandamus petitions.

him*** advises that anyone filing a new mandamus petition must identify new demands or changed circumstances.

roy*** argues that Orders 783 and 785 substantiate structural issues and contends that petitioners should wait for pivotal developments rather than filing repetitive mandamus requests.

kir*** suggests waiting until sentencing concludes when opposing parties have exhausted their measures.

roy*** disputes expectations of a 5% recovery, estimating that regaining even 1% would be fortunate.

kir*** contends that the Alliance members will ultimately be indicted.