Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 070

In this message, a participant argued that the Supreme Court was likely to file the case next week. Community statements, not court findings.

In this message, another participant contended that the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment suggested an early procedural kickoff. Community statements, not court findings.

In this message, a participant argued that filing was the essential step and that was the key point. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the last motion was filed under 853n. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant reiterated that the filed motion in court was 853n. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant described a sequence of going to the Justice Department for remission and then pursuing 853n in court. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued each party should apply individually under 853n. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed Guo’s lawyer naming Gael was likely a pressure move. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant contended that people listed through remission were not victims. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant briefly referenced that the stipulation included him and NFSC. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant alleged the government gave a coercive choice between signing the stipulation and calling useful witnesses. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant provided a detailed explanation that the stipulation was a bilateral fact-agreement, not a plea, cooperation, or Rule 11-type exchange, and argued it lacked explicit conditional witness language. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued current statements can be retained as potential courtroom evidence and referenced a 789 statement containing CCP-related content. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked whether the original 789 text could be posted in the group. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that after acknowledged problems, victims or third parties had grounds to demand unredacted initial lists and supporting material, and non-disclosure would further question reliability. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said a judge should recuse to avoid stepping into a mixed-pool dispute. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that a new compulsory order could be drafted. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the matter was not resolvable before sentencing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed only CVRA could support immediate mandamus filing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant replied that the mechanism remained mandamus. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the issue was an upload dispute and said the upload right is a constitutional right. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued an immediate appeal could target preliminary forfeiture and government trustee control continuing for five months. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant reported another 853n mandamus was denied in the Second Circuit because no CVRA relief motion was filed in district court, and asked whether repeat non-CVRA filing would be denied again. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued 853(n) appealability depends on whether the district court has entered a final decision on the movant’s property-right claim, not automatic direct review of preliminary or principal forfeiture. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the key point was linking Guo and the g-series assets. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that 青藤 was the true coin issuer and questioned why 苍天 was brought forward first. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the central fact was the debt instrument’s authenticity, with different legal conclusions depending on whether that fact was true or false. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant introduced a social-media post as part of the case discussion. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant introduced another social-platform post in support of the narrative. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that alliance silence from witnesses could be about protecting allies. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the statement was likely a response to those pursuing self-initiated prosecution. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued CVRA and 853n create third-party rights and accused others of intervention, inducement, fraud, and possible retaliation. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that the term 'comrade' had become overused. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued for group rules barring insults, crypto promotion, and unsolicited intervention in the case such as coordinated judge-contact campaigns. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued all related remarks can serve as pattern evidence, chilling-effect evidence, and contextual-chain support. Community statements, not court findings.