Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 072

him*** contends that submitting a CVRA filing does not equate to asking for money.

him*** argues that the court should not delay docketing private claims or Section 853(n) petitions.

him*** criticizes the withholding of docketing for CVRA procedural issues.

him*** insists that every motion must be entered on the court docket regardless of circumstances.

him*** maintains that the court is obligated to docket any document submitted to it.

ntp*** questions whether a lack of response from the judge means a filing was not cancelled and asks why it was not raised.

kir*** suggests setting aside the omission of the CVRA issue.

beg*** argues that under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), third-party claimants asserting superior ownership interests recover assets before funds are disbursed to CVRA and MVRA victim creditors through restitution.

joh*** contends that a participant was misled into filing a petition for remission rather than an ancillary Section 853(n) claim.

joh*** argues that claimants establish general creditor status through Section 853(i) or priority status through Section 853(n), though attempting to switch between them creates procedural hurdles.

joh*** argues that Section 853(n) claims were delayed until docket 759 near sentencing, prompting the prosecution's objection in docket 785 and defense counsel's contest in docket 789.

beg*** insists on clarifying the specific identity of the thousands of victims referenced by the prosecution.

joh*** contends that citing defense filings in docket 789 to shift victim figures from thousands to roughly 140 misrepresents the underlying victim certification and remission processes.

beg*** asks whether complete meeting recordings and manuscripts will be posted to CourtListener.

kir*** emphasizes that the authenticity of the materials must be confirmed.

him*** asks whether the referenced material derives from a meeting between attorney Victor and group leadership.

reb*** asks whether notice to include two additional assistant prosecutors in supplemental filings was provided by email or regular postal mail.

ntp*** recounts that no formal notice was provided and that the addition of two prosecutors was discovered on PACER.

ntp*** suggests asking the Second Circuit to reissue the notification.

sar*** asks about formatting requirements for Second Circuit filings and how to ensure a submission is accepted for docketing.

beg*** asks for the reason why the mailed filing was returned.

reb*** describes having a mandamus petition returned on Jan 9, 2026, expressing concern that returned mail and earlier PACER correspondence were lost.

him*** analyzes the prosecution's position against reopening CIPA before sentencing under Rule 16 and Dkt. 294, describing it as strong against disguised reconsideration while identifying narrow theoretical openings.

him*** asks why the previous CIPA request was denied.

him*** argues that any viable sentencing challenge must bypass CIPA and invoke ongoing Brady due process obligations tied to newly emergent material issues.

him*** agrees that participants intending to file motions in the Southern District of New York should begin doing so in the coming weeks.

beg*** advocates maintaining pressure on the Second Circuit through impactful filings while noting the court appearance of SDNY prosecutor Jay Clayton.

zha*** asks whether participants should call three specific court telephone numbers regarding undocketed pro se filings.

roy*** describes paying a fifty-dollar representation fee without reviewing the agreement after following group explanations, recounting feeling misled by the alliance.

joh*** argues that multiple factions are conspiring to discourage individuals from pursuing independent Section 853(n) filings in order to maintain control.