Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 074

kir*** questions whether top Chinese leadership is simple to confront.

him*** contends that claims of shared leadership motives are nonsense while partially agreeing with other political commentaries.

kir*** argues that the ultimate purpose of founding the movement may be revealed in the coming weeks.

him*** argues that support stems from self-affirmation and realizing personal value.

kir*** agrees with the view on personal self-realization.

him*** questions whether society is heading toward total collapse.

sar*** questions why arrangements were made for Wang Yanping to reside on the 18th floor.

sar*** describes Guo as obsessively driven to defeat the CCP using various schemes.

chu*** questions the claim, recalling that Wang had her own apartment and disputing when she would have resided on the 18th floor.

roy*** recounts previously dismissing all critics as frauds while losing money across investments, before concluding that the alliance itself was deceitful.

joh*** argues that key organizers operated deceptive peer-to-peer fundraising schemes in commodities and equities while deflecting losses onto G-series failures.

xin*** questions why anyone would still place trust in certain prominent organizers.

chu*** details appellate timing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(3) in case 23 Cr. 118, explaining that third-party appeals require standing and a final order of forfeiture following special master recommendations due by Feb 10, 2026.

kir*** asks whether the judge will rule in favor of petitions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n).

kir*** suggests utilizing the fast-track mechanism provided by the CVRA.

kir*** contends that civil-style complaints cannot be submitted under Section 853.

him*** disputes this, arguing that complaints can indeed be filed within Section 853(n) proceedings.

him*** suggests that references to complaints might indicate motions under the CVRA or filings lacking specific statutory citations.

kir*** argues that mandamus petitions must never demand a Luc hearing and should solely request an order compelling the Southern District of New York to enter a docketed, reviewable procedural disposition.

kir*** reiterates that claimants must refrain from demanding a court hearing.

him*** contends that procedural hurdles stem from judicial fraud similar to previously encountered controversies.

him*** questions whether representation for the group of 6,000 claimants can still be cancelled.

him*** contends that deadlines have passed because attorney Gair already submitted the roster to the court.

kir*** recounts telling counsel to demand compensation of 100,000 dollars matching other participants.

beg*** contends that the core issue rests on whether 134 individuals recant their allegedly false court statements, which formed the questionable basis for broader groups of 6,000 and 100-plus claimants.

beg*** questions whether the 6,000 claimants represented by Gair were similarly organized by alliance leadership.

chu*** contends that co-conspirators do not qualify as victims.

reb*** compares differing AI assessments regarding whether the Second Circuit clerk's rejection constituted an administrative screening error, a summary judicial ruling, or an improper pre-docketing review warranting a petition for certiorari.

him*** shares an external social media link discussing case documentation.

kir*** argues that systematically mobilizing interested parties to supply coordinated evidence risks severe evidence contamination and judicial exclusion.

joh*** argues that petitions under Section 853(n) will prove futile for thousands of claimants and that judges will likely disqualify over 100 digital bank claims.

him*** contends that claimants are unlikely to recover significant funds through Section 853(n) or remission petitions, advising against expecting monetary compensation.

sar*** describes their collective presence primarily as disrupting existing proceedings.

kir*** questions whether the truth will become apparent to everyone within the next week or two.

kir*** affirms that the timeline seems approximately right.

kir*** contends that a judicial ruling might not be issued at all.

him*** contends that pursuing a Second Circuit mandamus petition under Section 853(n) is likely no longer viable.

him*** argues that decisions on emergency writs of mandamus should normally issue within 72 hours.

chu*** analyzes a draft mandamus petition before the Second Circuit, noting procedural hurdles following a Nov 12, 2025 rejection under case 25-2726, while citing district court inaction on motions from Sep 29, Nov 4, Dec 10, and Dec 25 as supporting grounds.