Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 078

him*** issues a second warning instructing members not to spam the chat with useless remarks.

him*** outlines group rules restricting repetitive spam, defining sanctions for ban evasions, and barring unsubstantiated labels.

Sap*** notes with regret that user hei*** has departed from the group.

chu*** cites the government's Jan 9, 2026 letter in ECF No. 785 proposing magistrate review of § 853(n) claims and arguing claimants lack standing and should seek remission.

him*** inquires whether a hearing under § 853(n) is legally required to occur within thirty days.

reb*** contends that the court improperly delayed holding a § 853 hearing despite written submissions by the defense in ECF No. 724 and the government in ECF No. 750.

him*** questions how Qingteng is classified if the case involves only victims, defendants, and co-conspirators.

him*** questions whether the court would have recognized the six thousand individuals as victims had a third party not disclosed Gair's contract.

joh*** argues that the prosecution stated in ECF No. 785 that the six thousand individuals are not victims in order to distance itself from Gair.

him*** recounts that Qingteng registered but stated in court that he suffered no injury from Wang Yanping's crimes.

him*** recounts that the judge informed Qingteng that he is consequently not considered a victim.

him*** recalls that Mr. Solomon affirmed his firm trust in the American legal system during a dispute with Ryan.

joh*** points to commentary identifying Yu as a defendant alongside Guo and Wang, asking why commentators avoid mentioning Yu.

ntp*** observes that nobody seemed aware of this matter and asks whether fund transfers occurred.

ntp*** contends that protracted proceedings simply function to wear out third parties.

joh*** shares an external social media post while criticizing Qingteng's conduct.

kir*** asserts that Ryan's personal home address was publicly exposed.

him*** argues that failing to redact personal identifying details appears to violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act.

kir*** contends that Ryan's supplemental mandamus filing documents Judge Torres retaliating against victims.

him*** inquires about the reasons someone would face retaliation.

joh*** argues that congressional petitions were pursued merely to delay matters in anticipation of the 2024 election.

him*** argues that prosecutors and the judge indicated that applicants under § 853(i) will not receive a § 853(n) hearing.

him*** asserts that the issue relates strictly to Wang Yanping's forfeiture proceedings.

joh*** shares an external post disputing claims that prior § 853 proceedings applied solely to Wang's case.

xin*** asks other members for guidance on how to submit a pro se filing.

ntp*** notes the issuance of court orders and asks whether an individual can appear pro se in bankruptcy court.

him*** asks whether the bankruptcy court disregards rulings from the Southern District.

him*** asks why Solomon engaged in discussions with Ryan but refused to interact with Luosi Brother.

gun*** disputes characterizations of Bannon as an alienated figure, citing ongoing War Room broadcasts, cabinet guests, and public attacks.

xin*** recounts Luosi Brother asserting that Guo will become China's richest person once released.

him*** states that he distrusts the video material recommended by An Xiaodong.

chu*** posts an external link to a broadcast concerning the movement.

sar*** asks whether the circulating material originated in 2024 or 2025.

him*** asks whether criminal court determinations regarding obstruction and fraudulent claims can dismantle claims by Gongzu and Julia in bankruptcy court.

him*** asks whether decisions rendered in criminal court carry binding legal effect in bankruptcy court.

reb*** contends that the trustee asserts the defendant violated an injunction while treating the acceptance of Gongzu and Julia as lawful.