Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 120

A participant asked when victims are allowed to join the proceedings. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said it is still after conviction. Community statements, not court findings.

One poster framed the timing as acceptable for negotiation because sentencing was approaching. Community statements, not court findings.

A speaker argued that if prosecutors act on their behalf, they should also listen to their input. Community statements, not court findings.

Another replied that this does not mean the same person represents or shields them. Community statements, not court findings.

A follow-up claim stated that the cited person is not considered a victim. Community statements, not court findings.

One member said there had been no contact with the key person, implying a breakdown in procedural coordination. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked whether a second second-circuit injunction filing requires another $600 filing payment. Community statements, not court findings.

Another warned the second-circuit package had not yet been uploaded and may have procedural defects, urging pause before action. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant characterized the negotiation stage in a confrontational, collective way. Community statements, not court findings.

Another speaker used sarcasm, reducing the discussion to mocking 'negotiation.' Community statements, not court findings.

A later comment suggested prosecutors now appear burdened by the case dynamics. Community statements, not court findings.

One poster claimed portions of the trial record were being withheld. Community statements, not court findings.

Another countered that the record appears on Courtlistener. Community statements, not court findings.

A third participant pointed to a court-document source as a place for case papers. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said their actions were for themselves, not on behalf of Guo. Community statements, not court findings.

Another challenged that if the government paid someone, continued commentary might be questioned. Community statements, not court findings.

A related claim pointed to §853(n) when the stated aim was primarily about money. Community statements, not court findings.

One member asked why the account had not been updated, speculating that an arrest may have happened. Community statements, not court findings.

Another person then said it felt like the person might be gone. Community statements, not court findings.

A further reply said they appeared not to have been released yet. Community statements, not court findings.

One member thought an indictment was quite possible. Community statements, not court findings.

Another expressed personal belief in Guo’s capacity to continue influencing outcomes. Community statements, not court findings.

A final ask in this cluster was whether a Guo Wengui sentencing would occur. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked if two second-circuit injunction filings used different case numbers and whether another $600 fee applied, citing 26-1178, ECF844, and 26-364. Community statements, not court findings.

Another clarified that a certificate of service can be placed in the main filing or elsewhere and distinguished email submission from the requirement to mail to Nathan Rehn. Community statements, not court findings.

A third comment asked whether it is acceptable to send multiple documents in one email. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant claimed people following the issue could be labeled as CCP-affiliated to control them. Community statements, not court findings.

Another reacted with disbelief, suggesting they themselves had simply been assigned extra tasks. Community statements, not court findings.

A further post speculated the fraud alliance may have been absorbed by CCP authorities. Community statements, not court findings.

One member shared a social post for context on the safety discussion. Community statements, not court findings.

Another reported labor notification and wage settlement details, including immediate resolution after missing work. Community statements, not court findings.

A subsequent request asked others to save messages and family contact details in case the phone was seized or messages were removed. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant pointed to the United States v. Guo Courtlistener docket to settle disputed facts. Community statements, not court findings.

Another stated that the injunction matter had already been appealed to the Second Circuit. Community statements, not court findings.

A final participant challenged rumors directly and demanded evidence before accepting claims. Community statements, not court findings.