{"id":"court_ctb_1440_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1440,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-02-03","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032 OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \\* January 26, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND QUASHING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR'S CLAIMS OBJECTIONS (EMERGENCY MOTION) BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, HK AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. International and Mei Guo: JOHN CESARONI, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: For the Creditor, STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Pacific Asia Opportunity DANIEL CANTOR, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Defendant Kwok: DAVID S. WACHEN, ESQ. Wachen LLC 11605 Montague Court Potomac, MD 20854\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 12:10 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073 Ho Wan Kwok and adversary no. 22-5032, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund vs. Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Depins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. HASTINGS: Nick Bassett, Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, from Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny and Myers, on behalf of creditor, PAX. With me is my partner, Dan Cantor -- Daniel Cantor from O'Melveny, saving Annecca Smith, from Robinson Cole, local counsel, an opportunity to have to run up in front and announce herself, I thought I would do that myself. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman and Comley, on behalf of the Creditor's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 4 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 4 Committee. MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of HK International, Mei Guo, and the debtor. Although, just calling the adversary proceeding, we have not appeared in that case. THE COURT: Is anybody here appearing in the adversary proceeding? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Wachen. THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Wachen. I'm sorry -- MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, David Wachen. THE COURT: -- Mr. Wachen. I saw you. I apologize. I was just looking in the courtroom so I got -- MR. WACHEN: It's okay. THE COURT: -- confused. Sorry. If you would just note your appearance, Mr. Wachen? I'm sorry. MR. WACHEN: Sure, Your Honor. David Wachen on behalf of Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Good afternoon. All right. So there are several matters on the calendar. The first matter, my understanding is there may be some request for a continuance. Is that correct, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 5 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 5 11 Trustee. This is a -- this is on the motion to extend the sale process for the Sherry Netherland. The parties have agreed -- well, subject to Your Honor's agreement of course -- that we would like to adjourn this to the January 31st hearing next Tuesday. There is a proposed order that was circulated that meets with everyone's approval other than Bravo Luck at this point, so they are considering that, and they did not have a chance to consult their client on that and, therefore, we're not ready to appear today on that matter, so we have agreed to adjourn it to the 31st, subject to Your Honor's agreement of course. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second, please. So counsel for Bravo Luck is not here today. MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: There was probably presumption that this will be continued to the 31st. MR. DESPINS: Correct. We did send an email -- or Mr. Linsey sent an email to the courtroom deputy yesterday. I forgot what time but, you know, asking that it be adjourned and -- THE COURT: That's fine. I'm having some computer issues but -- but that's fine. So I don't recall sitting here, because I'm having computer issues. What time the -- is it in the afternoon of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 6 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 6 31st, correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. I think it's 2:30. MR. DESPINS: 2:30, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm looking at the courtroom deputy. THE CLERK: Yes. THE COURT: She's -- all right. THE CLERK: It's 2:30. THE COURT: So we'll continue this first matter, 12:57 to 2:30 p.m., and just give me a moment if you would, please? (Pause) THE COURT: All right. Sorry. There's something wrong with my computer, but I can see all of you so I think we'll be okay. All right. So the first matter, 1257 is continued to January 31st at 2:30 p.m. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, thank you for that. We were wondering if we could hijack the agenda a little bit to talk about a procedural -- THE COURT: I'm not -- no. I'm not going to take the procedural matters first. I'm going to take the evidentiary matters first, because they could impact the procedural matters. So I'm going to take the evidentiary hearings first, on the issue of the motion -- the motions to compel.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 7 of 108\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
7 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Bassett |\n| 2 | will be handling that matter. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, just for the record, for |\n| 4 | appearances, it was a little confusing with respect to the |\n| 5 | adversary proceeding versus the main case.
But just to |\n| 6 | clarify the record, I'd like to note our appearances in the |\n| 7 | main case only. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I think Mr. Romney did that, but |\n| 9 | that's fine. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't think he completed the |\n| 11 | sentence, but for the record, Your Honor, Aaron Romney, |\n| 12 | Steven Kindseth and John Cesaroni for the debtor, Ho Wan |\n| 13 | Kwok, in the bankruptcy case.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Don't you represent other people in |\n| 15 | the bankruptcy case too? |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
We do, but that matter -- I don't |\n| 17 | think there's a matter pertaining to Mei Guo and HK USA. |\n| 18 | We'd hoped to talk to the Court about the PJR hearing, but |\n| 19 | Your Honor is taking up this matter first, and we'd appear |\n| 20 | for them -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
There's nothing about the PJR hearing |\n| 22 | on the calendar today, so there's nothing to discuss.
So |\n| 23 | we're going to take up the motion to compel.
Go right |\n| 24 | ahead.
Hold on.
Sorry, Mr. Bassett.
Hold on. |\n| 25 | Oh, right, right, right.
Okay.
So what I said, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 8 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 8 Mr. Kindseth, is we're taking up the motion to compel, and there's nothing about the PJR hearing on the calendar today. So, go right ahead, Mr. Bassett. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Again, for the record, it's Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, there are, I think, sort of two distinct components as we see it too, the motion that we filed. Sort of the relief that we are seeking is to -- is with respect to the debtor's standing, which we don't think he has, to object to proofs of claim and relief that we're seeking with respect to objections that he's filed and his ability to do so in the future. That's primarily a legal argument based on standing that the trustee actually is going to be handling. The other piece of it, and it's sort of been separated in that way with respect to Mr. Kwok's counsel as well. I believe that's an issue that the Zeisler firm will be handling. The other issue is the motion to compel compliance with the Court's preliminary injunction order. It's related in that the issue is, you know, in our view, the debtor's ongoing conduct that violates the preliminary injunction order with respect to, in particular, statements made about\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 9 creditors that we think are highly problematic and we will discuss in more detail. What I've proposed just as a matter of structure is that we address that second piece first, which is the only piece that has evidence, and I'll start with the evidence, and then we can move into argument on that. THE COURT: That's what I need you to do. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Right? I've looked at the motion. It has a lot of assertions in it, so I need you to show me the evidence that supports those assertions. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. So the evidence -- and we have -- we have copies of these documents that we can provide to the Court. There's not a lot. The first two documents, and these are cited in our motion, are the proofs of claim that were filed by creditor, Ms. Qiu Yu on January 6th. THE COURT: Would you please spell that name for the record? MR. BASSETT: Sure. It's Q-I-U, and then the last name is Y-U. Q-I-U is the first name, and the last name is Y-U. And throughout the day today, you'll -- there will be evidence indicating that that individual also goes by Gong Zu, and that is G-O-N-G, last name Z-U. These two proofs of claim are available on the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 9 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 10 claims register at Claims 16-1 and 17-1. THE COURT: Are both of the proofs of claim in the name of Qiu Yu? MR. BASSETT: They are. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That's -- MR. BASSETT: They are. And we would -- and we would offer them as just one exhibit, Trustee's Exhibit 1. Again, I can provide copies of those to the Court if the Court needs them. THE COURT: Well, I think I do in connection with this hearing, right? This is -- you're going to put on evidence to support the -- MR. BASSETT: Understood. THE COURT: -- assertions, so, yes. MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, I have not seen that exhibit either. It was not -- as far as I know, it was not filed in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: It wouldn't be because it's a proof of claim, so it would just be filed on the claims register in the main case. MR. BASSETT: It's a -- MR. WACHEN: No, I understand that, but -- MR. BASSETT: Sorry, Mr. Wachen. I was just going to say, because it may be helpful, these two claims are available publically on the ECF. We're only introducing Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 10 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 11 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | them to show that these claims were filed by this |\n| 2 | individual.
That's it.
They're publically available.
You |\n| 3 | can obviously -- they were cited in our motion and you know, |\n| 4 | it's -- they're readily verifiable. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
So you -- you were |\n| 6 | proposing to admit into evidence as full exhibits, Trustee |\n| 7 | Exhibit 1.
Did you say 1?
I'm going to make it 1 if you |\n| 8 | didn't say 1. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, I did, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Two proofs |\n| 11 | of claim which are identified on the claims register in this |\n| 12 | -- in the main case of 22-50073 as Claims 16-1 and 17-1? |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Any opposition?
I'm looking -- |\n| 15 | this is -- this motion is in both the main case and in the |\n| 16 | adversary.
It's the same motion, isn't it? |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
That is correct, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
So -- |\n| 19 | MR. WACHEN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- any opposition in the main case? |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Any opposition in the adversary |\n| 23 | proceeding? |\n| 24 | MR. WACHEN:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
So I'd |\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
12 |\n| 1 | ask you, Mr. Bassett, if you would, to approach the |\n| 2 | courtroom deputy and she will mark those exhibits -- those |\n| 3 | proofs of claim as one document as Trustee's Exhibit 1. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | (Trustee's Exhibit No. 1 marked and admitted) |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And what will happen after the |\n| 7 | hearing, Mr. Bassett, is I'll have you -- your office file |\n| 8 | these documents on the docket as exhibits introduced at the |\n| 9 | hearing in PDFs with the labels that the courtroom deputy |\n| 10 | will be affixing to any paper documents.
Okay? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood.
We will do so.
Thank |\n| 12 | you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
The next exhibit that the trustee |\n| 15 | would offer, I would offer it in two pieces, a 2A and a 2B. |\n| 16 | This is a video that the debtor posted to his GETTR account |\n| 17 | on January 10th of 2023.
It's cited in our motion.
It was |\n| 18 | actually also filed -- obviously the video itself was not |\n| 19 | filed, but with a reply brief last night, we filed a |\n| 20 | declaration of Douglas Baron.
It appears at ECF 160 in the |\n| 21 | adversary proceeding. |\n| 22 | And Exhibit F, Your Honor, to that declaration is |\n| 23 | a screenshot -- first of all, the declaration on Page 2 into |\n| 24 | Page 3 -- again, this is ECF 160 -- displays the URL where |\n| 25 | this video is located online at the GETTR website. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 12 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 13 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
13 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And then Exhibit F is a screenshot that contains |\n| 2 | an image from the GETTR page that contains the picture of |\n| 3 | the video, and then behind that, we have a certified, |\n| 4 | notarized translation of certain excerpts of the video. |\n| 5 | And what I would propose to do, and we |\n| 6 | communicated with the Court prior to today's hearing, is not |\n| 7 | -- not play the entire video because the video itself is in |\n| 8 | Mandarin, but I could have my colleague just publish for the |\n| 9 | Court, for the record, a snippet of, you know, the beginning |\n| 10 | of the video just to show that that video is an exhibit that |\n| 11 | we intend to introduce. |\n| 12 | We can coordinate with Your Honor to have that |\n| 13 | submitted to the Court in the appropriate way so the actual |\n| 14 | physical video file is on record. |\n| 15 | I have discussed with Mr. Wachen, the |\n| 16 | authentication of this document and others that are on our |\n| 17 | list, and I believe we have an understanding that there is |\n| 18 | an agreement that the video we are offering is authentic, is |\n| 19 | in fact available on the debtor's GETTR page.
But aside |\n| 20 | from that, I'll have to defer to Mr. Wachen as to whether he |\n| 21 | has any other issues with the exhibit. |\n| 22 | But just in terms of relevance, Your Honor, this |\n| 23 | is a January 10th -- a January 10th video, again posted by |\n| 24 | the debtor, where, as we say in the translation attached as |\n| 25 | Exhibit F, the debtor makes reference to Ms. Qiu Yu, who |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 14 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
14 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | filed the proof of claim on January 6th, calling the filing |\n| 2 | of the claim gangster behavior, talking about how this |\n| 3 | person is lying, it's fake, and that everything that this |\n| 4 | person says will be published, et cetera.
This is all in |\n| 5 | the -- the certified translation that we have. |\n| 6 | So with that, I can -- I can have my colleague |\n| 7 | publish the video, and then we would offer that video as the |\n| 8 | first component of Trustee's Exhibit 2, and then Exhibit F |\n| 9 | to the Baron declaration would be the rest, which includes |\n| 10 | the certified translation. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
So hold on.
I think I've |\n| 12 | followed you, but I want to make sure I have. |\n| 13 | So Trustee's Exhibit 2, which you're proposing to |\n| 14 | enter into evidence as a full exhibit is going to be a -- |\n| 15 | the actual video you're going to show me? |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then -- |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
Along with the certified |\n| 19 | translation. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then the actual video |\n| 21 | from Mr. Kwok's -- what page?
From @MilesGuo? |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor.
Let me defer to my |\n| 23 | colleague. |\n| 24 | (Pause) |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, it is, Your Honor.
If you look |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 15 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
15 |\n| 1 | at Exhibit F in the Baron declaration -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, I haven't looked at Exhibit F |\n| 3 | last -- |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
And we'll send -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- because it was filed last night. |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor.
It -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, it was filed at 10:15 last |\n| 8 | night, right? |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So I haven't looked at it. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood.
When you do have a |\n| 12 | chance to look, you will see that it is in fact the |\n| 13 | @MilesGuo handle. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm going to -- I am going to |\n| 15 | look at it right now, because I'm not going to admit into |\n| 16 | evidence anything I haven't looked at, okay?
And you're |\n| 17 | going to have to show me that video too. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Unless Mr. Wachen is completely |\n| 20 | agreeing that you don't have to show the video and it's -- |\n| 21 | you know, that's up to the two of you.
I have no idea what |\n| 22 | discussion you've had about it, but I'm now pulling up what |\n| 23 | I -- is Exhibit F, attached to a Document 160. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
In the adversary proceeding, 22-5032, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 16 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | and it's Page 35 of 41.
Well, 34 of 41 is a document |\n| 2 | entitled Exhibit F. |\n| 3 | Then 35 of 41 is -- appears to be a post, and it |\n| 4 | does say GETTR in the middle of it, and it does say Miles |\n| 5 | Guo with a V, a white V in a red circle, which we talked |\n| 6 | about at the preliminary injunction hearing, @MilesGuo with |\n| 7 | a, what I would call a dot, January 10.
I don't know if |\n| 8 | that is what it is. |\n| 9 | And I see a picture of a person with a -- with a |\n| 10 | symbol of the -- a recording to hit play, and it says that |\n| 11 | the video is 7 minutes and 49 seconds.
It was posted at -- |\n| 12 | on 7:33 a.m. January 10th, 2022. |\n| 13 | And we know that posting time, whatever, could be |\n| 14 | different depending upon time zones.
That's what was |\n| 15 | testified to -- well, during the preliminary injunction |\n| 16 | hearing. |\n| 17 | And there's a image of a person that aside from |\n| 18 | the black circle with the -- what I would call a sideways |\n| 19 | arrow, or the play button, looks to be Mr. Guo, or Mr. Kwok, |\n| 20 | I should say, the person that's been in front of me.
So |\n| 21 | that's what I see. |\n| 22 | And then the next page, 36 of 41, is a |\n| 23 | certification of Divergent Language Solutions that certifies |\n| 24 | that the attached translation is to the best of my knowledge |\n| 25 | and belief, a true and accurate translation from Chinese |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 17 into English of the attached transcript excerpt from Miles Guo on GETTR, dated January 10, 2023 with Source Link, and then there's a link, signed by Edward J. Jacob, Divergent Language Solutions. Subscribed and sworn by a notary public, Matthew Zellick (ph). And then the 37 of 41 is the last page of Exhibit F, and that appears to be Mr. Jacob's translation of the audio portion of this video into English. That's what I see. Mr. Wachen, do you have an objection to the admission of this -- of the video and Exhibit F that's attached to ECF 160 as Trustee's Exhibit 2? MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, I do have an objection to the translation, because all they've offered is snippets out of context. I thought they were going to offer a translation of the whole video, but they haven't. And so I think it could be misleading to just see these one, you know, little phrases or sentences completely out of context. So I do have an objection to that. I agreed with Mr. Bassett before the hearing that the video that they are offering appears to be authentic in the sense that it comes from the internet, although the link that they cite is actually not from GETTR, it's from a Discord page, but he showed me the video. He showed me where it was on the internet, so I agree that the video that Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 17 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 18 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | he's going to offer is authentic. |\n| 2 | So I'll agree with that, but I do object to the |\n| 3 | translation as it's currently being proposed. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Because the translation is not |\n| 5 | complete, or because the translation is not an accurate |\n| 6 | translation? |\n| 7 | MR. WACHEN:
Because it's not complete, Your |\n| 8 | Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
What's your response, Attorney |\n| 10 | Bassett? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
So, Your Honor, it's -- as Your |\n| 12 | Honor observed and as Mr. Wachen can also confirm, this is |\n| 13 | indeed a 7-minute and 50-second -- nearly 8-minute video. |\n| 14 | It is extraordinarily expensive to have these |\n| 15 | certified translations done.
We did what we had also done |\n| 16 | for many of the videos that came into evidence, I believe, |\n| 17 | at the preliminary injunction hearing, which is, you know, |\n| 18 | focus our efforts on having certified translations done of |\n| 19 | the relevant excerpts that we were asking the Court to rely |\n| 20 | upon. |\n| 21 | To the extent that Mr. Wachen wants to say that |\n| 22 | the Court should discount the weight that it gives to this |\n| 23 | document based on the fact that, you know, it doesn't have |\n| 24 | the full context, it can't see everything else, that's up to |\n| 25 | the Court. |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 19 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
19 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | To the extent Mr. Wachen wanted to introduce a |\n| 2 | fulsome translation to show additional context, you know, |\n| 3 | he's free to do that, but we don't think that the Court |\n| 4 | should, you know, only accept this video as translated into |\n| 5 | English into evidence in a full, lengthy translated form. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Mr. Wachen? |\n| 7 | MR. WACHEN:
Yeah.
Well, they're offering the |\n| 8 | whole video, and the first line of the video -- or the first |\n| 9 | line of the translation says, \"It is completely gangster |\n| 10 | behavior,\" but we don't even know what it is referring to. |\n| 11 | This is three minutes into the video, and I'm assuming |\n| 12 | they're going to suggest what they think it is, but it's |\n| 13 | completely out of context. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor -- |\n| 15 | MR. WACHEN:
And none of us speak Chinese. |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, if I may?
This piece of |\n| 17 | evidence is also not being entered in a vacuum. |\n| 18 | As the Court will see two other documents, two |\n| 19 | other exhibits that we're asking to be admitted into |\n| 20 | evidence are posts from the exact same day, in fact, within |\n| 21 | hours of this video by persons on GETTR with the New Federal |\n| 22 | State of China banner at the top of their GETTR page that |\n| 23 | relates exactly to this proof of claim and relates to, you |\n| 24 | know, our position that Mr. Guo -- or Mr. Kwok and his |\n| 25 | associates are threatening creditors, including this in |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 20 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | particular creditor. |\n| 2 | So we think that it's very clear what this post is |\n| 3 | referring to; what these excerpts from the post by Mr. Kwok |\n| 4 | on January 10th are referring to.
But again, you know, it's |\n| 5 | up to the Court.
You know, this is not a -- obviously, |\n| 6 | there's no jury. |\n| 7 | It's up to the Court to decide what weight to give |\n| 8 | the certified translation, and if Mr. Wachen's argument is |\n| 9 | that, well, you know, it's not clear to him what it refers |\n| 10 | to, then I think the -- you know, the Court can take that |\n| 11 | into account.
But I don't think it's something that should |\n| 12 | -- you know, should prevent this document from being |\n| 13 | admitted into evidence. |\n| 14 | MR. WACHEN:
Your Honor, he's asking you to make |\n| 15 | some conclusions or findings based on the truth of what is |\n| 16 | said in this video, and he's offering -- it's a 7-minute |\n| 17 | video.
He's offering you about ten lines of text from a 7- |\n| 18 | minute video in which he wants you to make some adverse |\n| 19 | conclusions about Mr. Kwok. |\n| 20 | And it's their burden, not ours.
We're not the |\n| 21 | ones who brought this motion.
They're the ones -- they say |\n| 22 | it's expensive.
You know, this is now the first time I'm |\n| 23 | hearing them express concern about expense.
I mean, they |\n| 24 | bring lots of lawyers to the courtroom.
They file motion |\n| 25 | after motion.
It's expensive for Mr. Kwok to have to defend |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 21 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | these motions. |\n| 2 | And if they're going to ask you to make |\n| 3 | conclusions from this video, they're the ones who picked the |\n| 4 | seven minute video, not me, then they should have to provide |\n| 5 | a complete transcript of the video for you to be able to |\n| 6 | understand the context.
Or they don't have to use the |\n| 7 | video.
They say they have other posts, they can rely on |\n| 8 | those posts.
We don't even need to talk about this video if |\n| 9 | they don't want to. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, a couple further points. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
If I may? |\n| 13 | First of all, we're not offering this for the |\n| 14 | truth of the matter assented, to the extent that that's what |\n| 15 | Mr. Wachen was suggesting, although it wouldn't be hearsay |\n| 16 | because it's a statement of Mr. Kwok anyway. |\n| 17 | But we're offering to show what Mr. Kwok.
You |\n| 18 | know, the words on the page, not the truth of whether or |\n| 19 | not, for example, filing a claim is gangster behavior. |\n| 20 | We're obviously not trying to prove that.
We're trying to |\n| 21 | prove that this statement was made. |\n| 22 | In regards to, you know, the other posts that we |\n| 23 | are going to introduce, those are by other individuals who |\n| 24 | have the New Federal State of China header at the top of |\n| 25 | their page, and we think it's very clear based on the |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 22 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
22 |\n| 1 | Court's findings in the preliminary injunction order and the |\n| 2 | accompanying memorandum decision that these individuals who |\n| 3 | are associated with the New Federal State of China are in |\n| 4 | active concert, in participation with the debtor, and that |\n| 5 | they are taking direction from him. |\n| 6 | And this -- the reason this video is so critical |\n| 7 | is because again of the sequence.
You have a proof of claim |\n| 8 | that's filed on January 6th.
You have this video published |\n| 9 | by Mr. Kwok on January 10th in the morning. |\n| 10 | Immediately thereafter, you have two other |\n| 11 | accounts, which will be the next exhibits that we show, with |\n| 12 | the New Federal State of China header, attacking this |\n| 13 | creditor, doxing this creditor, putting passport information |\n| 14 | online, criticizing the creditor for trying to attack the |\n| 15 | whistleblower movement, which the Court already found in the |\n| 16 | preliminary injunction order is controlled by the debtor. |\n| 17 | So it's a critical exhibit.
We can't just rely on |\n| 18 | the other two, and it's -- it's again, what we have asked |\n| 19 | the Court to admit into evidence is -- it's relevant and we |\n| 20 | think it's admissible. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Let me see the next two exhibits, |\n| 22 | please. |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
And then I will hold my ruling on this |\n| 25 | exhibit. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 23 MR. BASSETT: So the next -- the next exhibit, Your Honor, is -- I'm going to combine these together just to, I think, simplify the record. It's going to be -- the Trustee Exhibit 3 would be Exhibits A and B to the Baron Declaration at ECF 160, and in particular this -- so this would be at Page 4 of 41 of that document, Your Honor, as the cover sheet for Exhibit A. And then what you'll see -- what you'll see behind that, Your Honor, is a GETTR post on January 10th. It is from an account with the name OXV Design, O-X-V, Design. Again, the red checkmark that we talked about earlier, and then the handle also @OXVDesign, followed by January 10th appears below that. The URL where this is currently available on GETTR. This is something that I've discussed also with Mr. Wachen as to authenticity, appears in the upper left- hand corner of the document, slightly obscured by the ECF time stamp. As Your Honor will see, the post is in Chinese. Behind that, though, we do have a certified translation of the entire post. What you will see is that -- I won't read the entire thing, but there is an image, and it has Gong Zu and Yu Qiu, which as Your Honor will recall, is the name of the person who filed the proof of claim. And then it says, went Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 23 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 24 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
24 |\n| 1 | to US Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut, (indiscernible) the |\n| 2 | matter with \\$5,000, put herself on the list of creditors, |\n| 3 | helped Luc to vilify the whistleblower movement. |\n| 4 | Again, Your Honor, just to tie this to the last |\n| 5 | exhibit, this is January 10th, the same day that -- and if |\n| 6 | you look at the time stamp at the bottom, it's posted 11:40 |\n| 7 | a.m.
And I believe if you go to Exhibit F, which we just |\n| 8 | looked at -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
7:33 a.m. is my recollection. |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
7:33 a.m. is the posting time on |\n| 11 | Exhibit F, and then it's 11:40 on Exhibit A, and the last |\n| 12 | thing that -- the other component of this exhibit, Your |\n| 13 | Honor, I apologize, as I said, would be Exhibit B. |\n| 14 | And if you turn to Exhibit B of the Baron |\n| 15 | declaration, which is at Page 11 of 41, we're offering this |\n| 16 | simply to show that this is the header of the OXV Design |\n| 17 | GETTR page, because that header doesn't appear on the |\n| 18 | individual post page at Exhibit A.
But what the header page |\n| 19 | shows is that this particular user has at the top, we are |\n| 20 | the citizens of the NFSC.
Our mission is to take down the |\n| 21 | evil CCP. |\n| 22 | So again, Your Honor, this is a post by someone ON |\n| 23 | GETTR who very clearly, based on what we just looked at, |\n| 24 | associates him or herself with the New Federal State of |\n| 25 | China.
The Court already found in the preliminary |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 25 injunction order and accompanying memorandum decision, that the debtor founded the NFSC, directs the NFSC, and directs the whistleblower movement.\n\n What you have again, sequentially, is the debtor in the morning of January 10th, posting the video that we just talked about, and then a couple hours later, you have this person from the New Federal State of China, posting a picture which I think the Court can, you know, infer from the post is of this claimant, whose name is posted there, criticizing this person for helping to, quote/unquote, villify the whistle blower movement, which again the Court also has already found is directed and controlled by the debtor.\n\n So with that, Your Honor, I would offer this exhibit into evidence, and obviously we can -- we can revisit the last exhibit if the Court would like, but maybe that makes more sense after the next exhibit.\n\n THE COURT: Let's do the next exhibit first, please, and then we'll revisit all three.\n\n MR. BASSETT: Sure. So the next exhibit we'll do in the same way, Your Honor, in that there will be two exhibits to the Baron declaration that I'll offer as -- as one exhibit in the hearing today.\n\n This cover sheet for Exhibit C appears at Page 16 of 41 of the Baron declaration, and what you will see, Your\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 26 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | Honor, this time it's a little more difficult because the -- |\n| 2 | at least on the untranslated version, the user name is in |\n| 3 | Chinese characters. |\n| 4 | But beneath that you'll see an at, and you'll see |\n| 5 | P-I-A-O-C-H-A-N-G-H-A-I, and then a dot, and then January |\n| 6 | 10th.
We've redacted all the personal passport information |\n| 7 | from what was posted here.
But again, we sent
-- Mr. |\n| 8 | Wachen has seen the unredacted version. |\n| 9 | And then if you look behind that, Your Honor, we |\n| 10 | have a certified translation, and what you'll see is that |\n| 11 | reveals the name of this user on GETTR as -- I'm probably |\n| 12 | not going to pronounce this correctly, but Chang Hai Piao, |\n| 13 | paren, Chang Hai Park, South Korea, Giangdo Farm (ph). |\n| 14 | Beneath that the post says, \"More whistleblowing news about |\n| 15 | a little bastard Discord called Gong Zu, whose real name is |\n| 16 | Yu Qiu.
Comrades, please try to investigate.
I heard that |\n| 17 | her relationship with Di Dong Fang (ph) is very good.\" |\n| 18 | There's an emoji.
\"Do you know her?\" |\n| 19 | Behind that, Your Honor, at Exhibit D, again we'll |\n| 20 | do what we did before -- and by the way, I should have |\n| 21 | mentioned for the record, the time of that post, which was |\n| 22 | 10:53 a.m. on January 10th. |\n| 23 | If you go to Exhibit D, again, we're introducing |\n| 24 | this, Your Honor, to show that this particular GETTR user |\n| 25 | has at the top of his or her GETTR page banner, we are the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 27 of
108 | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
27 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | citizens of the NFSC.
Our mission is to take down the evil | | | | | | |\n| 2 | CCP. | | | | | | |\n| 3 | I don't think I need to explain, you know, why | | | | | | |\n| 4 | we're introducing this and its relevance because it's the | | | | | | |\n| 5 | same as what I explained for the last exhibit, but those are | | | | | | |\n| 6 | the next two exhibits that we would offer into evidence, | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Mr. Wachen, do you have any objection to the | | | | | | |\n| 10 | admission in full of Trustee Exhibit 3 and 4? | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. WACHEN:
That's the last two?
No, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Exhibits 3 and 4 are admitted | | | | | | |\n| 13 | in full. | | | | | | |\n| 14 | (Trustee's Exhibit Nos 3 and 4 marked and admitted) | | | | | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
You're going to have to get those | | | | | | |\n| 16 | documents to the Court, Mr. Bassett, as a PDF, because we | | | | | | |\n| 17 | don't -- you don't have them to give to the courtroom deputy | | | | | | |\n| 18 | right now, correct?
They're just part of ECF 160? | | | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
But we obviously -- we -- | | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
-- certainly will get them to the | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Court. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
With regard to Trustee's | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 28 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
28 |\n| 1 | Exhibit 2, are you going -- I'd like you to start the video |\n| 2 | so I can see it, please. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure.
Just with court's indulgence. |\n| 4 | One moment, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Certainly. |\n| 6 | (Pause.) |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Now, how is Mr. Wachen going to be |\n| 8 | able to see that?
Is he going to be able to see that? |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, that does create -- it does |\n| 10 | create an issue because he's on Zoom, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | Technologically, I don't think he will be, but I also -- I |\n| 12 | don't want to speak for him, but I think he has the video |\n| 13 | and I can represent to him that we're playing the exact same |\n| 14 | seven minute and 49-second video that he's seen and that |\n| 15 | appears online. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. WACHEN:
I do -- on my Zoom screen, I do have |\n| 18 | all these other boxes from the Court.
I don't -- maybe it |\n| 19 | will show up on -- |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
No, the issue is that we're doing it |\n| 21 | by, like, hard wire into the monitor, so it's not linked to |\n| 22 | Zoom. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
No, I don't think it will show up for |\n| 24 | you, Mr. Wachen.
I think it's just going to be projected in |\n| 25 | the courtroom. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 29 MR. WACHEN: Okay. THE COURT: But we'll see. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. MR. WACHEN: I've seen the video, so if it's the same video you sent me yesterday, then that's fine. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: And I can represent that it is. This video is muted on there. No, it's on -- on here, it's muted. Yeah. (Thereupon, the video recording was played for the record) MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I'm pausing it only to ask if the Court would like us -- we obviously could play the entire eight minute video. I could also play the Chinese excerpts of the English translations that we're seeking to introduce, or we could stop it here. I'm happy to do whatever the Court would like. THE COURT: Mr. Wachen, what's your position on what part of the video should be played? MR. WACHEN: I don't know that any more needs to be played as far -- I mean, none of us will understand it, so I'm -- you know? I agree that there was a video posted. THE COURT: But you object to -- MR. WACHEN: My big concern was -- THE COURT: -- you object to the -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 29 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 30 MR. WACHEN: -- with the translation. THE COURT: All right. You agree that there is a video posted. You agree that that's your client, Mr. Kwok, in the video. Is that correct? MR. WACHEN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And then your objection -- the remainder -- so that, you -- there's no objection with regard to those two factors. But with regard to the translation that was submitted as Exhibit F to ECF 160, that was filed last night, you object to the admission of that translation because it is only a portion of the entire video, and it's - - is that correct? MR. WACHEN: And a very small portion. And it -- and the parts of it -- I mean, there -- they translated several lines from the video. I'm assuming the translator has to translate the whole thing in order to find these particular snippets, and it's just taken completely out of context. I mean, there isn't -- how -- I don't know how you can -- from an eight minute video, how you can draw context from, you know, 50 words basically what -- I mean, I haven't counted them up, but I mean, it's just a smattering of words. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, at a minimum, I mean -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 30 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 31 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | he's saying it's out of context, but in the -- in the |\n| 2 | context of this dispute, and the context that I just |\n| 3 | explained of these other exhibits, what is undisputed, |\n| 4 | unless Mr. Wachen is saying he takes issue with the |\n| 5 | translation, is that Mr. Kwok in this video is absolutely |\n| 6 | referring to this individual, this creditor. |\n| 7 | I mean, there are lines in here, Yu Qiu, you know, |\n| 8 | Gong Zu, 100 percent is lying and faking it.
100 percent. |\n| 9 | I mean, the Court's seen the proof of claim, seen the name |\n| 10 | on the proof of claim.
The Court's seen the other exhibits. |\n| 11 | So I don't -- he may, you know -- I don't know |\n| 12 | what other context he thinks is necessary, but these |\n| 13 | translated excerpts themselves demonstrate the relevance of |\n| 14 | this video. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I'd like you to go to three minutes |\n| 16 | and five seconds in the video and play it at least until |\n| 17 | three minutes and 40 seconds, please. |\n| 18 | (Thereupon, the video recording was played for the |\n| 19 | record) |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I can't -- yeah, I was going to say, |\n| 21 | you must be -- I can't really see it. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah.
We're now at 3:54 and I would |\n| 23 | -- obviously, Your Honor heard what Your Honor heard, but to |\n| 24 | my ear you could hear Mr. Kwok saying the name Gong Zu, |\n| 25 | which again is in the translation, which is not disputed. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1440 | Filed 02/03/23 | Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 | Page 32 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | We're happy to show other portions as well. |\n| 2 | MR. WACHEN:
I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm |\n| 3 | not disagreeing that he mentioned her name, or that he |\n| 4 | thinks it's a bogus claim.
But I would say, so what.
And |\n| 5 | -- but some of these other things, I mean, I just don't know |\n| 6 | -- if all the point is did he talk about this woman in the |\n| 7 | video, I'll agree that he did. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Is that sufficient, Mr. Bassett, for |\n| 9 | you? |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
It's not sufficient for me, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, because it's not just that he mentioned her name. |\n| 12 | It's the, frankly, you know, inflammatory and outrageous |\n| 13 | statements that he's made.
He's calling her spies.
You |\n| 14 | know? |\n| 15 | MR. WACHEN:
Well, he -- |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
There's -- hold on.
Let me -- |\n| 17 | MR. WACHEN:
Well, he -- |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
-- I mean -- but there's language in |\n| 19 | here, right?
It's Gong Zu 100 percent is lying and faking |\n| 20 | it, 100 percent.
Now these spies like Gong Zu have come |\n| 21 | out.
And you know, it's completely gangster behavior. |\n| 22 | All of this is -- it's relevant because it's not |\n| 23 | just that he's -- this is not -- this is not Mr. Kwok going |\n| 24 | online and saying, hey everyone, I respectfully disagree |\n| 25 | with a proof of claim that was filed against my bankruptcy |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 33 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
33 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | estate, and I think we're kidding ourselves if that's the |\n| 2 | way this would be interpreted.
It is a much different tone |\n| 3 | in this message, and that's why all the excepts that we've |\n| 4 | had translated should be a part of the record in our view. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Anything further, Mr. Wachen? |\n| 6 | MR. WACHEN:
Your Honor, I think yes, he's |\n| 7 | critical of her claim.
He thinks it's a bogus claim.
And I |\n| 8 | haven't seen the claim, so I can't -- and my colleagues at |\n| 9 | Zeisler could probably speak to the claim itself, but I |\n| 10 | think it's one of the ones that we objected to, but I can't |\n| 11 | -- since I haven't seen it, I'm not certain about that. |\n| 12 | But yes, he's critical of the claim and, you know, |\n| 13 | did he say that she's lying and faking it?
I think that's |\n| 14 | probably what he believes.
But I don't know that there's |\n| 15 | any -- I mean, I think he's entitled to express his opinion |\n| 16 | about a claimant. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm going to admit Trustee's |\n| 18 | Exhibit 2 in full.
Do you have any other exhibits after |\n| 19 | Exhibit 4? |\n| 20 | (Trustee's Exhibit 2 marked and admitted in evidence) |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
I believe just two more, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | The first one is -- |\n| 23 | MR. WACHEN:
Your Honor, can I -- Your Honor, I'm |\n| 24 | sorry to interrupt Mr. Bassett, but could I just -- I just |\n| 25 | -- before we go too far, I just want to mention something. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 34 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | We received Your Honor's mediation order, and we |\n| 2 | spoke with the other side about trying to table these |\n| 3 | issues, essentially, until March 3rd, and that we would -- |\n| 4 | that Mr. Kwok would be willing to do certain things to kind |\n| 5 | of keep things -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I don't really want to hear any of |\n| 7 | that, Mr. Wachen.
That's why you're in mediation, okay? |\n| 8 | MR. WACHEN:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
And the mediation order clearly says |\n| 10 | that the hearings that were already scheduled for Tuesday, |\n| 11 | two days ago, today, and Monday are going forward. |\n| 12 | So I appreciate that you're talking, but I can't |\n| 13 | be part of that, okay?
That's why you're in mediation.
So |\n| 14 | -- and continue to talk.
But right now, this hearing was |\n| 15 | scheduled and it's going forward, and that's what we're |\n| 16 | doing.
Okay?
Thank you, though. |\n| 17 | Go ahead, Mr. Bassett. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
The next -- |\n| 19 | and again, like I said, there's only two more I believe. |\n| 20 | The next exhibit is Exhibit E, E as in Edward, to |\n| 21 | the Baron declaration. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
And that will be Trustee's Exhibit 5 |\n| 23 | is what you're proposing? |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 35 MR. BASSETT: And this -- I apologize. This exhibit begins at Page 28 of 41 of the declaration.\n\n If you turn to page 29 of 41, you will see that this is another GETTR post. This one has the user name Miles Guo, and then beneath it with the red checkmark that the Court observed earlier, beneath that, @MilesGuo with a dot, and then January 13th. What's posted then is in Mandarin.\n\n If you look behind this, there is a certified translation. And then the certified translation says, with the date January 13th, 2023, \"Greetings esteemed comrades. Paul Hastings Law Firm is launching a campaign to register creditors. If there are comrades who are not strong willed, feeling their own investments and past investments have no sense of security and need to be a debtor, and if you think it is a better choice, you must contact Paul Hastings Law Firm to register in the bankruptcy court of Connecticut as soon as possible, and maybe you can become a billionaire.\"\n\n And then there are a couple of comments that it looks like other users posted beneath that, that I won't read into the record, but it was part of the post.\n\n And that's the -- that's the extent of -- that's the extent of Trustee's Exhibit 5, Your Honor, and just in terms of the reason we're offering it -- our motion really addressed two issues.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 36 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
36 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | The statements that we believe are violating the |\n| 2 | preliminary injunction order in terms of harassing creditors |\n| 3 | and dissuading people from filing claims against the estate. |\n| 4 | And then the other issue is that, as we discussed |\n| 5 | in our motion, the debtor has made statements online |\n| 6 | encouraging people to file claims, and I'll get into more of |\n| 7 | that in the argument as to why that's relevant and needs to |\n| 8 | be stopped.
But that's why we're offering this exhibit. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Wachen, do you |\n| 10 | have any objection to the admission of Exhibit 5? |\n| 11 | MR. WACHEN:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Anyone in the main |\n| 13 | case have an exhibit -- objection to Exhibit 5? |\n| 14 | MR. CESARONI:
No, Your Honor.
But again, for |\n| 15 | the record, I believe this is part of the injunction portion |\n| 16 | of the proceeding, so we're deferring to Mr. Wachen. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Trustee's Exhibit 5 |\n| 18 | is admitted in full. |\n| 19 | (Trustee's Exhibit No. 5 admitted in evidence) |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | The last -- the last exhibit is Trustee's Exhibit |\n| 22 | 6, which will be Exhibit G to the Baron Declaration at ECF |\n| 23 | 160.
This starts on Page 38 of 41. |\n| 24 | This time, a translation is not necessary because |\n| 25 | the document itself is in English.
And, Your Honor, what |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 37 of
108 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
37 |\n| this exhibit shows is -- this is a printout from an article, |\n| and I don't -- oh, I was going to say, I don't believe the |\n| URL is on here, but the URL is in the Baron declaration. |\n| So if you were to go to Page G -- or sorry, Page 3 |\n| of the Baron declaration, Paragraph 8, it says, \"Attached as |\n| Exhibit G is an English language version of an article |\n| posted on January 25th, 2023, to the Gnews.org website, |\n| which is available at the following URL.\"
And then the URL |\n| where this appears, Your Honor, is |\n| Gnews.org/articles/828166. |\n| And this article posted by G News, which the Court |\n| found in, I believe, Paragraph 9 of its memorandum decision |\n| on the preliminary injunction, is an entity acting in |\n| concert with Mr. Kwok; an entity that he controls.
And |\n| again, this is -- there is further discussion here of |\n| encouraging people to file claims. |\n| If the Court were to look at the second page of |\n| the document, what this article talks about in this -- in |\n| the first full paragraph on the second page, it says, \"Mr. |\n| Guo suggested that all comrades could register because they |\n| had invested in G TV, but G TV was pseudo-classed as a |\n| fraudulent case and the SEC investigated it, so the money |\n| invested by the comrades had been withheld from the SEC and |\n| the Comrades were looking for money from the SEC.\" |\n| \"But in the bankruptcy case, the comrades could |\n| |\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
38 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | register as creditors of Mr. Guo, accept the registration of |\n| 2 | other comrades.
If all the comrades go to register, they |\n| 3 | will make up the majority of the creditors, then the money |\n| 4 | Mr. Guo earned will be distributed to the comrades, which |\n| 5 | Mr. Guo is very willing to do.\" |\n| 6 | \"In addition, War Buddies as the majority can |\n| 7 | initiate the ownership of Lady May ship and the 18th floor, |\n| 8 | as also the majority will be given to the Hands of War |\n| 9 | Buddies such as a way of handling all happy.\"
And then it |\n| 10 | goes on -- it goes on from there. |\n| 11 | So with that, Your Honor, I would offer this |\n| 12 | document.
Again, Exhibit G to the Baron declaration, as |\n| 13 | Trustee's Exhibit 6. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Wachen, do you |\n| 15 | have any objection to the admission of Trustee's Exhibit 6? |\n| 16 | MR. WACHEN:
I do, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | This is like multiple levels of hearsay, and it |\n| 18 | purports to quote my client, but we don't know who wrote |\n| 19 | this, and there's no way to really verify it other -- I |\n| 20 | mean, I'm accepting the fact that it came off the internet, |\n| 21 | but whether my client actually said this or not, is sort of |\n| 22 | the problem I'm having with it.
And so, I do object to the |\n| 23 | admission of this one. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, this document does not, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 39 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
39 |\n| 1 | I don't believe, purport to quote Mr. Guo.
It is rather an |\n| 2 | article that is expressing viewpoints, as I just read for |\n| 3 | the Court, about the potential filing of claims in the case |\n| 4 | by comrades. |\n| 5 | And the article is -- as the Court can see from |\n| 6 | the URL and from the label on the first page, an article |\n| 7 | issued on the G News website. |\n| 8 | Again, that is an organization that the Court has |\n| 9 | already found is an organization controlled by Mr. Guo, |\n| 10 | along with the other G-series entities we all know well, G |\n| 11 | TV, G Fashion, and the like. |\n| 12 | So I guess two points on that for me, a hearsay |\n| 13 | perspective.
First of all, we're not offering this for the |\n| 14 | truth of the matter asserted.
We're offering this to |\n| 15 | demonstrate that G News, an entity controlled by Mr. Guo, is |\n| 16 | disseminating information online about encouraging creditors |\n| 17 | to file claims in the case in the means that I read into the |\n| 18 | record. |\n| 19 | Even if we were offering it for the truth of the |\n| 20 | matter asserted, which we're not, this is an entity as I |\n| 21 | said, that the Court has found is controlled by Mr. Guo. |\n| 22 | So I think from that perspective, it could be seen |\n| 23 | as an admission of a party opponent.
But again, I don't |\n| 24 | think the Court needs to go there because we're not offering |\n| 25 | it for the truth of any statements made, or facts contained |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 40 in this article. THE COURT: So you're offering it for the purpose of establishing that this article was posted on January 25th, 2023 on the G News Org website? MR. BASSETT: Yes, and that it -- and that it has the statements that it contains about encouraging comrades to go register. Again, that's not a -- we're not offering -- we're not trying to establish any facts based on what's said here. We're offering this to show that this message was communicated online by G News. I mean, that's a -- that's established by the document itself. THE COURT: Mr. Wachen? MR. WACHEN: My understanding was that -- or my belief was they were offering this to establish that Mr. Guo, or Mr. Kwok, was encouraging people to file claims. And so they are offering it for what it says, not the fact -- so -- and if it's not quoting him, then we don't know who wrote this. We don't -- you know, it's purporting to -- it's purporting to communicate certain things relating -- that Mr. Guo was advocating, and so I think it's prejudicial and unreliable in the sense that it -- there's no way to really check it or cross-examine the person who wrote it to find out, is this just someone's opinion of the circumstances? Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 40 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 41 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
41 |\n| 1 | Is this actually Mr. Guo who's saying this, |\n| 2 | because this is not consistent with the video, I don't |\n| 3 | think, or some of the other things that -- the GETTR posts |\n| 4 | that they showed from Mr. Guo. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, two -- |\n| 6 | MR. WACHEN:
And so that's the concern -- |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Sorry. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Go ahead, Mr. Wachen. |\n| 9 | MR. WACHEN:
No, and so that's the concern I have, |\n| 10 | that this is being offered for what it's saying.
I think it |\n| 11 | is being offered for the truth. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, two brief responses to |\n| 13 | that. |\n| 14 | First, the exhibit we looked at before, Trustee's |\n| 15 | Exhibit 5, demonstrates that Mr. Guo was advocating for |\n| 16 | people to file claims.
We're not offering this document, |\n| 17 | Trustee's Exhibit 6 for that purpose because we have the |\n| 18 | other exhibit. |\n| 19 | What we're introducing this document for is to |\n| 20 | show that G News was doing it.
I think that's -- that's |\n| 21 | self-evident from the document itself, and we already have |\n| 22 | established in this case, through findings of fact, that Mr. |\n| 23 | Guo controls G News. |\n| 24 | MR. WACHEN:
Well, I think this article is |\n| 25 | purporting to communicate what Mr. Guo has been saying, and |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1440 | Filed 02/03/23 | Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 | Page 42 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
42 |\n| 1 | I don't think this -- I don't think everything that G News |\n| 2 | puts out can be attributed to Mr. Kwok, as the words of him, |\n| 3 | that he's -- that he's authorizing all these communications. |\n| 4 | It's just something that was released. |\n| 5 | Do I agree that he was advocating for people who |\n| 6 | have claims to file claims?
Yes.
But that's -- this |\n| 7 | article says something a little bit different, and I don't |\n| 8 | know if it's just someone's interpretation or what, but it's |\n| 9 | unreliable in the sense that the -- for what they're |\n| 10 | offering it. |\n| 11 | If they're -- if all they're trying to show is |\n| 12 | that he's encouraging people to file claims, they have the |\n| 13 | GETTR posts.
I'm not sure why they would need this. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Mr. Baron (sic), anything further? |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Mr. Wachen, anything further? |\n| 17 | MR. WACHEN:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
I'm going to admit Exhibit |\n| 19 | 6 as a full exhibit over objection, and I will give it |\n| 20 | whatever weight I think is appropriate. |\n| 21 | (Trustee's Exhibit No. 6 marked and admitted in |\n| 22 | evidence.) |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I believe |\n| 24 | that closes the trustee's evidentiary presentation on the |\n| 25 | motion. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 43 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
43 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
And then we're going to talk about the |\n| 2 | legal side of it, and then you want me to decide it all as |\n| 3 | one, or how will we -- |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, so I was -- I was getting -- |\n| 5 | what I had proposed to do, Your Honor, is that I would -- |\n| 6 | again, since we sort of bifurcated this, right, the portions |\n| 7 | that Mr. Wachen and I are handling are the portions that |\n| 8 | have the evidence, that the evidence that was just |\n| 9 | introduced is relevant to. |\n| 10 | So what I would propose is that I proceed with the |\n| 11 | -- with the trustee's argument on that issue.
Mr. Wachen |\n| 12 | can respond and if -- you know, obviously reserve some time |\n| 13 | for rebuttal, and then we could deal with the separate, you |\n| 14 | know, more legal standing issue as I would call it, after |\n| 15 | that, which has different counsel handing it.
But I'm |\n| 16 | obviously happy to proceed however the Court thinks is best. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well, if the debtor doesn't have |\n| 18 | standing, then -- well, I guess just proceed the way you've |\n| 19 | proceeded, but I think standing is a -- |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, this -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- gateway issue, isn't it? |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
No, it is.
It is, Your Honor, and I |\n| 23 | guess to be clear, I don't think the issue is whether the -- |\n| 24 | whether the debtor has standing to respond to our request to |\n| 25 | enforce the preliminary -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 44 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
44 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
-- injunction. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
But your -- the issue of standing -- |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
It's standing to file proofs of -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- is whether or not they have -- |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
-- claim. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- a right to object to the proofs of |\n| 8 | claim. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Exactly.
I'm sorry.
Exactly.
I'm |\n| 10 | sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So what your motion is saying is that |\n| 14 | the Court -- well, what are you asking the Court to do? Let |\n| 15 | me ask you that question.
What are you asking the Court to |\n| 16 | do? |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
So my colleagues will certainly jump |\n| 18 | in if I get this wrong, but in our motion, we are asking the |\n| 19 | Court to enter an order finding that the debtor has no |\n| 20 | ability to object to proofs of claim filed in this case. |\n| 21 | That objections he has filed be quashed.
That he be |\n| 22 | enjoined from further filing injunctions, unless -- or |\n| 23 | filing objections to claims unless he first obtains |\n| 24 | permission from the Court.
That's part 1. |\n| 25 | The second part is, we're asking the Court to |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 45 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
45 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | enter an order enforcing, if necessary, finding the debtor |\n| 2 | in contempt for failing to comply with the preliminary |\n| 3 | injunction order and the TRO that preceded it, by making the |\n| 4 | statements that the evidence we've presented has shown that |\n| 5 | he's made, and the consequences that those statements have |\n| 6 | had in terms of the statements that the followers of the |\n| 7 | NFSC have made. |\n| 8 | So those are the -- that's -- I think that's the |\n| 9 | summary of what we're seeking in our motion, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, Mr. Wachen and Mr. |\n| 11 | Barrett (sic), what else are you going to tell me that you |\n| 12 | haven't already told me with regard to the issue of the |\n| 13 | evidence and with regard to what you've bifurcated as to |\n| 14 | apparently the alleged violations of the preliminary |\n| 15 | injunction? |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
Is that to me, Your Honor, or to Mr. |\n| 17 | Wachen? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
It's to both of you. |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Oh, so -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
What else are you going to tell me?
I |\n| 21 | mean -- |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Well, what I -- what I was going to |\n| 23 | tell you, Your Honor, was simply that we think the |\n| 24 | preliminary injunction order that the court entered on |\n| 25 | January 11th is very clear, and what it prohibits.
And to |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 46 of
108 | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
46 | | |\n| 1 | be fair, in sequencing some of these posts that we showed | | |\n| 2 | were on January 10th.
At that point, the TRO was in effect. | | |\n| 3 | Both the TRO and a preliminary injunction very | | |\n| 4 | clearly -- and this is Paragraph 2 of the preliminary | | |\n| 5 | injunction order, prevents the debtor from taking any action | | |\n| 6 | that interferes with the integrity of his Chapter 11 case. | | |\n| 7 | And the Court entered that order on the heels of | | |\n| 8 | an extensive evidentiary presentation, along with a very | | |\n| 9 | lengthy, detailed, thoroughly reasoned memorandum decision | | |\n| 10 | that took into account that evidence, including evidence and | | |\n| 11 | findings, that part of what led to the inunction was the | | |\n| 12 | fact that statements that the debtor had been making were in | | |\n| 13 | fact interfering with creditors and disincentivizing them, | | |\n| 14 | and dissuading them from participating in the claims | | |\n| 15 | process. | | |\n| 16 | So on the heels of that, on January 10th -- and | | |\n| 17 | then we have two things that happen.
January 10th, you have | | |\n| 18 | the debtor post this video where he immediately -- I mean, | | |\n| 19 | it took a matter of days.
The claim was filed -- it's dated | | |\n| 20 | January 6th. | | |\n| 21 | I'm not actually sure when it became publically | | |\n\n available on ECF. Either way, almost four days later the debtor is on GETTR calling out the name of a person who filed that claim, calling the filing of the claim gangster behavior, saying that the person is lying, saying that the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 47 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 47 consequence of participating in the case is going to be having your information publically disclosed online. And then what happens after that, which is what has happened every time this same type of thing has been done by the debtor in the past, as we demonstrated during the PI hearing, is that his followers are immediately called into action. His initial post on a topic is a call to arms. Within hours, we have two people posting from GETTR accounts bearing the NFSC banner at the top, who start attacking that same creditor. We have somebody who posts a passport online. 13 We have somebody else who is calling out that person for trying to vilify the whistle blower movement. All of that is designed to keep these engines moving, to get other followers, to get everyone else to line up and to dox and to threaten people who dare to stand up to this debtor, and dare to do something like file a claim in this case. So we think it's abundantly clear that the debtor's post is -- it's interfering with this Chapter 11 process. There's no question about it. He's calling out a creditor who filed a claim, immediately after that claim filed. These other parties who are posting with NFSC banners, the Court found that the NFSC is in active concert\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nand participation with the debtor.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 48 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
48 |\n| 1 | So we don't think there's any question that a |\n| 2 | violation has occurred, but yet that post hasn't been taken |\n| 3 | down. |\n| 4 | Paragraph 3, I believe, of the Court's preliminary |\n| 5 | injunction order says that the debtor has to take down all |\n| 6 | social media posts that violate Paragraphs 1 and 2 above. |\n| 7 | Paragraph 2 above is the paragraph that talks |\n| 8 | about interfering with the Chapter 11 process.
These posts |\n| 9 | are still out there.
You can go to the website right now, |\n| 10 | they're still there.
There's absolute no question that he's |\n| 11 | violating the preliminary injunction order. |\n| 12 | The other thing the debtor did -- this is on the |\n| | |\n\n January 23rd post, and then the January 25th G News article -- is he's going out there and additionally interfering with the integrity of the Chapter 11 process by encouraging his comrades across the world to come and flood the docket with proofs of claim.\n\n And as the article indicates, I mean, what's the debtor's purpose? Probably to make the trustee's life more difficult, to interfere with progress being made in the trustee's investigation, and the other aspects of this case that are critically important.\n\n Then the article also mentions, you know, you'll be able to, you know, have a say in the case. You know, perhaps the objective of the debtor is to try to drum up\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 49 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | support for a plan.
I don't know. |\n| 2 | But what I do know is that the debtor is posting |\n| 3 | online, encouraging people to come file claims with this |\n| 4 | court in a way that's going to interfere with the process. |\n| 5 | So that's another way that we think -- there really is no |\n| 6 | dispute. |\n| 7 | It's violating the clear language of and -- and |\n| 8 | definitely the spirit of Paragraph 2 of the preliminary |\n| 9 | injunction, which prohibits him from interfering with the |\n| 10 | integrity of this case. |\n| 11 | Mr. Wachen's arguments and his objection are that |\n| 12 | there's no evidence of noncompliance.
I think the evidence |\n| 13 | speaks for itself, and there absolutely is evidence of |\n| 14 | noncompliance with the preliminary injunction order. |\n| 15 | He also says that no further order is necessary. |\n| 16 | The fact that the debtor is not complying, the fact that |\n| 17 | these posts continue to sit online is evidence in and of |\n| 18 | itself that a further order is in fact necessary. |\n| 19 | At a minimum, the debtor needs to know that what |\n| 20 | he has done is not complying with the preliminary injunction |\n| 21 | order to the extent there was any doubt in his mind about |\n| 22 | that.
And if he doesn't do that, he needs to be held in |\n| 23 | contempt of court. |\n| 24 | The objection also says that -- tries to make the |\n| 25 | case that what the debtor is doing is harmless because if |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 50 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
50 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | anything, he's simply raising concerns about improper |\n| 2 | claims.
You know, I don't even know how to react to that. |\n| 3 | If he had concerns about improper claims, he could try to |\n| 4 | raise them in the procedurally and legally correct way. |\n| 5 | But going online and calling people gangsters, |\n| 6 | doxing them by having followers put out information on |\n| 7 | passports, is not just simply raising concerns about valid |\n| 8 | claims.
It's intimidation, which the Court has already |\n| 9 | found the debtor has engaged in. |\n| 10 | That's -- those are the primary points, Your |\n| 11 | Honor.
We think to summarize, the preliminary injunction |\n| 12 | order and the TRO that preceded it, are very clear what they |\n| 13 | prohibit, and they're made even more clear against the |\n| 14 | backdrop of the memorandum decision that the Court entered |\n| 15 | and it's findings of fact. |\n| 16 | And then we also think the evidence that we've |\n| 17 | introduced is clear, that what the debtor is doing is |\n| 18 | violating that order, and it's having the exact same harmful |\n| 19 | effects that we've always worried about because it's |\n| 20 | activating his followers across the world to do even more |\n| 21 | damage. |\n| 22 | So that's why we think we're entitled to that |\n| 23 | relief that we're seeking, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Wachen, what's |\n| 25 | your response to Mr. Bassett's argument? |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 51 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
51 |\n| 1 | MR. WACHEN:
Your Honor, we take issue strongly |\n| 2 | with what he is arguing.
We don't think Mr. Kwok is |\n| 3 | violating the order in any way.
The order talks about |\n| 4 | interfering in any way with the integrity of the case, and |\n| 5 | it specific -- the only thing it specifically mentions is |\n| 6 | safety involving certain -- with the people, the trustee, |\n| 7 | PAX, affiliated officers and so on and so forth. |\n| 8 | There's no allegation that Mr. Kwok is doing |\n| 9 | anything with respect to the safety of those individuals. |\n| 10 | Mr. Bassett didn't even mention that. |\n| 11 | And as far as the integrity of the proceedings go, |\n| 12 | if anything, I would say Mr. Kwok is concerned about the |\n| 13 | integrity of the proceedings, because he's concerned about |\n| 14 | this individual claim, which he believes is bogus, and he is |\n| 15 | calling it out. |\n| 16 | They're saying, well, there's a way to do it in |\n| 17 | the Chapter 11 case, but then they're also saying that he |\n| 18 | shouldn't be allowed to object in the Chapter 11 case.
So |\n| 19 | where can -- where can he express his concerns? |\n| 20 | I think there's nothing in this order from Your |\n| 21 | Honor that prohibits him from expressing concerns about |\n| 22 | bogus claims. |\n| 23 | There's also nothing in this order that prohibits |\n| 24 | him from encouraging people to file meritorious claims if |\n| 25 | they have one. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 52 And that's all his GETTR post says, that if you have a claim, you can file it. If anything, you would think -- I mean, I thought that's what the trustee was trying to do, to get people who have claims to file them. So I don't see how this is inconsistent. Now his language about maybe you can become a billionaire, I think when you read the context of it, I think it's clear sarcasm. It's not -- it's not -- that's really all it is. That's the way I understood it anyway, and you know, part of the problem here is, most of these things are written in Chinese. Sometimes things are lost in translation. The use of the word gangster, for example, I don't -- I mean, it's offered totally out of context, but you know, that may be some -- have some meaning in Chinese that we don't fully appreciate. But he's criticizing someone who he thinks doesn't have a meritorious claim. And I know some of the details of it. The bankruptcy counsel for the debtor I think probably could speak in more detail to what the problems are with that particular claim. But that's his concern and I think he has a right. If anything, I don't see how expressing concern about a particular claim and whether it's legitimate or not, interferes in any way with the integrity. So that's --\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 53 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | that's what I would say about that. |\n| 2 | They are asking Your Honor to -- at the beginning |\n| 3 | of their order, they're asking you to order Mr. Kwok to |\n| 4 | comply with your preliminary injunction order, which seems |\n| 5 | superfluous.
You've already issued an order. |\n| 6 | As far as we're concerned, he is complying with |\n| 7 | it.
I don't think there's a need for another order to say |\n| 8 | comply with that other order.
The order speaks for itself |\n| 9 | and it's still in effect. |\n| 10 | We've appealed it.
We don't think it's valid.
We |\n| 11 | don't think it's clear, quite honestly, with all due |\n| 12 | respect, and that's why we've appealed it for that and many |\n| 13 | other reasons.
But we don't think there's been any |\n| 14 | violation. |\n| 15 | This speculation as to what's behind all this, |\n| 16 | this is all -- you know, it's all contrived and it's all -- |\n| 17 | well, what he's really suggesting is this, and he's -- this |\n| 18 | is a way fro him to mobilize people on social media. |\n| 19 | But the reality of social media is, somebody posts |\n| 20 | something on social media and people react to it.
Whether |\n| 21 | it's Mr. Kwok or anybody else who gets -- has a large |\n| 22 | following on social media.
And he can't control what these |\n| 23 | people say or do. |\n| 24 | And these people -- these posts, there's no |\n| 25 | evidence that he has anything to do with these other posts. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 54 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 54 The video, the one that he posted, okay. That's him. But these other ones, there's no connection with him and there's no -- one of the people was I think in South Korea and he posted it, it appeared. But he had nothing to do with those and there's nothing he can do to control them. But he does have a right to speak out on things that he hasn't been enjoined to speak out on, and speaking out on this individual is not one of those things that he was not allowed to talk about. Paragraph 3 talks about taking down different social media posts in certain categories, containing the home addresses of the trustee, PAX, related officers, employees and so on and so forth. There's no allegation that that's contained in any of his posts, or encouraging or inciting or suggesting activities enjoined. There's no indication that he's done that either. So there's really no\n\n He has a right to speak out, and I mean, he didn't -- by filing for bankruptcy, he didn't give up his First Amendment rights, and I think that's what the trustee is trying to do, to silence him, but he has a right to call into question claims that have been asserted that frankly don't have any merit. And to the extent people who have claims want to file them, they can file them, and I think that's what the trustee is trying to do.\n\nreason for him to have to take anything down.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 55 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
55 |\n| 1 | We don't believe there's any violation.
There's |\n| 2 | been no doxing, either, by Mr. Kwok.
That was another thing |\n| 3 | he mentioned.
The information about -- I mean, he mentioned |\n| 4 | her name.
Her name is a matter of public record.
She filed |\n| 5 | a claim on the docket.
Her name and address are in the |\n| 6 | bankruptcy case.
But he mentioned her name.
The passport, |\n| 7 | or whatever it was, that wasn't something that he posted. |\n| 8 | That was somebody else.
So I don't think he can be called |\n| 9 | to answer for that. |\n| 10 | And at this point -- I mean, to the extent they're |\n| 11 | seeking to hold him in contempt of the order, I think, you |\n| 12 | know, for them to just -- they mention contempt, I think in |\n| 13 | a parenthetical.
That was the extent. |\n| 14 | I don't think it's appropriate for Your Honor to |\n| 15 | hold Mr. Kwok in contempt without a full evidentiary hearing |\n| 16 | on that issue, and then having to meet their burden of |\n| 17 | what's needed, and we haven't even -- that process hasn't |\n| 18 | even begun, but we don't believe there's any basis for doing |\n| 19 | so. |\n| 20 | So for all those reasons, Your Honor, we'd ask the |\n| 21 | Court to deny their motion at this point. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Just a couple responses, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | Oh, I'm sorry. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
And you've spoken, Mr. Wachen, with |\n| 25 | your client about Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the preliminary |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 56 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | injunction order? |\n| 2 | MR. WACHEN:
I have not personally spoken with |\n| 3 | him, but he has been spoken with. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Who has he been spoken with by? |\n| 5 | Who -- you represent him in this adversary proceeding.
So |\n| 6 | you haven't talked to him directly about what this |\n| 7 | preliminary injunction order means? |\n| 8 | MR. WACHEN:
Well, for what I -- I don't speak |\n| 9 | Chinese, so that's one concern I have.
But I have spoken |\n| 10 | with his -- with co-counsel, and co-counsel have spoken with |\n| 11 | him about it. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Which co-counsel have you spoken with? |\n| 13 | MR. WACHEN:
Well, several of them, but the one I |\n| 14 | will mention is Mr. Mitchell. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 16 | MR. WACHEN:
It's my understanding that Mr. |\n| 17 | Mitchell has discussed the order with him. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
But you have not directly had any |\n| 19 | discussions with Mr. Kwok about this preliminary injunction |\n| 20 | order or the memorandum of decision? |\n| 21 | MR. WACHEN:
I have not, Your Honor, no. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. WACHEN:
But I've discussed it with Mr. |\n| 24 | Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell, I understand, has discussed it |\n| 25 | with Mr. Kwok, and I've discussed that with Mr. Mitchell. |\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
57 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Barrett (sic), |\n| 2 | what else would you like to say? |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Just a couple -- a couple responses, |\n| 4 | Your Honor.
He mentioned, in discussing Paragraph 2 of the |\n| 5 | preliminary injunction order, he said that there's been no |\n| 6 | evidence that anything that the debtor is -- has done would |\n| 7 | affect the safety of any individual.
Two responses to that. |\n| 8 | First of all, Paragraph 2 is not so limited.
I |\n| 9 | mean, Paragraph 2 says very clearly, the debtor is further |\n| 10 | preliminarily enjoined from interfering in any way with the |\n| 11 | integrity of his Chapter 11 case, and then it goes on to |\n| 12 | say, including taking any act to threaten the safety of the |\n| 13 | Chapter 11 trustee, PAX, or its affiliates, and others.
So |\n| 14 | the including clause obviously is not -- is not limiting. |\n| 15 | Number one. |\n| 16 | Number two, what you have here is very clear |\n| 17 | evidence of intimidation.
I'll get to the argument that |\n| 18 | there's no connection between Mr. Kwok's post and what |\n| 19 | happens by his followers and that he has no control over |\n| 20 | that. |\n| 21 | But you have a call to arms by Mr. Kwok.
That's |\n| 22 | what we think it very clearly is, and this is not in a |\n| 23 | vacuum.
This is based on the evidence, the abundant |\n| 24 | evidence the Court has already heard at the preliminary |\n| 25 | injunction hearing. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 58 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
58 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And then after that, within hours, you have NFSC |\n| 2 | supporters posting online passport information.
And Mr. |\n| 3 | Kwok -- Mr. Kwok himself, in the translated excerpt of the |\n| 4 | video said, if you do this, you're going to be exposed. |\n| 5 | What happens?
Immediately, there's information |\n| 6 | online, passport, personal information that absolutely is |\n| 7 | something that begins to threaten the safety of these |\n| 8 | individuals given the nature of this case, given the -- |\n| 9 | everything the Court has seen in evidence about the protests |\n| 10 | and how exercised people on either side of this are. |\n| 11 | That kind of doxing is certainly something that |\n| 12 | threatens the safety, but it doesn't matter because |\n| 13 | Paragraph 2 is not limited to threatening the safety in any |\n| 14 | event. |\n| 15 | He mentioned, well, you know, if the debtor cannot |\n| 16 | you know, criticize claims online, and we're also arguing |\n| 17 | that he doesn't have standing, then he has no place to go. |\n| 18 | Your Honor, the standing issue is separate.
We don't think |\n| 19 | the debtor has standing. |\n| 20 | But if he doesn't have standing, his recourse is |\n| 21 | not to circumvent that and get around it by going out and |\n| 22 | harassing people online and taking his criticism public |\n| 23 | because he has no right to do it in this Court.
So that's, |\n| 24 | I think, a non-answer to the question. |\n| 25 | I think that's it, Your Honor.
I mean, again, on |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 59 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
59 |\n| 1 | the question of is there control of these people.
The |\n| 2 | timing.
He posts this in the morning on January 10th. |\n| 3 | Immediately there are NFSC members posting thereafter.
Mr. |\n| 4 | Wachen mentioned that one of them appeared to be in South |\n| 5 | Korea.
I don't understand how that's possibly a limitation. |\n| 6 | The Court heard evidence that there are people protesting |\n| 7 | outside of Paul Hastings' office in Tokyo.
The reach of |\n| 8 | this is worldwide. |\n| 9 | Your Honor, that's all I had.
I appreciate the |\n| 10 | Court's time on this today. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Wachen, |\n| 12 | anything further? |\n| 13 | MR. WACHEN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | Just to be clear, this safety thing that they keep |\n| 15 | talking about, the language at Paragraph 2 talks about the |\n| 16 | safety of Chapter 11 trustee, PAX's or its affiliated -- |\n| 17 | affiliates, officers, or employees, counsel to the Chapter |\n| 18 | 11 trustee or PAX, and any of their respective relatives. |\n| 19 | So unless this woman is somehow a relative of one |\n| 20 | of these people that we don't know, or a former spouse, the |\n| 21 | safety clause of Paragraph 2 doesn't even come into play |\n| 22 | here. |\n| 23 | Mr. Kwok hasn't threatened the safety of anyone, |\n| 24 | but to the extent that's what they're arguing, the safety |\n| 25 | clause is really a non-issue because it's not -- she's not |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 60\n\none of the people that's mentioned.\n\n But in terms of interfering in any way with the integrity, I'll just reiterate that nothing he's done here to criticize a claimant who he thinks has filed a bogus claim, who's trying to take advantage of the system, is interfering with the integrity. If anything, it's helping to ensure the integrity. And so I guess I just don't understand that argument that they're making.\n\n If this is about this being a call to arms any time he opens his mouth, well, he has a lot of people who believe in him. He's -- he has -- you know, he's a public figure. He is a leader of the Chinese Dissident Movement. There are people all around the world who support him in various ways. Not the people he knows, but people who believe in him.\n\n And so, like anything else on social media, when somebody posts something, people often react to it from all over the place, and that's -- you know, it's uncontrolled. I mean, I think that's just the nature of social media, that people come out of the woodwork and start saying things.\n\n I don't think he knows -- I don't think there's any evidence that he has anything to do with these posts or that he knows who posted this passport or whatever it is, from this woman.\n\nSomebody put it up there, but it wasn't him, and\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 61 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | it wasn't as if he encouraged someone to do that either. |\n| 2 | He's just concerned about her and other people, perhaps like |\n| 3 | her, who are going to flood -- I mean, basically what |\n| 4 | they're concerned about.
They're going to come forward and |\n| 5 | put in claims that are not legitimate. |\n| 6 | So I mean, on the one hand they're concerned about |\n| 7 | people flooding the docket with illegitimate claims, but |\n| 8 | then when he raises an issue or concern about one of the |\n| 9 | claims, now he's done something wrong.
I mean, it just -- |\n| 10 | it seems like, you know, no matter what he does, he's |\n| 11 | somehow doing something wrong. |\n| 12 | But the fact that people react to his posts on |\n| 13 | social media, I mean, that's just -- I think that's just the |\n| 14 | nature of social media.
There's no indication that he has |\n| 15 | anything to do with actively encouraging these people to go |\n| 16 | and put up the passport or to do what they were doing. |\n| 17 | And as far as harassment, I just don't think |\n| 18 | there's any indication that he has harassed anybody.
Have |\n| 19 | other people done things that maybe they shouldn't? |\n| 20 | Perhaps, but I don't think he has to answer for someone -- |\n| 21 | some guy in South Korea who posted some inflammatory post. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, both.
I will hear |\n| 23 | the arguments on standing, please. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
For |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 62 of
108 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
62 |\n| the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.
I'll try to |\n| cover this briefly. |\n| We believe that the Court should enter an order |\n| quashing these objections under various grounds.
It's not |\n| limited to standing, technical standing.
It's important to |\n| go through the code.
I know you know it well, but just for |\n| two seconds. |\n| 704 Sub (a)(5) says that the trustee -- we're |\n| talking about a Chapter 7 trustee now -- has the duty -- |\n| shall, it's a shall -- review claims and object to claims if |\n| appropriate, or something like that.
Claims that are |\n| improper.
That's the Chapter 7 trustee, 704(a)(5). |\n| 1106 says that the title -- the Chapter 11 trustee |\n| has those duties.
Those duties were given under 1107 to the |\n| debtor in possession while he was in possession, but doesn't |\n| have that ability anymore. |\n| So there's very specific language regarding this, |\n| and the argument to the contrary is that we're a party in |\n| interest under 1109. |\n| And by the way, Your Honor, there are many other |\n| parties -- people that are parties in interest under 1109. |\n| A creditor, like PAX, the creditor's committee.
Everyone is |\n| a party in interest.
It doesn't stop.
And by the way, |\n| under 502, it says a party in interest can object to claims. |\n| And that has not stopped courts repeatedly in |\n| |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1440 | Filed 02/03/23 | Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 | Page 63 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| 108 | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 63 Chapter 7 cases to say, creditors cannot go and object to other creditor's claims, even though you're a party in interest. And they have done the same in Chapter 11. Why? Because it would be chaos.\n\n That's the -- you know, the *Dow Corning* case lists tons of cases on this, that we cannot allow creditors that have -- when you think about it, creditors have much more standing than an out-of-possession debtor. Especially in a case like this, because the current position of the debtor is, I have no assets. That's the position that he had -- that he's advocated thus far.\n\n And, however, PAX is a creditor. Clearly a party in interest. In theory, they should go and object -- they could go and object to other creditor's claim, because there would be a direct benefit to them, a direct pecuniary interest, right? Because you follow that logic of party in interest. But courts never allow that when there's a trustee in place. Even, they don't do it when the debtor in possession is in place.\n\n I'll put that aside, but when a trustee is in place, they don't allow creditors to do that; creditors that have more standing from a pecuniary interest point of view than a debtor that's out of possession that says, I have no assets and my claims -- although he's going to dispute all those claims -- but there's at least \\$400 million of claims\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 64 before the bar date that are in the case. So the point is not only standing, because you know, the issue -- you know, it's true that 1109 says a debtor is a party in interest, and also says a creditor's committee and creditors are parties in interest, but it has not stopped cases or courts in Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 cases from saying, you cannot file objections because it's chaos. It's the job of the trustee to do that. And just, if we look at this case, Your Honor, recall the case started with, I have no assets, so there's nothing to distribute. Now, it's getting pretty clear that\n\n there are some assets. I don't want to be over confident about this, but I think that we will establish that there are some assets of the estate.\n\n So now the debtor is shifting to, well, but there are no claims. We're going to object to all the claims, and the problem with that is that we're conducting an investigation. So on the H coins, for example, we are conducting an investigation. We're not done with that investigation, and we've told Your Honor months ago that the first focus has to be on bringing assets into the estate.\n\n But the debtor is very good at distracting all of us, and I'm including the Court, not in the critical way, but -- in fact, I was thinking about this.\n\nThis opinion you wrote on the First Amendment and\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 65 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | all that, I know it would have taken me 150 hours to do this |\n| 2 | because I know nothing about the First Amendment.
So I'm |\n| 3 | assuming you know a lot more than me, but it certainly took |\n| 4 | you a hundred hours to write
this.
This is a hundred hours |\n| 5 | that could have been spent on other aspects of the case. |\n| 6 | But -- so the Court was distracted.
We were |\n| 7 | distracted.
And now they want to open another angle, which |\n| 8 | is, let's object to claims.
Let's have trials on the H Coin |\n| 9 | and all that.
I have not completed my investigation on |\n| 10 | that.
That's why the trustee is supposed to do this, not |\n| 11 | the out-of-court -- not an out-of-possession debtor.
And |\n| 12 | that's fundamental. |\n| 13 | So in this case, what's happening is that they |\n| 14 | want us to be distracted again from the main task, which is |\n| 15 | bringing assets into the estate so that we are going after |\n| 16 | claimants. |\n| 17 | And, you know, look, it's -- I'm looking at the |\n| 18 | claims.
I have already said this to Your Honor.
The |\n| 19 | claimants are not sophisticated in the sense that they |\n| 20 | believe they've been defrauded.
They don't express that in |\n| 21 | the best terms.
I saw the claim myself, but that claim was |\n| 22 | filed two weeks ago.
This is not like I'm sitting on this |\n| 23 | for two years.
It was filed two weeks ago. |\n\n I have not spent any time looking at these claims in detail. I'm looking at them, you know, briefly, but not\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 66 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
66 |\n| 1 | in detail because the main goal here is to get money into |\n| 2 | the estate. |\n| 3 | Without money into the estate, this case dies and |\n| 4 | we cannot spend our time being distracted by the debtor |\n| 5 | that's completely out of possession economically, trying to |\n| 6 | open up these sideshows, as we had on the First Amendment, |\n| 7 | and now there seem to be another sideshow which is, let's |\n| 8 | object to claims.
We cannot have that, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | This is why courts have said in their -- you know, |\n| 10 | again, the Dow Corning case cites probably ten cases that |\n| 11 | have held this in Chapter 11, where it basically says that a |\n| 12 | trustee or debtor in possession, even though creditors have |\n| 13 | standing under -- because they're a party in interest, we |\n| 14 | will preclude them from that because otherwise it would be |\n| 15 | chaos. |\n| 16 | And for these reasons, Your Honor, we would ask |\n| 17 | you to enter an order that says that these objections are |\n| 18 | quashed. |\n| 19 | Two, that no other objections by the debtor may be |\n| 20 | filed without prior permission from Your Honor.
And so they |\n| 21 | can come back later.
You know, if they can establish that |\n| 22 | the trustee has been sitting on those claims, and really to |\n| 23 | favor these people, fine.
But they filed those claims like |\n| 24 | two weeks ago, or I'm not even sure it's been two weeks. |\n| 25 | Obviously, we have no time to act.
Perhaps we |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 67 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
67 |\n| 1 | will review them and determine, after we complete our |\n| 2 | investigation on the H Coin, that these people have valid |\n| 3 | claims, or not. |\n| 4 | I am telling Your Honor that if these claims are |\n| 5 | not valid, they will not be allowed.
This is not a game |\n| 6 | that we're going to play.
If they're not valid, you know, |\n| 7 | they will not be allowed. |\n| 8 | And it's, you know -- also, lastly I would say |\n| 9 | that there's kind of something humorous about a debtor that |\n| 10 | has no records whatsoever, right?
That's the theory.
Not |\n| 11 | only I have no assets, but I have no records, but they're |\n| 12 | sure that these claimants have no claims.
And they know |\n| 13 | that how?
Because they have no records themselves of any of |\n| 14 | this. |\n| 15 | Your Honor, there will be certainly more than 200 |\n| 16 | claims filed in this case.
Perhaps more than that.
So all |\n| 17 | these people are wrong.
All people are imagining things? |\n| 18 | Possible, but I would say, Your Honor, the trustee |\n| 19 | needs to be able to conclude its investigation to review |\n| 20 | those claims. |\n| 21 | And if the debtor eventually is able to put |\n| 22 | forward a plan that pays people in full, then they can |\n| 23 | object to claims, but until then, they have no credential |\n| 24 | standing, and even from a chaos point of view, they should |\n| 25 | be precluded from prosecuting these objections. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 68 Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. CESARONI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. CESARONI: The issue that the trustee had raised was pretty clearly the standing of the debtor to file objections to claims in this Chapter 11 case. I don't know where the sort of chaos argument came from, but in the larger picture, if the debtor objects to claims, takes discovery from those claimants as to the propriety of their claims, and is able to eliminate claims, it would actually benefit the estate because in the end the estate -- the trustee wouldn't have to spend estate money doing that type of investigation and it would also reduce the total claims pool. As Your Honor had heard -- THE COURT: How could the debtor do that if it doesn't have -- he doesn't have any income? MR. CESARONI: So, as the Court had heard -- THE COURT: No, I mean, I've looked back at the schedules during the course of the case and the debtor lists on his schedules that he has zero income and he doesn't anticipate having any in the future. That's what he says on his schedules. So even if I were to agree with what you just\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 69 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
69 |\n| 1 | said, how would the debtor do that if he doesn't have any |\n| 2 | money and he doesn't have any income? |\n| 3 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, in -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Who would pay -- who would pay for |\n| 5 | that? |\n| 6 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, and I won't get into the |\n| 7 | details, but the Court -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, but you have to.
I mean, your |\n| 9 | argument is -- your argument is, you'd be helping the estate |\n| 10 | because the debtor would undertake this analysis and |\n| 11 | discovery and determine whether the claims were valid or |\n| 12 | not. |\n| 13 | And I -- so my question is, well, how would that |\n| 14 | happen?
He said in this Court while he was a debtor in |\n| 15 | possession, in -- on his schedules filed under penalty of |\n| 16 | perjury, that he has no income and doesn't anticipate any |\n| 17 | change in that -- in that status.
That's what his schedules |\n| 18 | say.
I'm not -- I mean, I can open them up for you and we |\n| 19 | can go right to them. |\n| 20 | So my -- so if you're going to make that argument, |\n| 21 | I'm happy to have you make the argument, but you have to |\n| 22 | tell me how that's going to happen. |\n| 23 | MR. CESARONI:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | So the Court had heard testimony from, among other |\n| 25 | people, Mr. Kindseth.
And I'm -- what I said I'm not going |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 70 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
70 |\n| 1 | to get into deal -- details of was, I believe there was |\n| 2 | testimony that there was a settlement but we never got into |\n| 3 | -- the Court never heard what the terms were and -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
And I'm not going to hear anything |\n| 5 | about a settlement. |\n| 6 | MR. CESARONI:
-- I'm not going to -- right. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So you're telling me that I don't -- I |\n| 8 | have to take on face value, that this debtor, who came to |\n| 9 | this court voluntarily, no one forced this debtor to file |\n| 10 | Chapter 11, that he -- even though he has no income and |\n| 11 | doesn't expect to have any income, that he can handle all |\n| 12 | this and don't worry about it, Court.
Right?
That's what |\n| 13 | you're saying. |\n| 14 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, I think -- I think that the |\n| 15 | evidence that this could potentially be handled by money |\n| 16 | coming in from potential other sources, is the fact that |\n| 17 | through negotiation, there was at least a potential |\n| 18 | settlement of the case in principle with the creditor's |\n| 19 | committee and the major creditors. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I don't -- I don't care about the |\n| 21 | settlement -- |\n| 22 | MR. CESARONI:
So there -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- in principle.
That's not my |\n| 24 | question.
I'm responding to your argument.
Your argument |\n| 25 | is, the trustees just said that there would be chaos.
You |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 71 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 71 know, and you didn't know where that came from, and I understand what you're saying.\n\n And then you said, but, regardless of that, if the debtor does this, it's going to help the estate because he's going to determine whether there's valid claims or not. He's going to conduct discovery, which I think is an interesting suggestion that you make, of a debtor out of possession conducting discovery on proofs of claim filed in a case in which there's a trustee, and then somehow the debtor is going to be able to afford to do all that, and that's going to benefit the estate. That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me right now. I'm having trouble understanding that, okay?\n\nMR. CESARONI: I understand the Court's concern.\n\n So the real impediment to actually resolving this case is the belief by the trustee that the claims in the debtor's schedules and to the PAX claim and the claims represented by the creditor's committee, are not the entire universe of claims, or it -- and that there are many other claims out there that have to do with things like H Coin and the -- and with the basis of which, which obviously we disagree with, is that, you know, that people are saying that, well, it's hard to tell from the face of these proofs of claim, but people are essentially saying that they made investments and that the debtor fraudulently induced them to\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 72 do so. Now if those claims are not valid, which is what the debtor -- debtor argues, and which we believe we could show, then that eliminates a large part -- that eliminates the problem that got in the way of potentially resolving this case which was, the trustee saying, no, there are all these other issues and -- THE COURT: I don't want to know about what potentially -- look, we're focused today. This is what our focus is today, right? Our focus today is, does the debtor have standing to object to these proofs of claim. That's the focus of -- that's -- other than the argument that Mr. Bassett and Mr. Wachen just went through with regard to whether he's in violation of the preliminary injunction order and should be held in contempt, the issue is, does the debtor have standing to object to proof of claims, the debtor who is no longer in possession, have standing. That's the issue. I don't want to hear about a global settlement. MR. CESARONI: Sure. THE COURT: I want to hear why you believe the debtor has standing to do this. MR. CESARONI: So in a Chapter 11 case -- so a lot of the case law that the trustee, and pretty much exclusively relies upon, is Chapter 7. And a Chapter 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 72 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 73 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | debtor is in a different position than a Chapter 11 debtor |\n| 2 | in a case where a trustee has been appointed, and there are |\n| 3 | a couple of reasons. |\n| 4 | First of all, Section 1121 allows the debtor to |\n| 5 | file a plan of reorganization.
So the -- so once a trustee |\n| 6 | is appointed, the trustee can file a plan, the creditors can |\n| 7 | file a plan, the debtor can file a plan.
So the debtor has |\n| 8 | an interest in being able to confirm a plan of |\n| 9 | reorganization so that -- so that he can resolve his |\n| 10 | liabilities. |\n| 11 | Unlike in a Chapter 7 where presuming -- |\n| 12 | presumably if there wasn't any fraud or misconduct, the |\n| 13 | Chapter 7 debtor doesn't have to do anything and -- you |\n| 14 | know, except comply with the bankruptcy code, do what he has |\n| 15 | to do. |\n| 16 | I'm not suggesting that a Chapter 7 debtor doesn't |\n| 17 | have to do anything, but you know, assuming that there's no |\n| 18 | successful objections to discharge or non-dischargeable |\n| 19 | claims, the Chapter 7 debtor will get his discharge. |\n| 20 | So courts in that instance have said, well even |\n| 21 | so, in a Chapter 7, there are situations where that Chapter |\n| 22 | 7 debtor has standing.
One of them that there be a surplus |\n| 23 | in the estate, or a pecuniary interest of the debtor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MR. CESARONI:
Now, we're -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 74 THE COURT: I understand that. So -- MR. CESARONI: We're not arguing that there's going to be a surplus here -- THE COURT: Well, but you have to argue that, don't you? I mean, here's the point, right? This is a Chapter 11 case in which this debtor says he has no income and he doesn't foresee any income. So how could this be a surplus case? MR. CESARONI: Well, I again -- THE COURT: And he has no assets. MR. CESARONI: Again, I don't think it has to be a surplus case. THE COURT: Well, and why is that? MR. CESARONI: Well, because if his claims -- if the debtor's claims are not automatically discharged in a Chapter 11, and he would have to -- one of two things would have to happen. A plan of reorganization would have to be confirmed, or this would essentially have to be a liquidating 11, which is interesting as to a individual debtor, but I won't get into that. But the issue really is that the debtor has two sides of a balance sheet. Right now, there are very significant claims out there against the debtor, and being able to potentially confirm a plan with money from assets that are not part of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 75 Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 75 of\n\n the estate, which might be used as part of some type of plan. So, you know, plans have certainly been confirmed where money comes from outside sources and -- THE COURT: Understood. I -- but -- but -- MR. CESARONI: And so, the fact that the -- THE COURT: -- but didn't you -- MR. CESARONI: -- fact that the debtor doesn't have personal assets doesn't necessarily mean that a plan couldn't be confirmed, and it also doesn't mean that, for example, creditors might, for the right amount of money, agree to their claims being impaired. THE COURT: Well, that's a whole different situation that we haven't come anywhere near yet in this case, number one. Number two, why can't he -- as most often -- I mean, we can -- we can -- all the cases that have been cited, we can go through that the objection to claims don't even happen until after confirmation. So what's the need to object to the claim now, a claim that was filed two weeks ago? MR. CESARONI: I -- and I think that the need is the fact that we view these claims, and the debtor views these claims as an impediment in this case because these types of claims that are made, you know, that there's some sort of fraudulent inducement or investment fraud as they're\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 76 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | claiming, apart from the fact that we don't think that |\n| 2 | they're valid, they are on the claims register and so the |\n| 3 | value of the case on paper is going to look like it's more |\n| 4 | than we believe that it is. |\n| 5 | And if that's the case, it's going to make it very |\n| 6 | difficult to resolve a case in a situation where we don't |\n| 7 | know what the end -- we don't know what the -- what the |\n| 8 | amounts are that we have to deal with.
So if somebody said |\n| 9 | -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So that happens all the time in |\n| 11 | Chapter 11.
It happens all the time.
It -- |\n| 12 | MR. CESARONI:
It -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
-- almost every Chapter 11 case of any |\n| 14 | size, the claims are not resolved until after confirmation |\n| 15 | of the plan, okay?
Number one. |\n| 16 | Number two, when you say we think these claims |\n| 17 | aren't valid, what evidence do you have that they're not |\n| 18 | valid? |\n| 19 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, the -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Because as you know, the bankruptcy |\n| 21 | code and rules provide that a proof of claim is prima facie |\n| 22 | validity of that proof of claim.
So what evidence do you |\n| 23 | have that it's not valid? |\n| 24 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, again, the code does provide |\n| 25 | that, provided that it's a -- and this is addressed in the |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 77 specific objections to the individual claims, but our argument is that on their face, the claims are not claims -- the claims have not demonstrated or alleged sufficient facts or provided sufficient documentation to show that on their face they are claims against the debtor, because, just for example, in the claims of Ms. Yu, there -- the -- it just says, I think investment fraud is the reason, and then attached is a wire transfer in German from Ms. Yu to something called the Crane Advisory Group. THE COURT: Okay. So if you think -- MR. CESARONI: I mean, so -- THE COURT: -- they're not valid, then why are you worried about them? You can worry about the later. If you want to file a plan, your client wants to file a plan, your client can file a plan and say that he's not going to treat these claims because he thinks they're invalid, and he's going to be a -- at confirmation objecting to them. And then the Court can consider all that. But if you're saying on the one hand that they're not valid, but yet you need to object to them within two weeks of the filing of the claim, that seems odd to me. MR. CESARONI: Well, I mean, I do understand that the normal -- in a normal case, in -- that a lot of times claims rejections are handled after the fact. Now it's -- in some cases, they could just not be treated.\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 78 I think that that creates serious issues for plan confirmation and would probably draw objections, at least from the creditors who weren't being treated. But assuming that they were, the money has to be there to account for their claims and be held, generally by a claims agent, but - - THE COURT: And how many times do we have Chapter 11 plans that have a reserve set aside for disputed claims that if the claim is found to be valid, that it gets paid, and if it doesn't, then it enures to the benefit of either the estate, or the debtor if there's a surplus? MR. CESARONI: Right. And that's a question of timing, but the issue -- THE COURT: No, that's a question of law. That's a question of law. See, you still -- what I don't understand is what's the rush to object to these claims. If you even have standing. Okay, which I -- we haven't even talked about that. I'm reacting to your argument that this would be helpful to the estate, and I -- and -- because he's going to do all this discovery and all this other -- these other things, with no money, and that's going to be beneficial to the estate. But, at the same time you say they're invalid. So Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 78 of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nwhat do you have to do discovery about? I mean, what's --\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 79 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
79 |\n| 1 | why go down that path?
It makes no sense.
There's no logic |\n| 2 | associated with what's going on. |\n| 3 | So then the Court says, well, what's going on? |\n| 4 | What's going on here?
There -- you know, I -- so what's |\n| 5 | your argument about standing? |\n| 6 | MR. CESARONI:
Yes, Your Honor.
And just very |\n| 7 | briefly, I think that me saying they're invalid or Mr. Kwok |\n| 8 | saying they're invalid is certainly one thing.
It's a |\n| 9 | completely different thing if the Court finds that, because |\n| 10 | then it's not a topic for debate, it's been decided. |\n| 11 | But as to standing, I'll start with, you know, Mr. |\n| 12 | Despins, cited to 704(a)(5), which actually -- which says, |\n| 13 | if a purpose would be served, examine proofs of claim and |\n| 14 | object to the allowance of any claim that as improper.
So |\n| 15 | that's -- the trustee shall do that. |\n| 16 | Just because someone has a duty to something -- do |\n| 17 | something, doesn't mean that it's the case that no one else |\n| 18 | can do it.
The trustee may have to examine claims, and it |\n| 19 | says in an appropriate case.
In a Chapter 7, it's generally |\n| 20 | going to be an asset case that would be the appropriate case |\n| 21 | to object to claims, but that's not exclusive. |\n| 22 | There's nothing in 705 or in 1106, which |\n| 23 | incorporates 705 -- 705(a)(5), or 704(a)(5) rather, into a |\n| 24 | Chapter 11 case where a trustee has been appointed.
And a |\n| 25 | Chapter 7 is also silent about who's a party in interest for |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 80 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
80 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the purposes of who can object to a claim under 502, and |\n| 2 | Chapter 11 isn't.
Chapter -- in Chapter 11, 1109 |\n| 3 | specifically references the debtor in addition to the |\n| 4 | trustee and creditors as being parties in interest. |\n| 5 | But even in a Chapter 7, you know, courts have |\n| 6 | carved out situations where there would be standing of the |\n| 7 | debtor.
And one, as I said, was a surplus.
The other is -- |\n| 8 | there are a few others, but one is that if the debtor has |\n| 9 | non-dischargeable claims against him, the debtor would have |\n| 10 | standing, even if there's not going to be a surplus. |\n| 11 | And the theory behind that is that if the debtor |\n| 12 | can decrease the size of the claim pool, he will increase |\n| 13 | the payments to non-dischargeable claims, which will |\n| 14 | decrease his personal liability after the case to pay those |\n| 15 | non-dischargeable claims.
And there have been several non |\n| 16 | dischargeable claims asserted in this bankruptcy case, and |\n| 17 | Mr. Kwok certainly would have an interest in decreasing the |\n| 18 | size of the claim pool in order to theoretically have more |\n| 19 | payments go to non-dischargeable claims, even if there isn't |\n| 20 | a surplus. |\n| 21 | And now, you know, obviously we're not -- we have |\n| 22 | opposed the non-dischargeability actions and we don't |\n\n believe that they have merit, but you know, of course, there's always risk in litigation, and -- as we all know. So that's -- and that is nowhere in the trustee's papers,\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 81 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | even when -- even assuming that the Chapter 11 case is |\n| 2 | applied, which I don't think they do because, you know, 1109 |\n| 3 | puts -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
You mean the Chapter -- you mean the |\n| 5 | Chapter 7 cases, right? |\n| 6 | MR. CESARONI:
Yes.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
That's all right. |\n| 8 | MR. CESARONI:
I don't think -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I just wanted to make sure I was |\n| 10 | following you. |\n| 11 | MR. CESARONI:
Right.
So I don't think -- to the |\n| 12 | extent that the Chapter 7 cases even apply, there are other |\n| 13 | exceptions, one being, you know, the surplus.
One being the |\n| 14 | non-dischargeable claims, and one being that it isn't |\n| 15 | interfering with the administration of the estate. |\n| 16 | I don't see how -- and even in cases -- I don't |\n| 17 | see how the trustee has an issue with a debtor spending -- |\n| 18 | not spending estate money to potentially reduce the claim |\n| 19 | pool. |\n| 20 | We're only here because the trustee objected to us |\n| 21 | going forward and says, we don't have standing, which I |\n| 22 | believe we do, you know, under 1109 and under the -- there |\n| 23 | admittedly aren't a lot of cases, but the cases that I had |\n| 24 | cited that stood for the proposition that, you know, Chapter |\n| 25 | 11 is different. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 82 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Well, wouldn't you have to ask for |\n| 2 | court approval to do that?
So a creditor's committee is a |\n| 3 | party in interest in a Chapter 11 case, correct? |\n| 4 | MR. CESARONI:
That's correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Right.
So -- and they can't bring |\n| 6 | causes of action against certain parties unless they get |\n| 7 | court approval, or unless the debtor refuses to do so, |\n| 8 | correct? |\n| 9 | MR. CESARONI:
That's true. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So what's the difference with this and |\n| 11 | the Chapter 11 trustee?
You aren't -- your client is no |\n| 12 | longer in possession, and may not even have a pecuniary |\n| 13 | interest in the outcome of this case, because if there isn't |\n| 14 | a surplus, there isn't a surplus. |\n| 15 | So why aren't you asking -- show where in the |\n| 16 | bankruptcy code that says you can do what you can do.
I |\n| 17 | don't find it, and in all the cases that have cited -- that |\n| 18 | have been cited, there are some Chapter 11 cases that have |\n| 19 | been cited, number one. |\n| 20 | Number two, you already have referenced that it |\n| 21 | could be a liquidating plan.
Well, if it's a liquidating |\n| 22 | plan, then the decisions in the Chapter 7 case would be very |\n| 23 | supportive of the trustee's argument in this case.
That's |\n| 24 | another issue. |\n| 25 | And then again, what is the need to object to the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 83 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
83 |\n| 1 | claims now?
You haven't convinced me there's a need. |\n| 2 | There is no need, in fact, that claims -- this is |\n| 3 | the whole claims process.
You don't -- people don't get to |\n| 4 | -- the proof of claim bar date hasn't even passed and you're |\n| 5 | -- and you're starting -- your client -- you, on behalf of |\n| 6 | your client, have filed papers under Rule 11 that says, |\n| 7 | these claims are invalid. |\n| 8 | And I asked you what evidence you have of that, |\n| 9 | and you said, well, there's a -- I think you said, there's a |\n| 10 | wire transfer from Germany.
Okay.
How does that establish |\n| 11 | that the claim is invalid? |\n| 12 | MR. CESARONI:
I believe that our argument in the |\n| 13 | claims objection is predicated on the fact that the claims |\n| 14 | are filed without sufficient allegations or evidence. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Right.
So even if that's true, I can |\n| 16 | allow them to amend their claim. |\n| 17 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, then would -- then in that |\n| 18 | sense, I think it would help the estate to the extent that |\n| 19 | -- it would actually help the creditor if the creditor knew |\n| 20 | that we thought the claim was objectionable to fix it. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
That's only if I think that it doesn't |\n| 22 | meet the prima facie validity on it -- under the rules. |\n| 23 | MR. CESARONI:
That's true, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
That's not up for the debtor to |\n| 25 | decide. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 84 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
84 |\n| 1 | MR. CESARONI:
I -- that, I completely understand, |\n| 2 | and I wasn't suggesting otherwise, but I mean, just timing |\n| 3 | -- standing doesn't affect -- isn't affected by timing. |\n| 4 | I mean, there's nothing in the bankruptcy code |\n| 5 | that says you have to wait until after the -- you have to |\n| 6 | wait until X date or after confirmation, or anything about |\n| 7 | when you're going to file objections to -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I agree, but there's nothing in the |\n| 9 | bankruptcy code that says a debtor in possession can object |\n| 10 | to proofs of claim either. |\n| 11 | A debtor out of possession can object to proofs of |\n| 12 | claim when a trustee has been appointed and the trustee has |\n| 13 | statutory duties to administer the estate, which includes |\n| 14 | proofs of claim filed in the case. |\n| 15 | MR. CESARONI:
So Section 502 -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Yep.
Go ahead.
What do you think 502 |\n| 17 | says? |\n| 18 | MR. CESARONI:
It says -- Part A says a claim or |\n| 19 | interest, proof of which is filed under Section 501 of this |\n| 20 | title, is deemed allowed unless a party in interest, |\n| 21 | including a creditor of a general partner and a partnership |\n| 22 | that is debtor under Chapter 7 of this title, objects. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 24 | MR. CESARONI:
And then -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 85 MR. CESARONI: -- 1109 goes on to define what a party in interest is -- THE COURT: Yep. MR. CESARONI: -- in a Chapter 11 case. THE COURT: Yep. MR. CESARONI: And it includes -- it says a party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditor's committee, an equity security holder's committee, a creditor equity security holder, or any indentured trustee may raise -- may raise and may appear and be heard on an issue in the case -- THE COURT: No, I know what it says. MR. CESARONI: -- under this chapter. Okay. THE COURT: I know what it says. Yep. MR. CESARONI: So, if a party in interest can object to proofs of claim, and the debtor is a party in interest, then the debtor should be able to object to -- THE COURT: Except there's plenty of cases that don't allow parties in interest to do exactly what you're saying that you want to do, as I just gave you the example of the creditor's committee. The Creditor's committee can't bring the cause of action unless they get approval from the bankruptcy court to do so, and the bankruptcy court would have to make findings as to why that power that was reserved to a debtor in Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 85 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 86 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
86 |\n|---|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | possession, or a trustee that was appointed and the debtor |\n| 2 | became out of possession, why that power should be allowed |\n| 3 | to be exercised by someone other than the party that is |\n| 4 | obligated to do so under the code, number one. |\n\n Number two, you know, if you look at *Colliers* and you look at what they think about this issue, and what they talk about, they say that a debtor -- an out of possession is like a Chapter 7 debtor and doesn't have standing to challenge claims unless there is -- they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case or could prove there's a surplus.\n\n So if you can prove there's a surplus, then we were talking -- we have a whole different ball game. But that's -- you -- I don't know how you can do that at this point. Maybe you can at some point, but right now the debtor's schedules say he had zero income and he doesn't anticipate any change in that status.\n\n Now he hasn't updated any of his schedules or said that he has any income, but without that, you know, you're taking -- you're -- at some point, you're using the fact that you're a debtor out of possession and you don't have to comply with what you'd have to do when you're a debtor in possession.\n\n But then when -- but then when -- you're saying, but we're still a party in interest and we can do this\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 87 of
108 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
87 | |\n| 1 | because it doesn't say we can't. | |\n| 2 | Well, it doesn't say you can, and any other party | |\n| 3 | in interest in a Chapter 11 case that tries to do -- take an | |\n| 4 | action that they're not directly authorized to take, has to | |\n| 5 | ask for the court approval to do so, and you haven't done | |\n| 6 | that. | |\n| 7 | What you've done is you've filed objections to | |\n| 8 | claim -- claims that were filed two weeks ago, well before | |\n| 9 | the proof of claim bar date was set, when it's the trustee's | |\n| 10 | initial duty to do that. | |\n| 11 | So I'm not convinced.
I'm not convinced.
If you | |\n| 12 | -- you look at the -- these are the treatises on bankruptcy | |\n| 13 | law, and this is what they say, both in -- speaking in | |\n| 14 | Section 502 and speaking in Section 1109. | |\n| 15 | And it talks about that a party in interest may | |\n| 16 | not always be able to do what a party in interest thinks | |\n| 17 | they can do under -- under 1109. | |\n| 18 | MR. CESARONI:
So I am familiar with the Colliers | |\n| 19 | statement in 11 -- I believe it's -- actually, I think it's | |\n| 20 | in 502 -- | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
It's in 502. | |\n| 22 | MR. CESARONI:
-- in 502. | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
That's correct. | |\n| 24 | MR. CESARONI:
That a Chapter 11 debtor -- it | |\n| 25 | lumps the Chapter 11 debtor and a Chapter 7 debtor together | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 88 of
108 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
88 | |\n| 1 | and actually cites to a -- | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm not sure it -- I'm not sure | |\n| 3 | it lumps them.
I think, you know, this is a treatise. | |\n| 4 | They've thought about it very carefully, and it says, in a | |\n| 5 | Chapter 7 case, or in a Chapter 11 case in which the debtor | |\n| 6 | is not in possession and there is no possibility of a | |\n| 7 | surplus being returned to the debtor, the debtor has no | |\n| 8 | pecuniary interest in the outcome of claims objection, and | |\n| 9 | thus no standing to object to claims.
That's what it says. | |\n| 10 | I wouldn't call that a lumping.
I would call that | |\n| 11 | that -- you may disagree with it.
I understand that, but | |\n| 12 | they cite to two cases, and this is recognized as the | |\n| 13 | treatise on bankruptcy law. | |\n| 14 | So I understand -- I just -- I would just -- you | |\n| 15 | can say you disagree.
I'm happy to have you say that, but I | |\n| 16 | don't think it's a lumping. | |\n| 17 | It's very specific about a Chapter 11 case in | |\n| 18 | which the debtor is out of possession.
That's what this | |\n| 19 | case is.
And you made that clear to the Court from the very | |\n| 20 | minute after the debtor was no longer in possession, and | |\n| 21 | that's fine, and you're correct. | |\n| 22 | But with that, it also carries this issue, which | |\n| 23 | is I don't see how you have standing to object to the claims | |\n| 24 | at this point.
You haven't proven that there's -- that the | |\n| 25 | debtor is solvent.
You haven't proven that there will be a | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 89 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | surplus.
You haven't proven that the debtor has any |\n| 2 | pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case. |\n| 3 | And I don't know how you can at this point when |\n| 4 | the only evidence in this record about the debtor's |\n| 5 | financial status is that he has no income, he has assets of |\n| 6 | less then \\$4,000, and he doesn't believe that there will be |\n| 7 | any change in his status as to income in this case. |\n| 8 | So I -- you know, you can make your arguments |\n| 9 | about 1109, and I understand them, but the argument you're |\n| 10 | -- I'm not persuaded by them. |\n| 11 | MR. CESARONI:
I understand, Your Honor.
Although |\n| 12 | I -- you know, I don't think that the -- that there has to |\n| 13 | be a surplus is the correct analysis because, you know, |\n| 14 | there is a Chapter 11 trustee, but the debtor's not |\n| 15 | completely divested of its interest in this -- of his |\n| 16 | interest in this case, and I cite to cases that discuss that |\n| 17 | in our papers.
The real -- because the debtor can file a |\n| 18 | plan, and -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 20 | MR. CESARONI:
-- the fact that he can file a plan |\n| 21 | -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 23 | MR. CESARONI:
-- gives him an interest in this |\n| 24 | estate.
Apart from the 1109 argument -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And I've already suggested -- |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 90 of
108 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
90 | |\n| 1 | MR. CESARONI:
-- which -- | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- what you can do with these claims | |\n| 3 | with regard to this plan that you're going to file on behalf | |\n| 4 | of the debtor. | |\n| 5 | He can say in that plan that these claims are | |\n| 6 | invalid and that there will be a claims objection process | |\n| 7 | after confirmation.
But if he can't confirm a plan, | |\n| 8 | counsel, then it doesn't really matter.
Okay?
That's the | |\n| 9 | point. | |\n| 10 | MR. CESARONI:
Well, I -- | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
The point is, this is a Chapter 11 | |\n| 12 | case.
There's going to be a plan or there isn't going to be | |\n| 13 | a plan.
And the plan that is filed, if it is filed, has to | |\n| 14 | be confirmable. | |\n| 15 | If it's not confirmable, it really -- I'm not | |\n| 16 | going to spend this time -- this Court's time or resources, | |\n| 17 | or have to deal with discovery issues about the debtor going | |\n| 18 | after a claimant for depositions and interrogatories and | |\n| 19 | whatever else.
That is not going to happen. | |\n| 20 | MR. CESARONI:
I understand, obviously, the | |\n| 21 | Court's position, although, you know -- and I will just say | |\n| 22 | is -- the last point is that, you know, we very much do | |\n| 23 | believe that a large impediment to being -- and probably the | |\n| 24 | main impediment to being able to resolve this case is the | |\n| 25 | presence of claims which I don't know what the trustee's | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 91 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | opinion of their validity is, and I don't -- but the debtor, |\n| 2 | you know, obviously, doesn't believe that there are grounds |\n| 3 | for these claims to be allowed. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
What's the total amount of these three |\n| 5 | claims? |\n| 6 | MR. CESARONI:
So, it's about \\$10 million.
But of |\n| 7 | course the claim -- the claim bar date is not for some time |\n| 8 | now, so -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I'm asking about these three claims, |\n| 10 | \\$10 million, right? |\n| 11 | MR. CESARONI:
It's about \\$10 million. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. CESARONI:
So as that number would |\n| 14 | theoretically grow, it's going to make that problem even |\n| 15 | bigger, and we wanted to address it now, in the interest of |\n| 16 | being able to get to a point where we could, you know, |\n| 17 | potentially try to file a -- you know, the idea is to try to |\n| 18 | -- is to gain consensus and try to resolve this case. |\n| 19 | And obviously, neither the Court has ordered us to |\n| 20 | mediation, which, you know, the debtor, you know, fully will |\n| 21 | -- you know, will fully participate in, in hopes that this |\n| 22 | will work in good faith and hopes that this case can be |\n| 23 | resolved. |\n| 24 | But you know, it -- short of that, it's going to |\n| 25 | be very difficult with these claims sitting out here and the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 92 of\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
92 |\n| 1 | argument being that you're not -- the argument I think will |\n| 2 | be that, okay, debtor, you may have come up with -- you're |\n| 3 | saying the claims pool is this, but it's really not, it's |\n| 4 | this.
And I think that that would be -- that's a key issue |\n| 5 | that if we don't address it now, it is going to be |\n| 6 | detrimental, I think, down the line in this case, and that's |\n| 7 | why we moved quickly to do what we did. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand, but I'm |\n| 9 | overruling the objections to all three of those claims.
I'm |\n| 10 | going to enter an order that the debtor is not authorized to |\n| 11 | object to any claims without seeking authority to do so from |\n| 12 | the Court. |\n| 13 | And with regard to your comments, I understand |\n| 14 | your comments about the world of creditors, or the amount of |\n| 15 | money that might be at the -- exposed. |\n| 16 | But Chapter 11, you can file a plan that says if |\n| 17 | these are the amount of the claims, this is how it will |\n| 18 | work, Part A. |\n| 19 | If these are the amount of the claims, this is how |\n| 20 | it will work, Parts B.
If these are the amount of the |\n| 21 | claims, this is how it will work, Part C.
It's all |\n| 22 | completely doable.
It's been done time and time again, and |\n| 23 | the arguments that have been raised are not persuasive. |\n| 24 | The debtor does not have the authority or the |\n| 25 | standing to do what he's doing at this point in time.
A |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1440 | Filed 02/03/23 | Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 | Page 93 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
93 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | proof of claim bar date hasn't passed, and to say that the |\n| 2 | claims are invalid with a creditor who has no records, |\n| 3 | according to his schedule, no books or records, but can say |\n| 4 | that these claims are invalid, I'm not going to go down a |\n| 5 | path of discovery disputes and other issues that will waste |\n| 6 | this Court's time. |\n| 7 | If the debtor and the parties -- and I'm talking |\n| 8 | about all the parties, are really in good faith wanting to |\n| 9 | resolve this case, you now have an opportunity and a pathway |\n| 10 | to do that.
Okay? |\n| 11 | So the objection to the claims, all three, are |\n| 12 | overruled.
An order will enter that says that the debtor is |\n| 13 | not allowed to object to any claims unless and until he |\n| 14 | obtains authority from the Court to do so. |\n| 15 | MR. CESARONI:
Understood, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. KINDSETH:
So, Your Honor, just to be clear |\n| 17 | with respect to the overruling, can it be without prejudice, |\n| 18 | Your Honor, just so the record -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Well, I just said, you can seek |\n| 20 | authority to file -- |\n| 21 | MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
-- new claims. |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
That's what I said.
All right.
So |\n| 25 | what else do we need to address this afternoon? |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 94 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, can we add on Tuesday, a status conference only regarding the PJR? It's not going to be controversial, I don't think. THE COURT: Well, you can do whatever you want, but we're not having the PJR hearing in February as scheduled. So -- MR. DESPINS: No, no, we want to -- THE COURT: -- and if anybody didn't get that, then -- MR. DESPINS: No, no. We -- THE COURT: -- I don't know how much more I need to say. MR. DESPINS: We got that loud and clear. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: That -- it's not to revisit that. It's plumbing issues, Your Honor, that's -- that's basically it. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the status conferences on the proof of claim issue and the Epic issue, there is a couple of issues with regard to the Epic order and what I was told was going to happen and what's happening, which I think we can work out, but we need to work it out. I was told -- because I think, Mr. Despins, you'll remember that when -- you won't remember what happened Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 94 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 95 of\n\n| | 108 | |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 | 95 |\n| 1 | before you were appointed, but before you were appointed, | |\n| 2 | the debtor in possession wanted to have a claims agent, and | |\n| 3 | I said to counsel at that time, I see no reason why there | |\n| 4 | would be a claims agent in this case.
It will only result | |\n| 5 | in additional administrative expenses being incurred, and | |\n| 6 | the clerk's office is completely equipped to deal with | |\n| 7 | proofs of claim. | |\n| | | |\n\n The prior counsel for the debtor said okay, fine, we won't press that motion. We're not going to seek a claims agent, even though that claims agent started making service of things before there was ever any ruling on whether or not there would be a claims agent.\n\n This is not a Chapter 11 Southern District of New York, Delaware bankruptcy case of a corporation with -- you know, this is just not -- it's not that case.\n\n So then we had a discussion, Mr. Despins, when you came in and you said I would like to have a claims agent because I'm concerned about the confidentiality of certain proofs of claims and people are afraid to file proofs of claims because they believe that the debtor will go after them if they file proofs of claim.\n\n And I said, okay, well -- I wanted to be clear with Epic, because I talked about I don't -- then if that's all they're doing, why do we have an indemnification provision and all these other things? We went through this.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 96 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 96 So in any event, the order that was submitted, I think goes a little further than what I thought was going to happen, which is now I -- my understanding is that Epic is serving pleadings in the case. Not -- they're not just maintaining a claims register with confidential claims, but that they're serving different documents, and my understanding is that, you know, they -- there's not really any direction as to whom they should serve with what.\n\n And my problem with that is, that I -- I'm concerned with that. I don't know who they're serving, and they -- the other day we had a hearing where they didn't file their certificate of service until after the hearing started. So that doesn't really help me. I need to know who's being served, and why, and when, and have the certificate of service filed before a hearing, and that's not happening.\n\n Now, I didn't understand or appreciate that you were having them serve anything, because I thought the whole purpose of Epic was to maintain this confidential claims register. If you want them to serve things, then we need to get that in order because the order as it exists right now, are not -- is not clear on that.\n\n I also think they need to serve things differently, and they need to clean up their service list, because they're serving people that already are represented\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 97 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
97 |\n| 1 | by counsel, and they served Paul Hastings four times with |\n| 2 | things in the mail.
I don't understand that, and that's not |\n| 3 | going to be compensated.
Okay? |\n| 4 | This is a case where, as we all know, it's -- |\n| 5 | they're -- we're not going to incur administrative expenses |\n| 6 | unnecessarily.
It's only going to -- it's not going to help |\n| 7 | what everybody just said they want, which is a global |\n| 8 | resolution of this case. |\n| 9 | So, Mr. Despins, what I need you to do -- or |\n| 10 | whomever, you know, with you, helping you, is you've got to |\n| 11 | talk to Epic, and you've got to tell me exactly what they're |\n| 12 | doing and how they're doing it, clean up the service list, |\n| 13 | stop listing -- creating a document of people who get served |\n| 14 | electronically. |\n| 15 | Our local rules in every district court in the |\n| 16 | United States and bankruptcy court local rule says, the |\n| 17 | notice of electronic filing is the certificate of service. |\n| 18 | I don't need that again.
That doesn't need to be another |\n| 19 | page stuffed in an envelope for which they can get a copy -- |\n| 20 | and I'm not blaming them.
I'm not -- this isn't a blame -- |\n| 21 | I'm just saying, in this case, not happening.
We're |\n| 22 | cleaning this up.
This needs to be cleaned up. |\n| 23 | I need to understand what they're serving.
I need |\n| 24 | to understand who are they taking direction from, if |\n| 25 | anybody, and they should be.
They need to be taking either |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 98 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | direction from the clerk's office, or from the Court, or |\n| 2 | from you. |\n| 3 | And we -- or whomever files whatever.
I'm not |\n| 4 | just talking about you.
I don't know what they're serving. |\n| 5 | I don't know if they're serving other people's motions.
I |\n| 6 | have no idea what they're doing, but it needs to be cleaned |\n| 7 | up. |\n| 8 | And we may need to figure out a process where -- I |\n| 9 | don't know -- understand fully, but I mean, I think I |\n| 10 | understand but I haven't seen -- that they must be creating |\n| 11 | a confidential proof of claim register.
Fine.
That's fine. |\n| 12 | But I need to know how many claims are being |\n| 13 | filed, and there might need to be some kind of duplication |\n| 14 | of that claims register for the clerk's office, because the |\n| 15 | Court is supposed to maintain -- |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
-- the record of the case. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay?
There's no problem with |\n| 20 | sealing.
We've already done all that.
We agree, everything |\n| 21 | is going to be under seal.
Our clerk's office needs -- |\n| 22 | knows how things work under seal.
They do it on a regular |\n| 23 | basis, okay? |\n| 24 | So this -- I need you to tell me by Tuesday at the |\n| 25 | latest, if not before.
I want some kind of revised order |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 99 of
108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | regarding the retention and appointment of Epic, and if |\n| 2 | there -- are they just the claims agent, or are they the |\n| 3 | noticing agent? |\n| 4 | And if they are, then I want to know exactly |\n| 5 | what they're noticing and how they're noticing it, and make |\n| 6 | it very clear to them, they've got to clean up this service |\n| 7 | stuff. |\n| 8 | I'm not -- again, I'm not blaming them.
I'm just |\n| 9 | telling you, this is a very specific issue in this case that |\n| 10 | I do not want to have get out of control, and that's how |\n| 11 | that's going to work.
All right? |\n| 12 | Now it may be that they do have to serve |\n| 13 | everything.
And so maybe Epic has to talk to the clerk of |\n| 14 | the court before, you know, tomorrow and Monday, but they |\n| 15 | have to do it in a manner that makes sense.
Okay? |\n| 16 | And it may be that they have to serve everything, |\n| 17 | and I don't know the answer to this yet, but -- because they |\n| 18 | have that confidential claims register.
But they have to |\n| 19 | work that out.
Everybody's making assumptions about things |\n| 20 | and nobody really understands what everybody's doing, so we |\n| 21 | need to fix that.
All right? |\n| 22 | So I will -- we'll put this on the calendar on |\n| 23 | Monday -- Tuesday, excuse me.
But if you submit an order |\n| 24 | prior to that time, a revised order, and it makes sense, |\n| 25 | then -- and I enter it, then you know we don't have to talk |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 100 about it on Tuesday, okay? With regard to the -- so that's it on Epic. Anybody have any questions? MR. DESPINS: I would just say, Your Honor, that I have not, but my colleague, Mr. Bongartz has been in touch with them daily, and I understand they have been in touch with the clerk's office. They only served the bar date notice and the one order that -- I mean, I'll confirm that -- but that the clerk's office had asked them whether it was okay to -- THE COURT: They served a notice of hearing too. They did other things. And they -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- you just made me think of something when you said that. Now I lost it. Now, I don't remember. MR. DESPINS: Well, we'll -- THE COURT: In any event -- MR. DESPINS: -- we'll fix it. THE COURT: We just need you -- MR. DESPINS: We'll -- THE COURT: We just need to fix it up, that's all. MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. THE COURT: Just, we need to fix it. MR. DESPINS: Absolute. That's not an issue. THE COURT: That's all. We just need to -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 100 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 101 of
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
101 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
We will fix it, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- we just need to fix it.
Okay?
All |\n| 3 | right. |\n| 4 | Oh, I know what I was going to say.
Because the |\n| 5 | services agreement attached to the application doesn't say |\n| 6 | -- very -- if it said something about being a noticing |\n| 7 | agent, it only says it as if it is their title, as opposed |\n| 8 | to specifically delineating service of things.
Okay? |\n| 9 | And I think they did that on purpose because Mr. |\n| 10 | Despins said, hey, she doesn't want you doing all this |\n| 11 | stuff.
She wants you to just do the claims register, and |\n| 12 | they did you a favor, they -- you said, because they know |\n| 13 | they don't know if they're going to get paid, and I |\n| 14 | understand that.
I do understand that. |\n| 15 | And so I think the servicing agreement may have |\n| 16 | been different from ones they use in other cases.
They |\n| 17 | might have crossed some stuff out and things like that.
But |\n| 18 | just, somebody take a look at it and fix it. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
And we'll report to the Court and |\n| 20 | we'll see exactly what they'll do with respect to service, |\n| 21 | or not do, and we'll do all of that.
Okay. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
I know, it's not a problem, but |\n| 23 | I'm explaining to you how it needs -- I know it's going to |\n| 24 | get fixed, but that's what you have to do, you have to fix |\n| 25 | it. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 102 of
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
102 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
With regard to the proof of |\n| 3 | claim issue, the reason I put that on the calendar today for |\n| 4 | a status conference was because I didn't know what everyone |\n| 5 | was going to argue with regard to this issue about the |\n| 6 | proofs of claim that were filed and the objections to the |\n| 7 | proofs of claim.
I've heard the arguments.
I'm overruling |\n| 8 | the objections to the proofs of claim and allowing the |\n| 9 | debtor to file an application to object to a proof of claim |\n| 10 | in the future, which may or may not be granted. |\n| 11 | The issue I have, though, if there is still an |\n| 12 | issue with regard to the proof of claim process, is that Mr. |\n| 13 | Cesaroni, I'm -- whatever that order is that comes out that |\n| 14 | I just overruled these objections, you're going to have to |\n| 15 | serve that on those claimants so they know they don't have |\n| 16 | to file a response by February 17th.
I'm going to put that |\n| 17 | in the order, okay? |\n| 18 | MR. CESARONI:
Absolutely, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
So that they understand.
And my |\n| 20 | concern -- not about that, okay.
My concern overall is, |\n| 21 | it's January 26th, right, so we have a month left of proof |\n| 22 | of claims. |\n| 23 | And I have to tell you that I'm all considering -- |\n| 24 | and I will tell you on Tuesday whether I'm going to do |\n| 25 | anything different.
But I'm considering extending that bar |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 103 of
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
103 |\n| 1 | date.
Whether I will or not, I don't know, and I'll give |\n| 2 | you all the opportunity to tell me what you think about it |\n| 3 | on Tuesday.
And that's the reason that I put this matter on |\n| 4 | the calendar with all these other matters today. |\n| 5 | This has to be a process that's fair, transparent, |\n| 6 | and accurate and I don't want people to not file proofs of |\n| 7 | claim for any reason, no matter what it may be, if they |\n| 8 | believe they have a proof of -- a valid claim. |\n| 9 | Now, their claim may not be valid ultimately, but |\n| 10 | to -- I do not want there to be one possible perception that |\n| 11 | people should not file proofs of claim. |\n| 12 | If you want to go back and read Stern, Chief |\n| 13 | Justice Roberts was very clear about the Supreme Court's |\n| 14 | view of bankruptcy, which is it's a claims process.
And the |\n| 15 | claims process should not be disturbed in any way, shape, or |\n| 16 | form.
And so I'm telling you all now that I'm thinking |\n| 17 | about that, and I'll let you all tell me what you think |\n| 18 | about that on Tuesday.
Okay? |\n| 19 | I am not ruling on anything.
I'm just concerned |\n| 20 | given different issues that have been brought to the Court's |\n| 21 | attention, and the evidence that's been submitted today, |\n| 22 | quite frankly, in connection with this preliminary |\n| 23 | injunction motion for contempt. |\n| 24 | I'm not ruling on the contempt portion of the -- |\n| 25 | your motion today, Mr. Bassett.
I have to think about it. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1440 | Filed 02/03/23 | Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 | Page 104 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | 108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
104 |\n| 1 | I have to look at what you've submitted.
As you said, you |\n| 2 | filed this last night at 10:00 or whatever.
I didn't see it |\n| 3 | until now.
I've looked at it while we've talked about it, |\n| 4 | but I have to go back and look at it. |\n| 5 | I have to take into consideration some of the |\n| 6 | things that Mr. Wachen said.
I mean, all the exhibits are |\n| 7 | in.
I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary, but the |\n| 8 | last -- the exhibit on the article, you know, I said I'd |\n| 9 | give it whatever weight I think it's worth, right?
So I |\n| 10 | have to think about that, and I will. |\n| 11 | So what I'm going to do is continue the status |\n| 12 | conference on both the Epic -- I'm looking at the courtroom |\n| 13 | deputy now -- at the Epic matter and the proof of claim |\n| 14 | matter to Tuesday as well.
Maybe one of them may
not go |\n| 15 | forward if there's some kind of order on Epic before that. |\n| 16 | On the bar date issue, I'm going to keep that on |\n| 17 | the hearing because I'm going to -- no, I don't want anybody |\n| 18 | filing any papers.
Okay?
I know what everybody's positions |\n| 19 | are.
I don't need any papers.
I just want to hear what |\n| 20 | your thoughts are on the bar date issue, on whether or not |\n| 21 | the bar date should be further extended.
Okay? |\n| 22 | And I think that takes care of everything for this |\n| 23 | afternoon. |\n| 24 | Did you have something, counsel? |\n| 25 | MR. CANTOR:
Yeah.
May I be heard briefly, Your |\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 105 Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. CANTOR: Thank you. Daniel Cantor, Your Honor, from O'Melveny on behalf of PAX. Your Honor, PAX just wanted to express its sincere and deep thanks for the Court's decision to send this case to mediation, and for the process that it laid out in its order. We are very supportive of that process. We think it is exactly the right move at this point in the case. PAX intends to be an active participant in the mediation, it intends to be a constructive presence, and will do what it can to try and make all of this work. We hope and are hopeful that the mediation will succeed. But for any mediation to succeed, the parties need to trust and believe in the good faith of the parties that they are negotiating with in that process. You heard Mr. Cesaroni a moment ago, mention that Mr. Kwok will participate in good faith in the mediation. But frankly, Your Honor, it's a bit hard for PAX to believe that it has a good faith negotiating partner in Mr. Kwok, given the ongoing and very targeted campaign of harassment against PAX, its executives, and its outside counsel. For example, Your Honor, the demonstrations outside of Mr. Sarnoff's house continue again this morning\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 106 of
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
106 |\n| 1 | with no respect and no recognition of the time, place, and |\n| 2 | manner restrictions from Your Honor's preliminary injunction |\n| 3 | order. |\n| 4 | And earlier this month, Your Honor, Mr. Kwok's |\n| 5 | supporters filed a completely friviolous lawsuit against -- |\n| 6 | law suits, I should say, against PAX and Mr. Shan (ph) and |\n| 7 | O'Melveny and Mr. Sarnoff, claiming, among other things, |\n| 8 | that they are unregistered foreign agents of the People's |\n| 9 | Republic of China. |\n| 10 | Your Honor, this has to stop.
But the cessation |\n| 11 | of this campaign of harassment, Your Honor, it cannot be the |\n| 12 | end goal, merely the end goal of the mediation. |\n| 13 | It's not some sort of a bargaining chip to be |\n| 14 | passed across the table in order to achieve something |\n| 15 | through negotiation.
Rather, Your Honor, it is a necessary |\n| 16 | -- an extremely important condition in order to create an |\n| 17 | environment for productive negotiations. |\n| 18 | And, Your Honor, Mr. Kwok knows this.
As Your |\n| 19 | Honor heard during the preliminary injunction hearing, as |\n| 20 | Your Honor noted in your decision on the preliminary |\n| 21 | injunction motion, back in October, when the parties were |\n| 22 | having discussions about a potential resolution of this |\n| 23 | matter, Mr. Kwok broadcast to his supporters, calling on |\n| 24 | his, quote, fellow fighters, friends of the New Federal |\n| 25 | State of China, to stop doxing and harassing PAX's |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 107 of
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
107 |\n| 1 | executives, family members, and counsel. |\n| 2 | And you heard in the hearing that it was |\n| 3 | understood that that was necessary in order to -- for there |\n| 4 | to be a chance to have a successful negotiation. |\n| 5 | So, Your Honor, we just wanted to flag that as we |\n| 6 | head towards the mediation process, a mediation process that |\n| 7 | PAX truly hopes is going to result in a global resolution, |\n| 8 | as you mentioned several times today, and ends the disputes |\n| 9 | between the various parties and brings peace to this whole |\n| 10 | process.
So we just wanted to express that, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | Thank you very much. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
All right. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Mr. Despins? |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
I would just echo that, you know, |\n| 16 | 150 percent.
You know, and I'm saying this on my behalf, on |\n| 17 | behalf of Paul Hastings and my family.
I don't see how we |\n| 18 | can have constructive discussions when somebody is holding a |\n| 19 | gun to our head.
So I'm not going to go further than that, |\n| 20 | but I think that's a really important issue.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
And as noted, I noted it |\n| 22 | in the preliminary injunction motion, that it was obviously |\n| 23 | able to be accomplished back in October, and I would |\n| 24 | certainly hope that the parties that are in this courtroom |\n| 25 | would understand that there is a way to accomplish it again. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1440
Filed 02/03/23
Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54
Page 108 of
108 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023
108 |\n| 1 | So you'll need to talk to Judge Tancredi about all those |\n| 2 | issues.
Okay? |\n| 3 | All right.
That concludes the hearings today, so |\n| 4 | court is adjourned. |\n| 5 | THE CLERK:
All right.
Court is adjourned. |\n| 6 | (Proceedings concluded at 2:34 p.m.) |\n| 7 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter |\n| 8 | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct |\n| 9 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 10 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | February 2, 2023 |\n| 14 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 15 | Transcriber |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分院\n关于 * 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n* HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER\n* HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），\n*\n债务人。 *\n*\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA * 对抗程序编号 22-05032\nOPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲\n机会基金有限合伙企业）， *\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n原告， *\n2023年1月26日\n诉 *\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， *\n*\n被告。 *\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n关于强制遵守初步禁令并驳回个人债务人对债权申报所提异议的动议（紧急动议）庭审记录\n\n审理法官：尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁） 美国联邦破产法院法官\n\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人、HK AARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nInternational（HK国际）及 Mei Guo（郭美）： JOHN CESARONI, ESQ.（约翰·切萨罗尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nAlliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）： 28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：\n代表债权人，STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nPacific Asia Opportunity DANIEL CANTOR, ESQ.（丹尼尔·坎托尔律师）\nFund L.P.（太平洋亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）： O'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦文律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表第11章受托人： NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人： LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯潘斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表美国受托人： HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会： KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表被告 Kwok（郭文贵）： DAVID S. WACHEN, ESQ.（戴维·S·瓦钦律师）\nWachen LLC（瓦钦有限责任公司）\n11605 Montague Court\nPotomac, MD 20854\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n3\n（庭审于下午12:10开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及对抗程序编号 22-5032，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各位为记录目的说明出庭身份，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘斯），第11章受托人。\n\nHASTINGS先生：Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所），受托人的康涅狄格州代理律师。\n\nSARNOFF先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny and Myers（欧麦文律师事务所），代表债权人 PAX。与我一同出庭的是我的合伙人 Dan Cantor——Daniel Cantor（丹尼尔·坎托尔），来自 O'Melveny；为免让本地代理律师、来自 Robinson Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯）不得不跑到前面来说明其身份，我想我自己来说明。\n\n法官：下午好。谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\nMAYHEW先生：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 4 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n4\n委员会。\n\nROMNEY先生：早上好，法官阁下。Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表 HK International（HK国际）、Mei Guo（郭美）及债务人。不过，仅就该对抗程序而言，我们尚未在该案中出庭。\n\n法官：有人在此就该对抗程序出庭吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：Wachen先生。\n\n法官：哦，Wachen先生。抱歉——\n\nWACHEN先生：法官阁下，David Wachen（戴维·瓦钦）。\n\n法官：——Wachen先生。我看到您了。抱歉。我刚才只是在法庭里查看，所以我——\n\nWACHEN先生：没关系。\n\n法官：——弄糊涂了。抱歉。Wachen先生，您能否说明一下您的出庭身份？抱歉。\n\nWACHEN先生：当然，法官阁下。David Wachen（戴维·瓦钦），代表 Kwok先生。\n\n法官：好的。很好。下午好。好的。日程表上有若干事项。第一个事项，据我了解，可能有提出延期的请求。是这样吗，Despins受托人？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：请讲。\n\nDESPINS先生：为记录目的，Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘斯），第11章受托人。这是——这是关于延长 Sherry Netherland（谢里·内德兰酒店）出售程序的动议。各方已同意——当然，以法官阁下同意为条件——我们希望将此事项延期至下周二1月31日的听证会。已有一份拟议命令在各方之间传阅，除 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）目前外，所有人均予认可，因此他们正在考虑该命令；他们尚未来得及就此征询其客户意见，故我们尚未准备好今日就该事项出庭，因此我们同意将其延期至31日，当然以法官阁下同意为条件。\n\n法官：好的。请稍等一下。那么，Bravo Luck的代理律师今日未出庭。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：大概已假定该事项将延期至31日。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。我们确实发送了一封电子邮件——或者是 Linsey先生昨日向法庭书记员发送了一封电子邮件。我忘记了时间，但，您知道，请求将其延期，并且——\n\n法官：没关系。我的电脑有些问题，不过——不过没关系。因此，我不记得我坐在这里时，因为我的电脑有问题。31日是在下午什么时间，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 5 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n5\n11章受托人。这是——这是关于延长 Sherry Netherland（谢里·内德兰酒店）出售程序的动议。各方已同意——当然，以法官阁下同意为条件——我们希望将此事项延期至下周二1月31日的听证会。已有一份拟议命令在各方之间传阅，除 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）目前外，所有人均予认可，因此他们正在考虑该命令；他们尚未来得及就此征询其客户意见，故我们尚未准备好今日就该事项出庭，因此我们同意将其延期至31日，当然以法官阁下同意为条件。\n\n法官：好的。请稍等一下。那么，Bravo Luck的代理律师今日未出庭。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：大概已假定该事项将延期至31日。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。我们确实发送了一封电子邮件——或者是 Linsey先生昨日向法庭书记员发送了一封电子邮件。我忘记了时间，但，您知道，请求将其延期，并且——\n\n法官：没关系。我的电脑有些问题，不过——不过没关系。因此，我不记得我坐在这里时，因为我的电脑有问题。31日是在下午什么时间，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 6 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n6\n身份不明发言人：是。我想是2:30。\n\nDESPINS先生：2:30，法官阁下。\n\n法官：我在看法庭书记员。\n\n书记员：是。\n\n法官：她——好的。\n\n书记员：是2:30。\n\n法官：那么，我们将第一个事项，即12:57，延期至下午2:30，请给我一点时间，好吗？\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：好的。抱歉。我的电脑有些问题，但我能看见各位，所以我想我们会没事。好的。因此，第一个事项，1257，延期至1月31日下午2:30。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，就此感谢您。我们想知道是否可以稍微占用一下议程，讨论一个程序性——\n\n法官：我不——不。我不会先处理程序性事项。我将先处理证据事项，因为它们可能影响程序性事项。因此，我将先处理证据听证事项，即关于强制执行动议的问题——强制执行动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 7 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n1 DESPINS先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\nBassett先生\n2 将处理该事项。\n3 BASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，仅为记录目的，关于\n4 出庭身份，就对抗程序与主案而言，\n5 情况略有混淆。但仅为\n6 澄清记录，我想说明我们仅在\n7 主案中出庭。\n8 法官：\n我认为 Romney先生已经说明了，但\n9 没关系。\n10 BASSETT先生：\n我认为他没有说完\n11 那句话，但为记录目的，法官阁下，Aaron Romney，\n12 Steven Kindseth（史蒂文·金德塞思）和 John Cesaroni（约翰·切萨罗尼）代表债务人 Ho Wan\n13 Kwok（郭文贵）在破产案件中出庭。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n14 法官：\n你们在破产案件中还代表其他人，\n15 对吗？\n16 BASSETT先生：\n我们确实如此，但该事项——我并不\n17 认为存在涉及 Mei Guo（郭美）和 HK USA（HK美国）的事项。\n18 我们原本希望与法庭讨论 PJR 听证会，但\n19 法官阁下正在先处理本事项，而我们将代表他们——\n20 \n21 法官：\n今日的日程表上没有关于 PJR 听证会\n22 的事项，因此没有什么可讨论的。因此\n23 我们将处理强制执行动议。请继续。\n24 等一下。抱歉，Bassett先生。等一下。\n25 哦，对，对，对。好的。所以我所说的，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 8 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n8\nKindseth先生，是我们正在处理强制执行动议，而今日的日程表上没有关于 PJR 听证会的事项。因此，请继续，Bassett先生。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。下午好。再次为记录目的，我是 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。法官阁下，我认为，就我们所见，我们提交的动议大致有两个截然不同的部分。我们寻求的救济是——涉及债务人对债权申报提出异议的当事人资格；我们认为他不具备该资格；以及我们就他已提出的异议及其今后这样做的能力所寻求的救济。这主要是基于当事人资格的法律论证，实际将由受托人处理。其另一部分，关于 Kwok先生的代理律师，也以该方式有所区分。我相信该问题将由 Zeisler律师事务所处理。另一问题是强制遵守法庭初步禁令命令的动议。两者相关，因为问题在于，据我们所见，债务人持续从事违反初步禁令命令的行为，尤其是就债权人作出的陈述；我们认为这些陈述极有问题，并将作更详细讨论。我仅就结构提出的是，我们先处理第二部分，这是唯一有证据的部分；我将先从证据开始，然后我们可以就此进行论证。\n\n法官：这正是我需要你做的。\n\nBASSETT先生：好的。\n\n法官：对吗？我已看过该动议。里面有很多主张，所以我需要你向我出示支持这些主张的证据。\n\nBASSETT先生：明白，法官阁下。因此，证据——我们有——我们有这些文件的副本可提供给法庭。前两份文件，且在我们的动议中已援引，是债权人 Qiu Yu（邱玉）于1月6日提交的债权申报。\n\n法官：请为记录目的拼写该姓名。\n\nBASSETT先生：当然。是 Q-I-U，然后姓氏是 Y-U。Q-I-U 是名字，姓氏为 Y-U。在今日的整个过程中，您将会——将有证据表明该人士还使用 Gong Zu（龚祖）这一姓名，即名字为 G-O-N-G，姓氏为 Z-U。这两份债权申报可在债权登记册的债权申报 16-1 和 17-1 中查阅。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 9 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n10\n法官：两份债权申报都是以 Qiu Yu（邱玉）的名义提出的吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：是的。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。这——\n\nBASSETT先生：是的。我们将——我们将把它们作为一份证物，即受托人证物1提交。再次说明，如法庭需要，我可以向法庭提供其副本。\n\n法官：嗯，我认为在本次听证会中我确实需要，对吗？这是——你将提出证据以支持——\n\nBASSETT先生：明白。\n\n法官：——这些主张，所以，是的。\n\nWACHEN先生：法官阁下，我也没有看过该证物。据我所知，它并未提交至该对抗程序。\n\n法官：不会提交至该程序，因为它是债权申报，所以它只会提交在主案的债权登记册中。\n\nBASSETT先生：它是——\n\nWACHEN先生：不，我明白这一点，但是——\n\nBASSETT先生：抱歉，Wachen先生。我只是想说，因为这可能有帮助，这两份债权申报可在 ECF 公开查阅。我们仅提交\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 10 页，共\n\n1 以证明这些债权主张是由该个人提交的。\n\n仅此而已。它们是公开可得的。您显然可以——我们的动议中援引了它们，您知道，——它们很容易核实。\n\n法院：好的。那么您——您提议作为完整证物提交受托人证物1。您说的是1吗？如果您没有说1，我就将其定为1。\n\nBASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：是的，法官阁下，我说的是1。\n\n法院：好的。抱歉。谢谢。两份债权申报，载于本案22-50073主案的债权登记册中，编号为债权16-1和17-1？\n\nBASSETT先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。有人反对吗？我在看——这项动议既在主案中提出，也在对抗程序中提出。是同一项动议，对吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么——\n\nWACHEN先生（瓦申先生）：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——主案中有人反对吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。对抗程序中有人反对吗？\n\nWACHEN先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。那么我请您，Bassett先生，如您愿意，走到法庭书记员那里，她会将这些证物——这些债权申报作为一份文件标记为受托人证物1。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（受托人证物第1号已标记并准予作为证据）\n\n法院：听证会结束后，Bassett先生，我会请您——请您的办公室将这些文件作为听证会上提交的证物，以PDF格式提交至案卷，并附上法庭书记员将贴附于任何纸质文件上的标签。好吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：明白。我们会这样做。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nBASSETT先生：受托人拟提交的下一份证物，我将分为两部分提交，即2A和2B。这是一段债务人于2023年1月10日发布到其GETTR账户的视频。我们的动议中援引了该视频。实际上，我们昨晚也提交了——显然，视频本身并未提交——但我们随一份答复状提交了Douglas Baron（道格拉斯·巴伦）的声明。该声明载于对抗程序的ECF 160。\n\n法官阁下，该声明的附件F是一张截图——首先，该声明第2页至第3页——同样，这是ECF 160——显示了该视频在GETTR网站上的在线网址。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1440，于02/03/23提交，于02/03/23 15:38:54录入，第12页，共\n案件22-50073，文件1440，于02/03/23提交，于02/03/23 15:38:54录入，第13页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n随后，附件F是一张截图，包含该GETTR页面的一幅图像，该页面含有视频图片；其后附有经认证、公证的视频若干节选译文。\n\n我拟采取的做法是，并且我们在今日听证会之前已与法院沟通，不——不播放整个视频，因为视频本身是普通话，但我可以让我的同事向法院、为记录起见，播放视频开头的一小段，以表明该视频是我们拟提交的一份证物。\n\n我们可以与法官阁下协调，以适当方式将其提交给法院，使实际的视频文件成为案卷记录的一部分。\n\n我已与Wachen先生讨论了该文件以及我们清单中其他文件的认证问题，我相信我们已有共识，即双方同意我们提交的视频是真实的，确实可在债务人的GETTR页面上获得。但除此之外，至于他是否对该证物有其他异议，我须交由Wachen先生说明。\n\n但是，就相关性而言，法官阁下，这是一段1月10日——一段1月10日由债务人再次发布的视频，其中，如我们在作为附件F所附译文中所述，债务人提及了于1月6日提交债权申报的Qiu Yu（邱玉）女士，称提交该债权申报是黑帮行为，谈到此人正在说谎、这是假的，以及此人所说的一切都将被公布，等等。这些内容均载于我们所提交的经认证译文中。\n\n因此，我可以——我可以让我的同事播放该视频，然后我们会将该视频作为受托人证物2的第一部分提交，而Baron声明的附件F将作为其余部分，其中包括经认证的译文。\n\n法院：好的。那么请稍等。我认为我听明白了，但我想确认一下。\n\n因此，您提议作为完整证物提交的受托人证物2，将是——您要向我播放的实际视频？\n\nBASSETT先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么——\n\nBASSETT先生：连同经认证的译文。\n\n法院：好的。那么，实际视频来自Kwok先生的——哪个页面？来自@MilesGuo？\n\nBASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。请让我交由我的同事说明。\n\n（暂停）\n\nBASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。如果您看Baron声明中的附件F——\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1440\n于02/03/23提交\n于02/03/23 15:38:54录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n法院：嗯，我还没有看附件F——\n\nBASSETT先生：我们会发送——\n\n法院：——因为它是昨晚提交的。\n\nBASSETT先生：明白，法官阁下。它——\n\n法院：嗯，它是昨晚10:15提交的，对吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：所以我还没有看它。\n\nBASSETT先生：明白。当您有机会查看时，您会看到它确实是@MilesGuo这个用户名。\n\n法院：好的。我将会——我现在就会看它，因为我不会接纳任何我尚未看过的材料作为证据，明白吗？而且您也必须向我展示该视频。\n\nBASSETT先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：除非Wachen先生完全同意您不必展示视频，而且——您知道，这由你们两人决定。我不知道你们就此进行过什么讨论，但我现在正在调出我认为是附件F的文件，该附件附于文件160。\n\nBASSETT先生：正确。\n\n法院：在对抗程序22-5032中，\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1440\n于02/03/23提交\n于02/03/23 15:38:54录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n第41页中的第35页。嗯，第41页中的第34页是一份题为附件F的文件。\n\n接着，第41页中的第35页——看起来是一则帖子，其中央写有GETTR，也写有Miles Guo，带有一个V，一个红色圆圈中的白色V，我们在初步禁令听证会上曾讨论过这一点；@MilesGuo，后面有一个我会称之为圆点的标记，日期为1月10日。我不知道那是否就是其含义。\n\n我看到一张人物图片，带有一个——带有一个用于点击播放的录制符号，并写明该视频时长为7分49秒。它发布于——2022年1月10日上午7:33。\n\n而且我们知道，该发布时间，无论如何，可能因时区而有所不同。这是在——嗯，初步禁令听证会上作证说明的。\n\n还有一张人物图像，除了那个带有——我会称之为侧向箭头或播放按钮的黑色圆圈外，看起来是Guo先生，或者说，Kwok先生，我应该这么说，即出现在我面前的那个人。这就是我所看到的。\n\n然后，第41页中的第36页，是Divergent Language Solutions（分歧语言解决方案公司）的认证书，其证明所附译文据我所知和所信，是对所附Miles Guo于2023年1月10日在GETTR发布的、带有来源链接的文字记录节选从中文到英文的真实、准确译文，随后有一个链接，由Edward J. Jacob（爱德华·J·雅各布）代表Divergent Language Solutions签署。由公证人Matthew Zellick（马修·泽利克，音译）签字并宣誓认证。接着，第41页中的第37页是附件F的最后一页，看起来是Jacob先生将该视频音频部分翻译成英文的译文。这就是我所看到的。Wachen先生，您是否反对将该视频以及附于ECF 160的附件F作为受托人证物2准予作为证据？\n\nWACHEN先生：法官阁下，我确实反对该译文，因为他们提供的只是脱离上下文的节选。我原以为他们会提供整段视频的译文，但他们没有。因此，我认为仅仅看到这些——您知道，这些完全脱离上下文的小短语或句子，可能会产生误导。因此，我确实对此提出异议。我在听证会前与Bassett先生达成一致，他们拟提交的视频看来是真实的，即它来自互联网，尽管他们援引的链接实际上并非来自GETTR，而是来自一个Discord页面；但他向我展示了视频。他向我展示了它在互联网的何处，因此我同意他将提交的视频是——\n\n案件22-50073，文件1440，于02/03/23提交，于02/03/23 15:38:54录入，第17页，共\n\n案件22-50073\n文件1440\n于02/03/23提交\n于02/03/23 15:38:54录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n他将提交的视频是真实的。\n\n所以，我同意这一点，但我反对按目前拟议的方式提交该译文。\n\n法院：因为译文不完整，还是因为译文不准确？\n\nWACHEN先生：因为它不完整，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。Bassett律师，您的回应是什么？\n\nBASSETT先生：那么，法官阁下，正如法官阁下所观察到的，且Wachen先生也可以确认，这确实是一段7分50秒——将近8分钟的视频。\n\n制作这些经认证译文的费用极其高昂。我们所做的，也是在初步禁令听证会上对许多作为证据提交的视频所做的，我相信，就是将我们的工作重点放在对我们请求法院予以依赖的相关节选制作经认证译文上。\n\n如果Wachen先生想说，法院应当因为该文件——您知道，未包含完整语境、无法看到其他所有内容——而降低其所赋予该文件的证明力，那由法院决定。\n\n案件22-50073，文件1440，于02/03/23提交，于02/03/23 15:38:54录入，第19页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）案 - January 26, 2023\n\n1 如果 Wachen先生（瓦兴先生）希望提交一份完整的译文以显示更多上下文，那么，您知道，他可以自由这样做，但我们认为法院不应当，您知道，仅以完整、冗长的英文译文形式接受该视频作为证据。\n\n6 法院：\nWachen先生？\n\n7 WACHEN先生：\n是的。他们提交的是整个视频，而视频的第一行——或者译文的第一行——写道：“这是完全的黑帮行径”，但我们甚至不知道它指的是什么。这是在视频播放三分钟后出现的，我假定他们将会说明他们认为其指的是什么，但这完全脱离了上下文。\n\n14 BASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：\n法官阁下——\n\n15 WACHEN先生：\n而且我们没有人会说中文。\n\n16 BASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，请允许我说一句？该证据并非在真空中提交。正如法院将会看到的，我们请求准许作为证据提交的另外两份文件、另外两件证物，是同一天的帖文，事实上是在该视频发布后数小时内，由其 GETTR 页面顶部带有 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）横幅的 GETTR 用户发布；这些帖文与该债权申报完全相关，也与我们所持立场相关，即 Guo先生——或 Kwok先生及其同伙正在威胁债权人，包括本案中的该特定债权人。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n1 该特定债权人。\n\n2 因此，我们认为，该帖文所指为何以及 Kwok先生于 January 10th 发布的该帖文摘录所指为何，都非常清楚。但再次说明，您知道，这取决于法院。显然，这不是——没有陪审团。应由法院决定应给予经认证译文何种证明力；如果 Wachen先生的论点是，嗯，您知道，他不清楚其所指为何，那么我认为——您知道，法院可以将此纳入考量。但我不认为这是应当——您知道，应当阻止该文件被准许作为证据提交的理由。\n\n14 WACHEN先生：\n法官阁下，他要求您基于该视频所述内容的真实性作出某些结论或认定，而他提交的是——这是一段 7-minute 视频。他向您提交一段 7-minute 视频中约十行文字，并希望您据此对 Kwok先生作出某些不利结论。\n\n20 而举证责任在他们，而不在我们。不是我们提出了这项动议。他们才是——他们说这很昂贵。您知道，这是我第一次听到他们表达对费用的担忧。我的意思是，他们带着许多律师出庭。他们接连提出动议。Kwok先生必须为这些动议进行抗辩，费用很高。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n1 这些动议。\n\n2 如果他们要请求您根据该视频作出结论，那么是他们选择了这段七分钟视频，不是我，那么他们就应当提供该视频的完整文字记录，以使您能够了解上下文。或者，他们也可以不使用该视频。他们说他们有其他帖文，他们可以依赖那些帖文。如果他们不想，我们甚至无需谈论该视频。\n\n10 BASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，还有几点补充。\n\n11 法院：\n好的。\n\n12 BASSETT先生：\n请允许我说一句？\n\n13 首先，就 Wachen先生所暗示的情况而言，我们并非为证明所主张事项的真实性而提交此项证据，尽管无论如何这也不构成传闻证据，因为它本就是 Kwok先生的陈述。\n\n17 但我们提交该证据是为了显示 Kwok先生所说的话。您知道，是页面上的文字，而不是为了证明，例如，提交债权申报是否构成黑帮行径。显然，我们并不试图证明这一点。我们试图证明的是，该陈述曾被作出。\n\n22 关于我们将要提交的其他帖文，它们是由其他个人发布的，这些个人的页面顶部带有 New Federal State of China 标题；我们认为，基于法院在初步禁令命令及随附的备忘录裁定中的认定，非常清楚的是，这些与 New Federal State of China 有关联的个人正在与债务人积极共同行动、参与行动，并且他们正在接受他的指示。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n1 法院在初步禁令命令及随附的备忘录裁定中的认定是，这些与 New Federal State of China 有关联的个人正在与债务人积极共同行动、参与行动，并且他们正在接受他的指示。\n\n6 而该视频之所以如此关键，是再次因为其时间顺序。January 6th 提交了一份债权申报。January 10th 上午，Kwok先生发布了该视频。\n\n10 紧接着，另外两个账户——将是我们展示的下一批证物——其页面带有 New Federal State of China 标题，开始攻击该债权人，对该债权人进行人肉曝光，将护照信息发布到网上，并批评该债权人试图攻击吹哨人运动；法院已在初步禁令命令中认定，该运动受债务人控制。\n\n17 因此，这是一项关键证物。我们不能仅依赖另外两项，而且——再次说明，我们请求法院准许作为证据提交的内容——具有关联性，并且我们认为可以采纳。\n\n21 法院：\n请让我看看接下来的两件证物。\n\n23 BASSETT先生：\n当然。\n\n24 法院：\n然后我将保留对该证物的裁定。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 23\n\nBASSETT先生：那么下一件——下一件证物，法官阁下，是——我将把这些合并在一起，以便，我认为，使记录更为简明。这将是——受托人证物 3，即 ECF 160 所载 Baron声明中证物 A 和 B，具体而言，这——法官阁下，这将是该文件第 4 页（共 41 页）的证物 A 封面页。然后您将会看到——法官阁下，您将在其后看到一则 January 10th 的 GETTR 帖文。该帖文来自一个名称为 OXV Design，即 O-X-V、Design 的账户。再次说明，是我们之前谈到的红色勾选标记，以及用户名也是 @OXVDesign，其下方为 January 10th。该帖文目前在 GETTR 上可获取的网址，位于文件左上角，略被 ECF 时间戳遮挡。正如法官阁下将会看到的，该帖文为中文。不过，在其后我们附有整则帖文的经认证译文。您将会看到——我不会全文宣读，但其中有一张图片，上面有 Gong Zu（龚祖）和 Yu Qiu（俞秋）；正如法官阁下将会记得的，这是提交债权申报之人的姓名。然后其写道，前往了\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n1 美国康涅狄格州破产法院，以 \\$5,000 处理了该事项，将自己列入债权人名单，帮助 Luc（卢克）诋毁吹哨人运动。\n\n4 再次说明，法官阁下，为将此与上一件证物联系起来，这是 January 10th，同一天——如果您查看底部的时间戳，其发布时间为 11:40 a.m.。我相信，如果您查看我们刚才看过的证物 F——\n\n9 法院：\n我记得是 7:33 a.m.。\n\n10 BASSETT先生：\n证物 F 的发布时间是 7:33 a.m.，而证物 A 的发布时间是 11:40；该证物最后一项——另一组成部分，法官阁下，抱歉，如我所说，是证物 B。\n\n14 如果您翻到 Baron声明的证物 B，即第 11 页（共 41 页），我们提交此项仅为显示这是 OXV Design 的 GETTR 页面标题，因为该标题未出现在证物 A 的单独帖文页面上。但该标题页显示，该特定用户在顶部写有：我们是 NFSC 的公民。我们的使命是推翻邪恶的 CCP。\n\n22 因此，再次说明，法官阁下，这是由 GETTR 上某人发布的帖文；根据我们刚才查看的内容，该人非常明确地将其本人与 New Federal State of China 联系在一起。法院已在初步禁令命令中认定——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 25\n\n初步禁令命令及随附的备忘录裁定中认定，债务人创立了 NFSC，指挥 NFSC，并指挥吹哨人运动。\n\n再次，按时间顺序，January 10th 上午，债务人发布了我们刚才谈到的视频；数小时后，您有来自 New Federal State of China 的此人发布了一张图片，我认为法院可以，您知道，从该帖文推断出那是该债权人的图片，该债权人的姓名也发布在上面；该帖文批评此人帮助——用引号所称的——“诋毁”吹哨人运动，法院再次已经认定该运动由债务人指挥和控制。\n\n因此，法官阁下，据此我请求将该证物作为证据提交；显然，如果法院愿意，我们可以——我们可以重新讨论上一件证物，但或许在看完下一件证物后再这样做更为合理。\n\n法院：请先进行下一件证物，然后我们再重新审视这三件证物。\n\nBASSETT先生：当然。那么下一件证物，我们将以同样方式处理，法官阁下，即我将把 Baron声明中的两件证物作为今日听证中的一件证物提交。\n\nBaron声明中证物 C 的该封面页位于第 16 页（共 41 页）；法官阁下，您将会看到——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n1 法官阁下，这次稍微更难一些，因为——至少在未翻译版本中，用户名是中文字符。\n\n4 但在其下方，您会看到一个 at 符号，然后您会看到 P-I-A-O-C-H-A-N-G-H-A-I，接着一个点，再接着是 January 10th。我们已将这里发布的所有个人护照信息删节。但再次说明，我们已发送——Wachen先生已经看过未删节版本。\n\n9 然后，如果您查看其后内容，法官阁下，我们有一份经认证译文；您将会看到，其中显示该 GETTR 用户的名称为——我可能无法正确发音——Chang Hai Piao（张海漂），括号内为 Chang Hai Park, South Korea, Giangdo Farm（音）。\n\n14 其下方的帖文写道：“关于一个名为 Gong Zu 的小混蛋 Discord 的更多吹哨新闻，其真实姓名是 Yu Qiu。同志们，请尽力调查。我听说她与 Di Dong Fang（音）的关系很好。”有一个表情符号。“你认识她吗？”\n\n19 法官阁下，在其后，证物 D，我们再次将如先前所做——顺便说一句，我应当为记录说明，该帖文的发布时间是 January 10th 10:53 a.m.。\n\n23 如果您查看证物 D，法官阁下，我们再次提交该证物，是为了显示该特定 GETTR 用户在其 GETTR 页面顶部横幅上写有：我们是\n\nNFSC（新中国联邦）的公民。我们的使命是推翻邪恶的中共。\n\n我认为我无需解释，您知道，我们为何引入该证据及其相关性，因为这与我为上一份证物所作的说明相同；但这两份是我们拟提交作为证据的接下来两份证物，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。\n\n瓦申先生，您是否反对完整准予受托人证物3和4入证？\n\n瓦申先生：是最后两份吗？不反对，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。证物3和4完整准予入证。\n\n（受托人证物第3号和第4号标记并准予入证）\n\n法 院：巴塞特先生，您必须将那些文件以PDF形式提交给法院，因为您现在没有那些文件可交给法庭书记员，对吗？它们只是ECF 160的一部分？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：但我们显然——我们——\n\n法 院：好的。\n\n巴塞特先生：——当然会将它们提交给法院。\n\n法 院：好的。关于受托人的——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023\n\n受托人证物2，您是否要——请播放视频，以便我能够观看。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。请法院准许。请稍候，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：当然。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法 院：现在，瓦申先生将如何看到该视频？他能看到吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：嗯，这确实——确实会造成一个问题，因为他通过Zoom在线，法官阁下。从技术上讲，我认为他将无法看到；但我也——我不想替他发言，不过我认为他有该视频，而且我可以向他陈述，我们播放的是他已看过并且在线可见的同一段七分四十九秒视频。\n\n法 院：好的。\n\n瓦申先生：我确实——在我的Zoom屏幕上，我确实有法院的所有这些其他窗口。我不——也许它会显示在——\n\n巴塞特先生：不会，问题在于我们是通过硬线连接至显示器播放，因此未与Zoom连接。\n\n法 院：不，我认为它不会显示给您，瓦申先生。我认为它只会在法庭内投影。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023 29\n\n瓦申先生：好的。\n\n法 院：但我们看看。\n\n巴塞特先生：是。\n\n瓦申先生：我看过该视频，所以如果这是您昨天发给我的同一视频，那就可以。\n\n法 院：好的。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：我可以陈述，确实如此。那里的这个视频是静音的。不，它在——在这里是静音的。是。\n\n（随后，为记录而播放了视频录像）\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我暂停播放只是想问，法院是否希望我们——我们显然可以播放完整的八分钟视频。我也可以播放我们拟提交的英文译文所对应的中文节选，或者我们可以在此停止。我愿按法院希望的方式进行。\n\n法 院：瓦申先生，您对于应播放视频的哪一部分有何立场？\n\n瓦申先生：我不知道是否还需要播放更多内容——我的意思是，我们都不会理解，所以我——您知道？我同意确有一段视频被发布。\n\n法 院：但您反对——\n\n瓦申先生：我最主要的担忧是——\n\n法 院：——您反对该——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 29 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023 30\n\n瓦申先生：——关于译文。\n\n法 院：好的。您同意确有一段视频被发布。您同意视频中的人是您的当事人郭先生。对吗？\n\n瓦申先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。那么，您的异议——其余部分——因此，对于那两项事实，您并无异议。但对于作为ECF 160附件F提交、且昨晚提交的译文，您反对该译文入证，因为它仅是完整视频的一部分，并且——对吗？\n\n瓦申先生：而且是很小的一部分。而且——其中的部分内容——我的意思是，他们从视频中翻译了几行。我假定译员必须翻译整个视频，才能找到这些特定片段，而这些内容完全脱离上下文。我的意思是，没有——怎么——我不知道您如何能够——从一段八分钟的视频中，如何能从大约50个词中得出上下文，我的意思是——我没有统计过，但我的意思是，这只是一小撮词语。\n\n巴塞特先生：法官阁下，至少，我的意思是——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 30 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023\n\n他称其脱离上下文，但在本争议的——以及我刚刚说明的其他证物的上下文中，无争议的是，除非瓦申先生称其质疑译文，否则郭先生在该视频中绝对是在指称此人、该债权人。\n\n我的意思是，这里有几句话，于秋，您知道，宫主百分之百是在说谎和造假。百分之百。我的意思是，法院已看过债权申报书，已看过债权申报书上的姓名。法院已看过其他证物。\n\n所以我不——他可能，您知道——我不知道他认为还需要什么其他上下文，但这些翻译节选本身证明了该视频的相关性。\n\n法 院：请您跳至视频的三分零五秒，并至少播放至三分四十秒。\n\n（随后，为记录而播放了视频录像）\n\n法 院：我无法——是的，我正要说，您一定是——我确实看不清。\n\n巴塞特先生：是。我们现在到3:54了，而且我会——显然，法官阁下听到了法官阁下所听到的内容，但在我听来，您能听到郭先生说出宫主这个名字，该名字同样在译文中，且对此并无争议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 32 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023\n\n我们也乐意播放其他部分。\n\n瓦申先生：我不——我不——我不——我并不否认他提到了她的名字，或者他认为这是一项虚假债权。但我会说，那又怎样。而且——但其中另一些内容，我的意思是，我就是不知道——如果全部重点是他是否在视频中谈到了这名女子，我同意他谈到了。\n\n法 院：巴塞特先生，这对您来说是否足够？\n\n巴塞特先生：这对我来说不够，法官阁下，因为这不只是他提到了她的名字。坦率地说，是他所作出的煽动性和骇人听闻的陈述。他称她们为间谍。您知道吗？\n\n瓦申先生：嗯，他——\n\n巴塞特先生：有——等一下。让我——\n\n瓦申先生：嗯，他——\n\n巴塞特先生：——我的意思是——但这里有这样的表述，对吗？即，宫主百分之百是在说谎和造假，百分之百。现在，像宫主这样的这些间谍已经出现。并且，您知道，这完全是黑帮行径。\n\n所有这些都——都具有相关性，因为这不只是他——这不是——这不是郭先生上网说，大家好，我恭敬地不同意针对我的破产财产提交的一份债权申报书；而且，如果认为这会被如此解读，我想我们是在自欺欺人。这则信息的语气截然不同，这就是为什么我们认为所有已翻译的节选都应成为记录的一部分。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 33 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023\n\n法 院：还有什么要补充的吗，瓦申先生？\n\n瓦申先生：法官阁下，我认为是的，他批评她的债权。他认为这是一项虚假债权。而我没有看过该债权申报书，所以我不能——Zeisler（泽斯勒）的同事可能可以谈谈该债权申报书本身，但我认为它是我们提出异议的其中一项，不过我不能——因为我没有看过它，我对此并不确定。\n\n但是，是的，他批评该债权，而且，您知道，他是否说她在说谎和造假？我认为这可能是他的看法。但我不知道是否有任何——我的意思是，我认为他有权表达其对一名债权申报人的意见。\n\n法 院：好的。我将完整准予受托人证物2入证。证物4之后，您还有其他证物吗？\n\n（受托人证物2标记并准予入证）\n\n巴塞特先生：我相信只有另外两份，法官阁下。第一份是——\n\n瓦申先生：法官阁下，我能否——法官阁下，很抱歉打断巴塞特先生，但我能否——我只是——在我们进行得太远之前，我只想提一下某件事。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 34 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023\n\n我们收到了法官阁下的调解命令，我们与对方讨论了，实质上尝试将这些问题搁置至March 3rd，并且我们将——郭先生愿意采取某些措施，以某种方式维持事态——\n\n法 院：我并不真正想听这些，瓦申先生。这就是您正在进行调解的原因，好吗？\n\n瓦申先生：好的。\n\n法 院：调解命令明确规定，原已排定于周二、两天前、今天和周一举行的听证会将继续进行。\n\n所以，我感谢你们正在交谈，但我不能参与其中，好吗？这就是您正在进行调解的原因。所以——请继续交谈。但现在，本次听证会已经排定并将继续进行，而这正是我们正在做的事。好吗？不过，仍然谢谢您。请继续，巴塞特先生。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。下一份——再次说明，我认为只剩两份。下一份证物是巴伦声明的附件E，E如Edward中的E。\n\n法 院：您提议将其作为受托人证物5，对吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：好的。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵） - January 26, 2023 35\n\n巴塞特先生：而这——我很抱歉。该证物始于该声明的第28页，共41页。\n\n如果您翻到第29页，共41页，您会看到这是另一则GETTR帖子。这一则的用户名是Miles Guo（郭文贵），然后在其下方，有法院此前注意到的红色勾选标记；在其下方是带有一个圆点的@MilesGuo，然后是January 13th。其后发布的内容为普通话。\n\n如果您看其后面，有一份经认证的译文。经认证的译文载明，日期为January 13th, 2023：“尊敬的同志们，您好。Paul Hastings Law Firm（宝盛律师事务所）正在发起一项登记债权人的活动。如果有意志不坚定的同志，认为自己的投资和过去的投资没有安全感，需要成为债务人，并且如果您认为这是一个更好的选择，您必须尽快联系Paul Hastings Law Firm，在Connecticut破产法院登记，也许您可以成为亿万富翁。”\n\n其下方似乎还有其他用户发布的几条评论，我不会将其宣读进入记录，但它们是该帖的一部分。\n\n而这就是——这就是受托人证物5的全部内容，法官阁下。至于我们提交它的理由——我们的动议实际上涉及两个问题。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\nPage 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- January 26, 2023\n\n1 我们认为违反初步禁令命令的陈述，涉及骚扰债权人以及劝阻人们向破产财产提出债权申报。\n\n4 然后，正如我们在动议中所讨论的，另一个问题是债务人曾在网上发表陈述，鼓励人们提出债权申报；我将在论辩中进一步说明这为何相关，以及为何需要予以制止。但这就是我们提交本证据的原因。\n\n9 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。Wachen 先生（瓦琴先生），您是否反对接纳证据5？\n\n11 WACHEN 先生：\n不反对，法官阁下。\n\n12 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。主案中是否有人反对证据5？\n\n14 CESARONI 先生（切萨罗尼先生）：\n不反对，法官阁下。但为记录在案，我认为这是本程序中禁令部分的一部分，因此我们遵从 Wachen 先生的意见。\n\n17 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。受托人证据5全部准许作为证据。\n\n19 （受托人第5号证据获准作为证据）\n\n20 BASSETT 先生（巴塞特先生）：\n谢谢，法官阁下。最后一项——最后一项证据是受托人证据6，即 ECF 160 中 Baron 声明的证据G。其始于第38页，共41页。\n\n24 本次无需翻译，因为该文件本身为英文。法官阁下，本证据所显示的是——这是从一篇文章打印出来的，我不——噢，我本想说，我相信这里没有网址，但网址载于 Baron 声明中。因此，若您查看 Baron 声明的第G页——抱歉，第3页，第8段，其中写道：“随附作为证据G的是一篇于 January 25th, 2023 发布于 Gnews.org 网站的文章的英文版本，该文章可通过以下网址获取。”随后，该内容出现的网址，法官阁下，是 Gnews.org/articles/828166。\n\nG News（G 新闻）发布的这篇文章，法庭在其就初步禁令作出的备忘录裁定中，我相信是在第9段，已认定其为与 Kwok 先生一致行动的实体；该实体由其控制。并且，再次说明，其中进一步讨论了鼓励人们提出债权申报。\n\n如果法庭查看该文件的第二页，这篇文章在第二页第一完整段中谈到的是：“Guo 先生（郭先生）建议，所有同志都可以登记，因为他们曾投资于 G TV（GTV），但 G TV 被伪定性为一起欺诈案件，且 SEC 对其进行了调查，因此同志们投资的资金被 SEC 扣留，同志们正向 SEC 索要资金。”\n\n“但是，在破产案件中，同志们可以登记为 Guo 先生的债权人，并接受其他同志的登记。如果所有同志都去登记，他们将构成债权人的多数，那么 Guo 先生赚得的钱将分配给同志们，而 Guo 先生非常愿意这样做。”\n\n“此外，作为多数的战友可以主张对 Lady May 号船和第18层的所有权，同样，多数也将交由战友之手，以此处理并使所有人皆大欢喜。”然后其后还继续谈及其他内容。\n\n11 因此，法官阁下，我提交该文件。再次说明，即 Baron 声明的证据G，作为受托人证据6。\n\n14 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。Wachen 先生，您是否反对接纳受托人证据6？\n\n16 WACHEN 先生：\n反对，法官阁下。\n\n17 这似乎是多层传闻，而且它声称是在引用我的当事人，但我们不知道是谁写的，也没有真正的方法核实——我是说，我接受它来自互联网这一事实，但我的当事人是否实际说过这些话，正是我对此所存在的问题。因此，我确实反对接纳这一项。\n\n24 法庭：\n好的。\n\n25 BASSETT 先生：\n法官阁下，我认为该文件并未声称引用 Guo 先生。相反，如我刚才向法庭宣读的，这是一篇表达观点的文章，内容是同志们可能在本案中提出债权申报。\n\n5 而且，正如法庭可从网址及第一页标签中看到的，该文章发布于 G News 网站。\n\n8 再次说明，该组织是法庭已经认定由 Guo 先生控制的组织，与我们都很熟悉的其他 G 系列实体一同，包括 G TV、G Fashion（G 时尚）等。\n\n12 因此，就传闻问题而言，我有两点意见。首先，我们并非为证明所陈述事项的真实性而提交该文件。我们提交该文件，是为了证明由 Guo 先生控制的实体 G News 正在以我已宣读并记入记录的方式，在网上传播鼓励债权人在本案中提出债权申报的信息。\n\n19 即使我们是为证明所陈述事项的真实性而提交它——而我们并不是——正如我所说，这是法庭已认定由 Guo 先生控制的实体。因此，我认为从这一角度看，它可以被视为对方当事人的承认。但再次说明，我认为法庭无需讨论这一点，因为我们并非为证明该文章中任何陈述或所载事实的真实性而提交它。\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX 诉 Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n40 法庭：\n所以，您提交它的目的，是为了证明这篇文章于 January 25th, 2023 发布在 G News Org 网站上？\n\nBASSETT 先生：\n是的，并且是为了证明其中包含鼓励同志们去登记的陈述。再次说明，这并不是——我们不是在提交它——我们并非试图根据这里所说的内容证明任何事实。我们提交它，是为了表明这则信息由 G News 在网上传播。我的意思是，这——这由该文件本身即可证明。\n\n法庭：\nWachen 先生？\n\nWACHEN 先生：\n我的理解是——或者说，我相信他们提交该文件是为了证明 Guo 先生，或 Kwok 先生，正在鼓励人们提出债权申报。因此，他们是为证明其所说内容而提交，而非证明这一事实——所以——如果它并非引用他，那么我们就不知道是谁写了这篇文章。我们不知道——您知道，它声称——它声称传达与 Guo 先生所提倡内容有关的某些事项，因此我认为它具有偏见性且不可靠，因为——没有真正的方法核查它，或对撰写它的人进行交叉询问，以查明：这是否仅仅是某人对相关情形的意见？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n第 40 页\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n第 41 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok/PAX 诉 Kwok - January 26, 2023\n\n1 这是否确实是 Guo 先生所说的，因为我认为这与视频不一致，也与他们展示的 Guo 先生的一些其他内容——GETTR 帖文——不一致。\n\n5 BASSETT 先生：\n法官阁下，两点——\n\n6 WACHEN 先生：\n因此，这就是我所担忧的——\n\n7 BASSETT 先生：\n抱歉。\n\n8 法庭：\n请继续，Wachen 先生。\n\n9 WACHEN 先生：\n不，因此，我担忧的是，这份文件是为证明其所说内容而提交的。我认为它是为证明真实性而提交的。\n\n12 BASSETT 先生：\n法官阁下，对此我有两点简短回应。\n\n14 第一，我们此前查看的证据，即受托人证据5，表明 Guo 先生曾主张人们提出债权申报。我们并非为该目的提交本文件，即受托人证据6，因为我们已有另一项证据。\n\n19 我们引入本文件，是为了表明 G News 在这样做。我认为这——这从该文件本身即可不言自明，而且我们已经通过事实认定在本案中确定，Guo 先生控制 G News。\n\n24 WACHEN 先生：\n嗯，我认为这篇文章声称传达 Guo 先生一直在说的内容，而且我不认为——我不认为 G News 发布的每一项内容都能归属于 Kwok 先生，作为他所说的话，或说他——他授权了所有这些传播内容。它只是某些被发布的内容。\n\n5 我是否同意他曾主张有债权的人提出债权申报？是。但这篇文章所说的略有不同，我不知道这是否只是某人的解读或其他什么，但就他们提交它所要证明的内容而言，它并不可靠。\n\n11 如果——如果他们所要表明的只是他在鼓励人们提出债权申报，他们已有 GETTR 帖文。我不确定他们为何需要这个。\n\n14 法庭：\nBaron 先生（原文如此），还有其他补充吗？\n\n15 BASSETT 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n16 法庭：\nWachen 先生，还有其他补充吗？\n\n17 WACHEN 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n18 法庭：\n好的。我将不顾反对意见，准许证据6作为完整证据，并将给予其我认为适当的证明力。\n\n21 （受托人第6号证据已标记并准许作为证据。）\n\n23 BASSETT 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。我相信这结束了受托人就该动议进行的证据陈述。\n\n1 法庭：\n然后我们将讨论其法律层面，接着您希望我将其作为一个整体作出裁决，还是我们将如何——\n\n4 BASSETT 先生：\n嗯，所以我原本——我原本打算——法官阁下，我所提议的是，我将——再次说明，由于我们某种程度上已将此分开处理，对吗，Wachen 先生和我处理的部分，是有证据的部分，刚刚提交的证据与该部分相关。\n\n10 因此，我提议就该问题继续进行受托人的论辩。Wachen 先生可以回应，并且如果——您知道，显然为反驳保留一些时间，之后我们可以处理另一项独立的、我会称之为更具法律性质的资格问题，该问题由不同的律师负责。但我当然乐于按照法庭认为最妥当的方式进行。\n\n17 法庭：\n嗯，如果债务人不具备资格，那么——嗯，我想还是按照你们已进行的方式继续，但我认为资格是一个——\n\n20 BASSETT 先生：\n嗯，这——\n\n21 法庭：\n——门槛性问题，不是吗？\n\n22 BASSETT 先生：\n不，是的，法官阁下。我想澄清的是，我认为问题并非——并非债务人是否有资格回应我们要求执行初步——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n第 44 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年1月26日\n\n法庭：\n我明白。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n——禁令。\n\n法庭：\n但是你们的——诉讼资格问题——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是就提交……债权证明的诉讼资格。\n\n法庭：\n——取决于他们是否拥有——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n——债权。\n\n法庭：\n——对债权证明提出异议的权利。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n正是如此。\n抱歉。\n正是如此。我——\n\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n那么，你们的动议所称的是，法庭——嗯，你们请求法庭做什么？让我问你们这个问题。你们请求法庭做什么？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n如果我说错了，我的同事当然会补充，但在我们的动议中，我们请求法庭作出命令，认定债务人无权对本案中提交的债权证明提出异议；撤销其已提交的异议；除非其事先获得法庭许可，否则禁止其进一步申请禁令——或者对债权提出异议。这是第一部分。\n\n第二部分是，我们请求法庭——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年1月26日\n\n作出一项执行命令；如有必要，因债务人未遵守初步禁令命令及其之前的临时限制令（TRO），认定债务人藐视法庭；依据是其作出了我们所提交证据显示其已作出的陈述，以及这些陈述导致新中国联邦（NFSC）追随者作出的陈述。\n\n因此，这些就是——这就是——我认为这概括了我们在动议中所寻求的救济，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，瓦肯先生和巴雷特先生（原文如此），关于证据问题以及你们显然已就所称违反初步禁令事项进行拆分的部分，你们还要告诉我哪些此前尚未告诉我的内容？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下，您是在问我，还是问瓦肯先生？\n\n法庭：\n是问你们两位。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n哦，那么——\n\n法庭：\n你们还要告诉我什么？我的意思是——\n\n巴塞特先生：\n嗯，法官阁下，我本来要说的只是，我们认为法庭于1月11日作出的初步禁令命令及其所禁止的事项非常明确。公平地说，我们所展示的一些帖子发布于1月10日。当时临时限制令仍然有效。\n\n临时限制令和初步禁令都非常明确地——初步禁令命令第2段就是如此——禁止债务人采取任何干扰其第11章案件完整性的行动。\n\n法庭是在广泛的证据陈述之后作出该命令的，同时还作出了一份非常详尽、详细且论证充分的备忘录裁决，其中考量了该等证据，包括证据和认定：促成该禁令的部分原因是，债务人一直作出的陈述确实在干扰债权人，并使其失去参与债权程序的动力，劝阻其参与债权程序。\n\n因此，紧接着，在1月10日——随后发生了两件事。1月10日，债务人发布了这个视频，他立即——我的意思是，只过了几天。该债权证明已提交——日期为1月6日。\n\n我实际上不确定它何时在ECF上公开可得。无论如何，大约四天后，债务人在GETTR上点名一名提交该债权证明的人，称提交该债权证明是黑帮行为，称该人撒谎，并称参与本案的后果将是其信息会在网上被公开披露。随后发生的事情——正如我们在初步禁令听证会上所展示的，每次债务人过去做出同类行为时都会发生——是他的追随者立即被动员起来。他就某一议题发布的最初帖子就是动员令。数小时内，我们就有两人在带有顶部新中国联邦横幅的GETTR账户上发帖，开始攻击同一债权人。有人在网上发布护照。有人还指责该人试图诋毁吹哨人运动。这一切都是为了维持这些行动，动员其他追随者，让所有其他人排队，对那些胆敢反对该债务人、胆敢在本案中提交债权证明的人进行人肉搜索和威胁。因此，我们认为，债务人的帖子显然在干扰这一第11章程序。对此毫无疑问。他在该债权证明提交后立即点名一名提交债权证明的债权人。这些带有新中国联邦横幅发帖的其他人，法庭已认定新中国联邦与债务人积极协同行动并参与其中。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与速记服务公司）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年1月26日\n\n因此，我们认为毫无疑问已经发生违反行为，但该帖子尚未删除。\n\n我认为，法庭初步禁令命令第3段规定，债务人必须删除所有违反上述第1段和第2段的社交媒体帖子。\n\n上述第2段是关于干扰第11章程序的段落。这些帖子仍然存在。你现在就可以访问该网站，它们仍在那里。毫无疑问，他正在违反初步禁令命令。\n\n债务人所做的另一件事——这是在1月23日的帖子以及1月25日的G News（G新闻）文章中——是他在外界进一步干扰第11章程序的完整性，鼓励其世界各地的同伴前来以债权证明淹没案卷。\n\n而且，如文章所示，我的意思是，债务人的目的是什么？大概是使受托人的工作更加困难，干扰受托人调查的进展，以及本案中其他至关重要的事项。\n\n然后，该文章还提到，您知道，您将能够，您知道，在本案中发表意见。您知道，或许债务人的目标是试图争取——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1440\nFiled 02/03/23\nEntered 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年1月26日\n\n对某项计划的支持。我不知道。\n\n但我确实知道的是，债务人在网上发帖，鼓励人们以将干扰程序的方式向本法庭提交债权证明。\n\n因此，这是我们认为的另一种方式——确实没有争议。\n\n这违反了初步禁令第2段的明确措辞以及——毫无疑问——其精神，该段禁止他干扰本案的完整性。\n\n瓦肯先生的论点及其异议是，没有不遵守的证据。我认为证据不言自明，而且绝对存在不遵守初步禁令命令的证据。\n\n他还称，无需进一步命令。债务人未予遵守的事实，这些帖子继续留在网上的事实，本身就是确实需要进一步命令的证据。\n\n至少，债务人需要知道，他所做的行为不符合初步禁令命令；如果他对此曾有任何疑问，也应消除该疑问。如果他不这样做，就应被认定藐视法庭。\n\n该异议还称——试图论证——债务人所做的事情无害，因为如果说有什么的话，他只是在对不当债权提出关切。您知道，我甚至不知道该如何回应。\n\n如果他对不当债权有疑虑，他可以尝试以程序上和法律上正确的方式提出。\n\n但是，在网上称他人为黑帮分子，通过让追随者公布护照信息来对其进行人肉搜索，并不只是对有效债权提出关切。这是恐吓，法庭已认定债务人曾实施此种行为。\n\n这——这些是主要观点，法官阁下。我们认为，总而言之，初步禁令命令及其之前的临时限制令对于其所禁止的事项非常明确，而结合本法庭作出的备忘录裁决及其事实认定，这一点更加明确。\n\n我们还认为，我们所提交的证据很明确，债务人所做的事情正在违反该命令，并且正产生我们一贯担忧的完全相同的有害影响，因为这正在动员其世界各地的追随者造成更多损害。\n\n因此，这就是我们认为我们有权获得所请求救济的原因，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。瓦肯先生，你对巴塞特先生的论点有何回应？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年1月26日\n\n瓦肯先生：\n法官阁下，我们强烈反对他的论点。我们认为郭先生并未以任何方式违反该命令。该命令谈及以任何方式干扰本案的完整性，而且其具体——唯一具体提及的是涉及某些人员安全的问题，即受托人、PAX、关联高管等人员。\n\n没有指称郭先生就这些人员的安全做过任何事情。巴塞特先生甚至没有提及这一点。\n\n至于程序的完整性，我反而会说郭先生关心程序的完整性，因为他关心这项个别债权，他认为该债权是虚假的，并且他正在指出这一点。\n\n他们说，嗯，在第11章案件中有一种提出方式，但他们又说，他不应被允许在第11章案件中提出异议。那么，他可以在哪里——他可以在哪里表达他的关切？\n\n我认为，您的这项命令中没有任何内容禁止他表达对虚假债权的关切。\n\n该命令中也没有任何内容禁止他鼓励人们在其拥有正当债权时提交债权证明。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日 52\n\n而且他的 GETTR 帖子所说的仅此而已，即如果你有一项请求权，你可以提出申报。如果有任何问题，你会认为——我的意思是，我认为这正是受托人试图做的，即让有请求权的人提出申报。因此，我看不出这如何构成不一致。至于他所说的或许你可以成为亿万富翁之类的话，我认为，当你结合其上下文来阅读时，很明显这是讽刺。这不是——这不是——实际上仅此而已。无论如何，这就是我的理解，而且，你知道，这里的部分问题在于，这些内容大多是用中文写的。有时翻译过程中会失去一些含义。例如，“gangster”一词的使用，我不——我的意思是，该词完全脱离上下文被提出，但你知道，它在中文中可能具有我们未能充分理解的某种含义。但他是在批评一个他认为不具有实质依据的请求权主张人。我也了解其中的一些细节。债务人的破产法律顾问，我认为，或许能够更详细地说明该特定请求权存在什么问题。但这是他的关切，我认为他有权提出。如果有任何问题，我看不出对某一特定请求权及其是否合法表示关切，如何会以任何方式干扰程序完整性。所以，这就是——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交日期 02/03/23\n录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 这就是我对此要说的。\n\n2 他们请求法官阁下——在其命令开头，\n\n3 他们请求您命令 Kwok 先生遵守\n\n4 您的初步禁令命令，这似乎\n\n5 是多余的。您已经作出了一项命令。\n\n6 就我们所知，他正在遵守\n\n7 该命令。我认为没有必要再作出一项命令，\n\n8 要求其遵守另一项命令。该命令本身已说明一切，\n\n9 且目前仍然有效。\n\n10 我们已对其提起上诉。我们认为它无效。我们\n\n11 坦率地说，在充分尊重的前提下，认为它并不明确，\n\n12 这也是我们因该原因及许多\n\n13 其他原因对其提起上诉的原因。但我们认为不存在任何\n\n14 违反行为。\n\n15 关于这一切背后原因的这种猜测，\n\n16 这全都是——你知道，全都是编造的，而且全都是——\n\n17 嗯，他真正暗示的是这一点，而且他——这是\n\n18 他动员社交媒体上人们的一种方式。\n\n19 但社交媒体的现实是，有人在社交媒体上发布\n\n20 某些内容，人们便会作出反应。无论\n\n21 是 Kwok 先生还是其他任何在社交媒体上拥有\n\n22 大量追随者的人。而他无法控制这些\n\n23 人说什么或做什么。\n\n24 而这些人——这些帖子，没有\n\n25 证据表明他与这些其他帖子有任何关系。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 54 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日 54\n\n视频，即他发布的那一段，好，那是他本人。但这些其他内容，与他没有任何关联，而且没有——其中一人，我认为，似乎是在 South Korea（韩国）发布了该内容。但他与那些内容毫无关系，也无从控制它们。但他有权就未被禁止发表意见的事项发声，而就此人发声，并非他被禁止谈论的事项之一。第3段谈到删除不同类别的某些社交媒体帖子，其中包含受托人、PAX、相关高级职员、雇员等等的住址。没有任何指称称这些内容包含在他的任何帖子中，也没有任何指称称他鼓励、煽动或建议实施被禁止的活动。也没有迹象表明他做过这些。因此，确实没有\n\n他有权发声，而且，我的意思是，他并没有——通过申请破产，他并未放弃其《第一修正案》权利，而我认为这正是受托人试图做的，即让他噤声，但他有权质疑那些被提出、坦率说并无任何实质依据的请求权。至于有请求权的人希望提出申报，他们可以提出申报，而我认为这正是受托人试图做的。\n\n任何理由要求他删除任何内容。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 55 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 我们不认为存在任何违反行为。Kwok 先生也\n\n2 没有实施任何人肉搜索。这是他提到的另一件事。\n\n3 关于该信息——我的意思是，他提到了\n\n4 她的姓名。她的姓名属于公开记录。她在\n\n5 案卷中提交了一项请求权。她的姓名和地址都载于\n\n6 破产案件中。但他提到了她的姓名。护照，\n\n7 或不管那是什么，并不是他发布的。\n\n8 那是其他人发布的。因此，我认为不能要求他\n\n9 为此承担责任。\n\n10 而在此阶段——我的意思是，就他们寻求\n\n11 以违反命令为由追究他藐视法庭责任而言，我认为，\n\n12 你知道，他们只是——他们在\n\n13 括号中提到了藐视法庭。这就是全部。\n\n14 我认为，在未就该问题举行完整证据听证会，\n\n15 并要求其满足其所需承担的举证责任之前，\n\n16 由法官阁下认定 Kwok 先生藐视法庭并不适当，\n\n17 而我们甚至还没有——该程序甚至\n\n18 尚未开始，但我们认为不存在任何这样做的依据。\n\n19 \n\n20 因此，基于所有这些理由，法官阁下，我们请求\n\n21 法庭目前驳回他们的动议。\n\n22 BASSETT 律师：法官阁下，仅作几点回应。\n\n23 哦，对不起。\n\n24 法庭：Wachen 律师，您是否已与\n\n25 您的当事人就初步禁令命令第2段和第3段进行沟通？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交日期 02/03/23\n录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 初步禁令命令？\n\n2 WACHEN 律师：我本人没有与\n\n3 他交谈过，但已经有人与他沟通过。\n\n4 法庭：好的。是谁与他沟通的？\n\n5 谁——您在本对抗程序中代理他。那么，\n\n6 您没有直接与他谈过\n\n7 这项初步禁令命令的含义？\n\n8 WACHEN 律师：嗯，就我而言——我不会说\n\n9 中文，所以这是我所关切的一点。但我已经与他的——与共同法律顾问交谈过，而共同法律顾问已与\n\n10 他就此进行沟通。\n\n11 \n\n12 法庭：您与哪位共同法律顾问交谈过？\n\n13 WACHEN 律师：嗯，有几位，但我要提到的是\n\n14 Mitchell 律师。\n\n15 法庭：好的。\n\n16 WACHEN 律师：据我了解，\n\n17 Mitchell 律师已与他讨论过该命令。\n\n18 法庭：但您没有直接与 Kwok 先生就这项初步禁令\n\n19 命令或判决备忘录\n\n20 进行过任何讨论？\n\n21 WACHEN 律师：没有，法官阁下，我没有。\n\n22 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n23 WACHEN 律师：但我已与\n\n24 Mitchell 律师讨论过，而据我了解，Mitchell 律师已与 Kwok 先生讨论过，我也已与 Mitchell 律师讨论过此事。\n\n25 \n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 法庭：好的。谢谢。Barrett 律师（原文如此），\n\n2 您还想说什么？\n\n3 BASSETT 律师：仅作几——几点回应，\n\n4 法官阁下。在讨论初步禁令命令第2段时，他提到，\n\n5 没有证据表明债务人所——已经做的任何事情\n\n6 会影响任何个人的安全。对此有两点回应。\n\n7 \n\n8 首先，第2段并不受此限制。我的意思是，\n\n9 第2段非常明确地规定，债务人进一步被初步禁止\n\n10 以任何方式干扰其第11章案件的完整性，\n\n11 随后又规定，包括采取任何行为威胁\n\n12 第11章受托人、PAX 或其关联方及其他人员的安全。因此，\n\n13 \n\n14 “包括”条款显然并非——并非限制性条款。\n\n15 第一点。\n\n16 第二点，您在这里看到的是非常明确的\n\n17 恐吓证据。我稍后会谈到这样一种论点，即\n\n18 Kwok 先生的帖子与其追随者所作所为之间没有关联，\n\n19 以及他对此没有控制权。\n\n20 \n\n21 但 Kwok 先生发出了号召。这\n\n22 正是我们认为其非常明确构成的内容，而且这并非\n\n23 孤立发生。这是基于法庭已在初步禁令听证会上听取的证据，\n\n24 即大量\n\n25 证据。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 58 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 而后，在数小时内，NFSC 支持者便在网上\n\n2 发布护照信息。而 Kwok 先生——\n\n3 Kwok 先生本人在视频的译文摘录中说，\n\n4 如果你这样做，你将被曝光。\n\n5 发生了什么？随即就有信息\n\n6 出现在网上，包括护照、个人信息，这绝对\n\n7 是会开始威胁这些个人安全的事情，\n\n8 鉴于本案的性质，鉴于——\n\n9 法庭已从证据中看到的关于抗议活动的一切，\n\n10 以及双方人士对此何等激动。\n\n11 这种人肉搜索当然会威胁安全，但这无关紧要，\n\n12 因为无论如何，第2段并不局限于威胁安全。\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 他提到，嗯，你知道，如果债务人不能\n\n16 在网上批评请求权，而且我们还主张\n\n17 他不具备诉讼资格，那么他便无处可去。\n\n18 法官阁下，诉讼资格问题是独立的。我们认为\n\n19 债务人不具备诉讼资格。\n\n20 但如果他不具备诉讼资格，其救济方式\n\n21 并非规避该问题并绕开它，转而出去\n\n22 在网上骚扰他人并公开其批评，\n\n23 因为他无权在本法庭这样做。因此，我认为\n\n24 这并非对问题的回答。\n\n25 我想就是这些，法官阁下。我的意思是，再次，就\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 59 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 这些人是否受到控制的问题而言。时机。\n\n2 他于1月10日上午发布此内容。\n\n3 随即便有 NFSC 成员在之后发布内容。Wachen 律师\n\n4 提到，其中一人似乎在 South Korea（韩国）。\n\n5 我不明白这怎么可能构成限制。\n\n6 法庭已听取证据，表明有人在 Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）位于 Tokyo（东京）的办公室外抗议。\n\n7 \n\n8 其影响范围遍及全球。\n\n9 法官阁下，这就是我要说的全部。感谢\n\n10 法庭今天为此付出的时间。\n\n11 法庭：好的。谢谢。Wachen 律师，\n\n12 还有其他内容吗？\n\n13 WACHEN 律师：有，法官阁下。\n\n14 为明确起见，他们不断\n\n15 谈论的这个安全问题，第2段的措辞谈到\n\n16 第11章受托人、PAX 或其关联——\n\n17 关联方、高级职员或雇员、第11章\n\n18 受托人或 PAX 的法律顾问，以及他们各自任何亲属的安全。\n\n19 因此，除非这名女士以我们不知道的方式属于\n\n20 这些人中某人的亲属，或是前配偶，\n\n21 否则第2段的安全条款在本案中根本不适用。\n\n22 \n\n23 Kwok 先生未威胁任何人的安全，\n\n24 但即便这是他们所主张的，安全\n\n25 条款实际上也无关紧要，因为她并不是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 60 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日 60\n\n所提及的人之一。\n\n但就以任何方式干扰完整性而言，我仅重申，他在这里所做的事情，即批评一名他认为提交虚假请求权、试图利用该制度的请求权人，并不构成干扰完整性。如果有任何影响，那是在帮助确保完整性。因此，我想我就是不理解他们提出的该项论点。\n\n如果这意味着，他每次开口说话都构成号召，那么，他有很多相信他的人。他——他有——你知道，他是一名公众人物。他是 Chinese Dissident Movement（中国异议人士运动）的领导人。世界各地都有以各种方式支持他的人。并非他认识的人，而是相信他的人。\n\n因此，就像社交媒体上的任何其他事情一样，当有人发布某些内容时，各地的人往往会对此作出反应，而这——您知道——是不受控制的。我的意思是，我认为这就是社交媒体的本质：人们会突然冒出来开始说些事情。\n\n我不认为他知道——我不认为有任何证据表明他与这些帖子有关，或者他知道是谁发布了这名女子的这本护照或其他什么东西。\n\n有人把它放到了那里，但不是他，而且也并非是他鼓励他人这样做。\n\n他只是担心她以及或许其他像她一样的人，他们会大量涌入——我的意思是，基本上这正是他们所担心的。他们会提出不合法的债权申报。\n\n所以，我的意思是，一方面，他们担心人们以不合法的债权申报淹没案卷；但另一方面，当他就其中一项债权提出问题或关切时，现在他就做错了什么。我的意思是，这似乎——您知道——无论他做什么，他总是在某种程度上做错了什么。\n\n但人们对他在社交媒体上的帖子作出反应，我的意思是，这就是——我认为这就是社交媒体的本质。没有迹象表明他积极鼓励这些人去发布护照，或做他们当时所做的事情。\n\n至于骚扰，我实在不认为有任何迹象表明他骚扰过任何人。其他人是否做过一些也许不该做的事情？或许做过，但我不认为他必须为某个在韩国发布煽动性帖文的人——某个家伙——负责。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第61页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX诉Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢二位。请就诉讼资格进行辩论。\n\nBASSETT先生（巴西特）：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯潘）：下午好，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是Luc Despins（卢克·德斯潘），第11章受托人。我将尽量简要说明。\n\n我们认为，法庭应基于多项理由作出命令，撤销这些异议。这并不限于诉讼资格，即技术性的诉讼资格。重要的是要审阅法典。我知道您对此很熟悉，但只占用两秒钟。704(a)(5)规定，受托人——我们现在谈的是第7章受托人——负有职责——应当，是“应当”——审查债权申报，并在适当情况下对债权申报提出异议，或者类似的规定。即对不当的债权申报提出异议。这是第7章受托人，704(a)(5)。\n\n1106规定，第11章受托人负有这些职责。这些职责根据1107赋予了占有期间的占有中债务人，但他现在已不再具有该项能力。\n\n因此，关于这一点存在非常明确的措辞；相反的论点是，我们根据1109属于利害关系方。\n\n顺便说一下，法官阁下，根据1109，还有许多其他当事人——属于利害关系方的人。像PAX这样的债权人、债权人委员会。每个人都是利害关系方。并不止于此。顺便说一下，根据502，利害关系方可以对债权申报提出异议。\n\n而这并未阻止法院在第7章案件中一再认定，债权人不得对其他债权人的债权申报提出异议，即使你是利害关系方也是如此。他们在第11章案件中也作出了同样的认定。为什么？因为那将造成混乱。\n\n这就是——您知道，Dow Corning案列举了大量与此有关的案件，我们不能允许债权人——仔细想想，债权人的诉讼资格远强于非占有中的债务人。尤其是在像本案这样的案件中，因为债务人目前的立场是：我没有资产。这是他迄今一直主张的立场。\n\n然而，PAX是一名债权人，显然是利害关系方。理论上，他们应当去提出异议——他们可以对其他债权人的债权申报提出异议，因为这会给他们带来直接利益、直接的金钱利益，对吗？因为你是按照利害关系方的逻辑行事。但在有受托人任职时，法院从不允许这样做。即使在有占有中债务人任职时，法院也不允许这样做。\n\n我暂且不谈这一点，但在有受托人任职时，他们不允许债权人这样做；而从金钱利益的角度看，债权人的诉讼资格强于一个非占有中的债务人，该债务人称：我没有资产，我的债权申报——尽管他将对所有这些债权申报提出异议——但在申报截止日期之前，本案中至少有$400 million的债权申报。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第64页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX诉Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n因此，关键不仅在于诉讼资格，因为，您知道，问题是——您知道，1109确实规定债务人是利害关系方，也规定债权人委员会和债权人是利害关系方，但这并未阻止第7章和第11章案件中的判例或法院认定：你们不能提出异议，因为这会造成混乱。这是受托人的职责。法官阁下，如果我们看看本案，请回想一下，本案开始时的说法是：我没有资产，因此没有可供分配的财产。现在，已经变得相当清楚的是，存在一些资产。\n\n我不想对此过于自信，但我认为我们将证明存在一些破产财产。\n\n因此，现在债务人的说法转变为：好吧，但没有债权申报。我们将对所有债权申报提出异议。问题在于，我们正在进行调查。举例来说，就H Coin而言，我们正在进行调查。我们尚未完成该项调查，而且我们数月前已告知法官阁下，首要重点必须是将资产追回至破产财产。\n\n但债务人非常善于分散我们所有人的注意力，我也包括法庭在内，这并非出于批评，而是——事实上，我当时正在想这一点。\n\n您就《第一修正案》等事项撰写的这份意见书，我知道若由我来做，会花费150小时，因为我对《第一修正案》一无所知。因此，我假定您比我懂得多得多，但您写这份意见书肯定也花了100小时。这100小时本可用于本案的其他方面。\n\n但——所以法庭被分散了注意力。我们也被分散了注意力。现在他们想开辟另一个角度，即：让我们对债权申报提出异议。让我们就H Coin等事项举行审判。我尚未完成对此的调查。这就是为什么应由受托人来做这件事，而不是由庭外——不是由非占有中的债务人来做。这一点是根本性的。\n\n因此，本案中正在发生的情况是，他们希望我们再次偏离主要任务，即将资产追回至破产财产，以便我们能够向债权申报人追偿。\n\n而且，您知道，您看，我正在看这些债权申报。我已经向法官阁下说过这一点。这些债权申报人在不复杂这一意义上，是指他们相信自己受到了欺诈。他们并未以最恰当的措辞表达这一点。我亲自看过该债权申报，但该申报是在两周前提交的。这并不是说我已经把这件事搁置了两年。它是两周前提交的。\n\n我没有花时间详细审查这些债权申报。我正在——您知道——简略地查看它们，但没有详细审查，因为这里的主要目标是把钱追回至破产财产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX诉Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n如果没有钱进入破产财产，本案就会终止；我们不能把时间花在被完全不再占有财产的债务人分散注意力上，他试图开启这些旁枝争议，就像我们在《第一修正案》问题上所经历的那样；现在似乎又有另一项旁枝争议，即：让我们对债权申报提出异议。法官阁下，我们不能这样做。\n\n这就是为什么法院在其——您知道，再次提及，Dow Corning案援引了大概十个在第11章案件中作出这一裁定的案件，其中基本上指出，即使债权人因其属于利害关系方而具有诉讼资格，受托人或占有中债务人也应当被排除在外，因为否则将造成混乱。\n\n基于这些理由，法官阁下，我们请求您作出命令，规定这些异议予以撤销。\n\n第二，未经法官阁下事先许可，债务人不得再提交其他异议。因此，他们日后可以再回来。您知道，如果他们能够证明受托人一直搁置这些债权申报，并且确实偏袒这些人，那也无妨。但这些债权申报大约是在两周前提交的，我甚至不确定是否已满两周。显然，我们没有时间采取行动。也许我们会审查它们，并在完成对H Coin的调查后，确定这些人是否拥有有效债权。\n\n我向法官阁下保证，如果这些债权申报无效，它们将不会被准许。这不是我们要玩的游戏。如果它们无效，您知道，它们将不会被准许。\n\n而且，您知道——最后我想说的是，一个完全没有任何记录的债务人，这件事颇有些滑稽，对吧？这就是其理论。不仅是我没有资产，而且我没有记录，但他们确信这些债权申报人没有债权。他们如何知道？因为他们自己对这些事项也没有任何记录。\n\n法官阁下，本案肯定会提交超过200项债权申报。也许更多。因此，这些人全都错了？所有人都在凭空想象？有这种可能，但我想说，法官阁下，受托人需要能够完成其调查，以审查这些债权申报。\n\n如果债务人最终能够提出一项全额偿付所有人的计划，那么他们可以对债权申报提出异议；但在此之前，他们不具有金钱利益上的诉讼资格，而且即使从避免混乱的角度来看，也应禁止他们继续追诉这些异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第68页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX诉Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nCESARONI先生（塞萨罗尼）：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nCESARONI先生（塞萨罗尼）：受托人提出的问题相当明确，即债务人在本第11章案件中对债权申报提出异议的诉讼资格。我不知道所谓的混乱论点从何而来，但从更宏观的角度看，如果债务人对债权申报提出异议，就这些债权申报是否适当向债权申报人进行证据开示，并能够排除债权申报，这实际上将使破产财产受益，因为最终破产财产——受托人无需花费破产财产资金进行该类调查，也会减少债权申报总额。如法官阁下已经听到的——\n\n法庭：如果债务人没有——他没有任何收入，他怎么能这样做？\n\nCESARONI先生（塞萨罗尼）：因此，如法庭已经听到的——\n\n法庭：不，我的意思是，我在本案审理过程中回看过财产清单，债务人在其财产清单中列明，他的收入为零，并且预计未来也不会有任何收入。这是他在财产清单中所说的。因此，即使我同意你刚才所说的——\n\n说道，如果债务人没有任何钱，也没有任何收入，他将如何做到这一点？\n\nCESARONI先生（塞萨罗尼先生）：\n嗯，在——\n\n法院：\n谁来支付——谁来支付这笔费用？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，我不打算谈及细节，但法院——\n\n法院：\n嗯，但你必须谈。我是说，你的论点是——你的论点是，你将帮助破产财产，因为债务人将进行这项分析和证据开示，并确定这些债权是否有效。\n\n而我——所以我的问题是，嗯，这将如何发生？他在本院作为自行管理的债务人期间，在其根据伪证处罚规定提交的财产状况表中称，他没有收入，也不预计该——该状况会有任何改变。这就是他的财产状况表所写的。我并不——我是说，我可以为你打开它们，我们可以直接查看。\n\n所以我的——所以，如果你要提出该论点，我很乐意让你提出该论点，但你必须告诉我这将如何发生。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n是，法官大人。\n\n因此，法院已听取包括Kindseth先生（金德塞斯先生）在内的人士的证词。而我——我说我不会谈及的细——细节是，我相信有证词称曾达成一项和解，但我们从未谈到——法院从未听取其条款是什么，而且——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1440\n提交日期 02/03/23\n录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n法院：\n而且我不会听取任何有关和解的内容。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n——我不会——对。\n\n法院：\n所以你是在告诉我，我必须照单全收，即这名自愿来到本院的债务人——没有人强迫这名债务人申请第11章破产保护——即使他没有收入，也不预期会有任何收入，他能够处理这一切，法院不必担心。对吗？这就是你所说的。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，我认为——我认为，可能由其他潜在来源流入的资金来处理此事的证据是，通过谈判，已至少就与债权人委员会及主要债权人的案件原则上达成潜在和解。\n\n法院：\n我不——我不关心该和解——\n\nCESARONI先生：\n所以有——\n\n法院：\n——原则上达成的和解。这不是我的问题。我是在回应你的论点。你的论点是，受托人刚才说会出现混乱。你知道，你并不知道这从何而来，我理解你的意思。\n\n然后你说，但是，不论如何，如果债务人这样做，这将有助于破产财产，因为他将确定是否存在有效债权。他将进行证据开示；我认为，你提出由一名不再自行管理的债务人，就在有受托人的案件中提交的债权申报进行证据开示，是一个有意思的建议。然后，债务人将以某种方式有能力负担这一切，这将有利于破产财产。这目前对我而言确实不太合乎逻辑。我很难理解这一点，明白吗？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n我理解法院的关切。\n\n因此，实际解决本案的真正障碍，是受托人认为债务人财产状况表中列载的债权、PAX债权以及债权人委员会所代表的债权，并非全部债权范围，或者——并且还存在许多其他与H Coin（H币）以及——有关的债权；而其依据——我们显然不同意该依据——是，人们在说，嗯，从这些债权申报的表面很难判断，但人们实质上是在说，他们进行了投资，而债务人以欺诈方式诱使他们\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n这样做。现在，如果这些债权无效——这正是债务人所——债务人所主张的，也是我们相信能够证明的——那么这将消除很大一部分——消除妨碍可能解决本案的问题，即受托人称，不，还有所有这些其他问题，而且——\n\n法院：\n我不想知道什么可能——听着，我们今天关注的是这个。这就是我们今天的关注点，对吗？我们今天的关注点是，债务人是否有资格对这些债权申报提出异议。这是——这就是关注点——除Bassett先生（巴西特先生）和Wachen先生（瓦琴先生）刚才就其是否违反初步禁令命令并应被认定藐视法庭所进行的论证之外，问题是，这名已不再自行管理的债务人，是否有资格对债权申报提出异议。这就是问题。我不想听取有关整体和解的内容。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n当然。\n\n法院：\n我想听的是，你为何认为债务人有资格这样做。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n因此，在第11章案件中——因此，受托人所依赖的许多判例，而且几乎完全依赖的，都是第7章案件。而第7章\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 72 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1440\n提交日期 02/03/23\n录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n债务人与已指定受托人的第11章案件中的债务人处于不同地位，原因有几个。\n\n首先，第1121条允许债务人提交重整计划。因此——因此，一旦指定受托人，受托人可以提交计划，债权人可以提交计划，债务人可以提交计划。因此，债务人有利益能够确认重整计划，以便——以便其能够解决其债务。\n\n不同于第7章案件，在第7章案件中，推定——假定不存在任何欺诈或不当行为，第7章债务人无须做任何事，并且——你知道，除遵守《破产法》、履行其必须履行的事项外。\n\n我并不是说第7章债务人无须做任何事，但你知道，假设对免责不存在成功的异议，或不存在不可免责债权，第7章债务人将获得免责。\n\n因此，在该情形下，法院称，即便如此，在第7章案件中，仍有该第7章债务人具有当事人资格的情形。其中之一是破产财产存在盈余，或债务人具有金钱利益。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n现在，我们——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n法院：\n我明白。因此——\n\nCESARONI先生：\n我们并不主张这里将有盈余——\n\n法院：\n嗯，但你必须主张这一点，不是吗？我是说，关键在于此，对吗？这是一个第11章案件，其中该债务人称他没有收入，也预见不到任何收入。那么这怎么可能是一个有盈余的案件？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，我再次——\n\n法院：\n而且他没有资产。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n再次，我认为这不必是一个有盈余的案件。\n\n法院：\n嗯，为什么不是？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，因为如果他的债权——如果债务人的债权在第11章中不会自动获得免责，那么必须发生两件事之一。必须确认一项重整计划，或者这实质上必须是一个清算型第11章案件；对于个人债务人而言，这一点很有意思，但我不谈这个。不过，真正的问题是，债务人的资产负债表有两面。目前存在针对债务人的非常重大的债权，而能够以并非破产财产一部分的资产所提供的资金，潜在地确认一项计划，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 74 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 75 页\n\n该等资金可能被用作某种计划的一部分。因此，你知道，当然已有资金来自外部来源的计划获得确认，而且——\n\n法院：\n明白。我——但是——但是——\n\nCESARONI先生：\n因此，债务人——\n\n法院：\n——但你不是——\n\nCESARONI先生：\n——债务人没有个人资产这一事实，并不必然意味着计划无法获得确认，也不意味着，例如，债权人不会为适当数额的资金而同意其债权受到调整。\n\n法院：\n嗯，那是完全不同的情形，在本案中我们还远未到那一步，这是第一点。第二点，为什么他不能——如最常见的情况——我是说，我们可以——我们可以——就所有被援引的判例而言，我们可以看到，对债权提出异议甚至要到计划确认之后才发生。那么，现在对两周前提交的债权提出异议有什么必要？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n我——我认为，必要性在于，我们认为这些债权，而且债务人认为这些债权，是本案的障碍，因为所提出的这些类型的债权，即如其所\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1440\n提交日期 02/03/23\n录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n主张的，某种欺诈诱使或投资欺诈，除了我们认为其无效这一事实外，它们已登记在债权登记册上，因此从纸面上看，本案的价值将显得高于我们认为的价值。\n\n如果是这样，在我们不知道最终——我们不知道我们必须处理的——数额为何的情形下，将很难解决案件。因此，如果有人说——\n\n法院：\n这种情况在第11章案件中一直发生。一直发生。它——\n\nCESARONI先生：\n它——\n\n法院：\n——几乎每一个具有一定规模的第11章案件中，债权都要到计划确认之后才会得到解决，明白吗？这是第一点。\n\n第二点，当你说我们认为这些债权无效时，你有什么证据证明它们无效？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，这——\n\n法院：\n因为如你所知，《破产法》和规则规定，债权申报表面上有效。那么，你有什么证据证明其无效？\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，再次，该法典确实规定了这一点，前提是其为——而这在针对个别债权的具体异议中有所论述，但我们的论点是，从表面上看，这些债权不是债权——这些债权并未证明或主张充分事实，或提供充分文件，以显示其从表面上看是针对债务人的债权，因为，仅举一例，在Yu女士（于女士）的债权中，其中——其中只是称，我认为理由是投资欺诈，随后附有一份Yu女士向名为Crane Advisory Group（克兰咨询集团）的机构进行的德文电汇。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 77 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— January 26, 2023\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，如果你认为——\n\nCESARONI先生：\n我是说，所以——\n\n法院：\n——它们无效，那么你为什么担心它们？你可以以后再担心它们。如果你想提交计划，你的委托人想提交计划，你的委托人可以提交计划，并称他不会处理这些债权，因为他认为它们无效，并且他将在确认程序中对其提出异议。然后法院可以审议所有这些事项。但如果你一方面称它们无效，另一方面却称你需要在债权提交后两周内对其提出异议，这对我而言似乎很奇怪。\n\nCESARONI先生：\n嗯，我是说，我确实理解通常——在通常案件中——很多时候，对债权的异议是在事后处理的。现在，在某些案件中，它们可能根本不会被处理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日 78 我认为，这会给计划确认造成严重问题，而且很可能会招致异议，至少会招致那些未获处理的债权人的异议。但假定他们已获处理，则必须有资金可用于覆盖其债权，并予以留存，通常由债权代理人留存，但是——法院：在第11章计划中，有多少次会为存在争议的债权预留准备金；如果该债权被认定有效，即予支付；如果未被认定有效，则该准备金归属于破产财产，或者如有盈余，则归属于债务人？塞萨罗尼律师：对。这是一个时点问题，但问题是——法院：不，这是一个法律问题。这是一个法律问题。你看，你仍然——我不明白的是，为何如此急于对这些债权提出异议。即使你有资格。好吧，这一点我们甚至还没有谈到。我是在回应你关于这将有利于破产财产的论点，而我——并且——因为他将进行所有这些证据开示以及所有其他——这些其他事项，却没有资金，而且这将有利于破产财产。但与此同时，你又说这些债权无效。因此，案号 22-50073，文件 1440，于 02/03/23 提交，于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入，第 78 页，共\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n你们还需要就什么进行证据开示？我的意思是，是什么——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n于 02/03/23 提交\n于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 为何要走那条路？\n这毫无意义。\n其中没有任何逻辑\n2 可言。\n3 那么法院就会说，好吧，这是怎么回事？\n4 这里究竟是怎么回事？\n这里——你知道，我——那么\n5 你关于资格的论点是什么？\n6 塞萨罗尼律师：\n是，法官阁下。\n我只想非常\n7 简要地说，我认为我说这些债权无效，或者郭先生说\n8 这些债权无效，当然是一回事。\n但如果\n9 法院作出该等认定，则完全是另一回事，因为\n10 那样便不再是可供争论的话题，而是已经裁决的问题。\n11 但关于资格，我先从，你知道，\n12 德斯平律师援引的 704(a)(5) 开始，该条实际上——该条规定，\n13 如能实现某一目的，则审查债权申报并\n14 对任何不当获准的债权提出异议。因此，\n15 受托人应当如此行事。\n16 仅因某人负有做某事的义务——\n17 并不意味着其他任何人均不得\n18 做该事。受托人可能必须审查债权，而且该条规定是在适当情况下。\n19 在第7章案件中，通常\n20 应当是在有资产案件中才属适当情形，\n21 可以对债权提出异议，但这并非排他性的。\n22 在 705 或 1106 中均无任何规定，后者\n23 将 705——应为 705(a)(5)，或者更准确地说 704(a)(5)，纳入\n24 在已指定受托人的第11章案件中。\n而且\n25 第7章对于谁是利害关系人亦未作规定，以便\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1440，于 02/03/23 提交，于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入，第 80 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 确定根据 502 谁可以对债权提出异议，而\n2 第11章并非如此。在第11章中，1109\n3 特别提及债务人，除\n4 受托人和债权人外，债务人亦为利害关系人。\n5 但即便在第7章中，你知道，\n6 法院也划定了债务人具有资格的情形。\n7 其中之一，如我所述，是存在盈余。另一种是——\n8 还有其他几种，但其中一种是，如果债务人对其负有\n9 不可免除债权，则债务人即具有资格，\n10 即使不会存在盈余。\n11 其背后的理论是，如果债务人\n12 能够减少债权池的规模，他将增加\n13 对不可免除债权的支付，\n14 从而减少案件结束后其为支付该等\n15 不可免除债权所承担的个人责任。本破产案件中已经提出数项不可\n16 免除债权，并且\n17 郭先生当然会有减少债权池规模的利益，\n18 以便理论上使更多支付流向不可免除债权，\n19 即使不存在\n20 盈余。\n21 而现在，你知道，显然我们并非——我们已经\n22 反对不可免除债务之诉，并且我们不\n\n相信该等诉讼具有依据，但你知道，当然，诉讼总是存在风险，而且——正如我们都知道的那样。因此，这——而且这一点在受托人的书面文件中完全没有提及，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n于 02/03/23 提交\n于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 即使——即使假定第11章案件\n2 适用，我认为它们并不适用，因为，你知道，1109\n3 规定——\n4 法院：\n你的意思是第——你的意思是\n5 第7章案件，对吗？\n6 塞萨罗尼律师：\n是的。谢谢，法官阁下。\n7 法院：\n没关系。\n8 塞萨罗尼律师：\n我不认为——\n9 法院：\n我只是想确认我\n10 跟上了你的意思。\n11 塞萨罗尼律师：\n对。因此，我不认为——即使\n12 第7章案件适用，也存在其他例外，其中之一是，你知道，存在盈余。\n13 其中之一是\n14 不可免除债权，另一个是这并不\n15 妨碍破产财产的管理。\n16 我看不出如何——即使在案件中——我\n17 看不出受托人如何会对债务人花费——\n18 并非花费破产财产资金，以可能减少债权\n19 池一事提出异议。\n20 我们之所以在此，仅仅是因为受托人反对我们\n21 继续推进，并称我们没有资格，而我\n22 相信我们确有资格，你知道，根据 1109 以及——诚然没有很多案件，\n23 但我所援引的案件\n24 支持如下主张：你知道，第\n25 11章不同。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1440，于 02/03/23 提交，于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入，第 82 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 法院：\n那么，你们难道不必须为此申请\n2 法院批准吗？因此，债权人委员会是\n3 第11章案件中的利害关系人，对吗？\n4 塞萨罗尼律师：\n正确。\n5 法院：\n对。因此——他们不能对\n6 某些当事人提起诉因，除非他们获得\n7 法院批准，或者债务人拒绝这样做，\n8 对吗？\n9 塞萨罗尼律师：\n是的。\n10 法院：\n那么，这与\n11 第11章受托人有什么不同？你们——你们的当事人已经不再占有财产，\n12 而且可能甚至不具有本案结果的金钱利益，\n13 因为如果没有盈余，\n14 就没有盈余。\n15 那么你们为何不申请——请指出《破产法》中\n16 哪一条规定你们可以做你们所做的事。我\n17 找不到，而且在所有已援引——\n18 被援引的案件中，第一，已有一些第11章案件\n19 被援引。\n20 第二，你已经提到\n21 这可能是清算计划。好吧，如果这是清算\n22 计划，那么第7章案件中的裁决将会非常\n23 支持受托人在本案中的论点。这是\n24 另一个问题。\n25 而且再次，你们现在对这些债权提出异议有何必要？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n于 02/03/23 提交\n于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 你们尚未使我相信存在必要性。\n2 事实上，根本没有必要，债权——这就是\n3 整个债权程序。你们不——人们无权\n4 ——债权申报截止日期甚至尚未届满，而你们\n5 ——而你们开始——你们的当事人——你们代表\n6 你们的当事人，已根据规则 11 提交文件，称\n7 这些债权无效。\n8 而我问你们有什么证据证明这一点，\n9 你说，好吧，有一笔——我认为你说，有一笔\n10 来自德国的电汇。好吧。这如何证明\n11 该债权无效？\n12 塞萨罗尼律师：\n我相信，我们在\n13 债权异议中的论点，是基于这些债权申报缺乏充分的主张或证据这一事实。\n14 \n15 法院：\n对。即使如此，我仍可以\n16 允许他们修改其债权。\n17 塞萨罗尼律师：\n那么——那么从这个意义上说，我认为这将有助于\n18 破产财产，前提是——实际上，如果债权人知道\n19 我们认为该债权存在可异议之处，\n20 从而加以修正，这实际上将有助于债权人。\n21 法院：\n只有在我认为该债权不符合\n22 规则下的表面有效性时，才是如此。\n23 塞萨罗尼律师：\n确实如此，法官阁下。\n24 法院：\n这不应由债务人\n25 决定。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n于 02/03/23 提交\n于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 塞萨罗尼律师：\n我——这一点，我完全理解，\n2 而且我并非另作主张，但我的意思是，仅就时点而言，\n3 资格并不受时点影响。\n4 我的意思是，《破产法》中没有任何规定\n5 说你必须等到——你必须等到某个日期或\n6 确认之后，或就何时\n7 提出异议作出任何规定——\n8 法院：\n我同意，但《破产法》中也没有任何规定称\n9 占有财产的债务人可以对债权申报提出异议。\n10 \n11 在指定受托人且受托人\n12 负有管理破产财产的法定义务时，非占有财产的债务人可以对债权申报提出异议，\n13 该义务包括处理本案中提交的\n14 债权申报。\n15 塞萨罗尼律师：\n那么，第 502 条——\n16 法院：\n是。请继续。你认为 502\n17 规定了什么？\n18 塞萨罗尼律师：\n该条规定——A 款规定，依本法典\n19 第 501 条提交债权申报的债权或权益，\n20 除非利害关系人提出异议，否则视为获准，\n21 其中包括普通合伙人的债权人以及\n22 本法典第7章下作为债务人的合伙企业。\n23 法院：\n对。\n24 塞萨罗尼律师：\n然后——\n25 法院：\n对。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日 85 塞萨罗尼律师：——1109 进一步界定了何为利害关系人——法院：是。塞萨罗尼律师：——在第11章案件中。法院：是。塞萨罗尼律师：并且其中包括——其规定，利害关系人，包括债务人、受托人、债权人委员会、股权证券持有人委员会、债权人、股权证券持有人或任何受托契约受托人，可以提出——可以提出，并可在案件中的某一争议事项上出庭并陈述意见——法院：不，我知道它规定了什么。塞萨罗尼律师：——根据本章。好。法院：我知道它规定了什么。是。塞萨罗尼律师：因此，如果利害关系人可以对债权申报提出异议，而债务人是利害关系人，那么债务人应当能够对——法院：但有大量案件并不允许利害关系人完全按照你所说的、你希望做的那样行事，正如我刚才以债权人委员会为例所说明的。债权人委员会不能提起诉因，除非其获得破产法院批准，而破产法院必须就为何该项原本保留给占有财产债务人的权力作出认定。案号 22-50073，文件 1440，于 02/03/23 提交，于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入，第 85 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1440，于 02/03/23 提交，于 02/03/23 15:38:54 录入，第 86 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX v. Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年1月26日\n\n1 占有财产的债务人，或经指定后债务人不再占有财产的受托人，\n2 为何应允许由\n3 法典规定负有履行该义务的当事人以外的其他人行使，该为第一点。\n\n第二点，你知道，如果你查看 Colliers（《科利尔破产法论》）并查看其对该问题的看法及其论述，他们认为，非占有财产的债务人如同第7章债务人，除非其对案件结果具有金钱利益，或能够证明存在盈余，否则无资格对债权提出异议。\n\n因此，如果你们能够证明存在剩余财产，那么我们讨论的就是完全不同的一回事了。但是——你们——我不知道在目前这个阶段你们如何能够做到这一点。也许你们在某个时候可以做到，但现在债务人的财产申报表显示，他的收入为零，并且他预计该状况不会发生任何变化。\n\n现在，他既没有更新任何财产申报表，也没有称其拥有任何收入；但在缺少这些的情况下，你们知道，你们正在——你们正在——在某种程度上利用这样一个事实：你们是非占有中的债务人，因此无需遵守作为占有中的债务人时本应遵守的要求。\n\n但是，当——但是，当——你们说，你们仍然是利害关系方，因此我们可以这样做——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交于 02/03/23\n录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 因为没有规定我们不能这样做。\n2 法院：嗯，没有规定你们可以这样做，而且任何\n3 在第11章案件中的其他利害关系方，如果试图——采取一项其\n4 未被直接授权采取的行动，都必须\n5 请求法院批准其这样做，而你们没有\n6 这样做。\n7 你们所做的是，对\n8 两周前提交的债权——债权提出异议，远在\n9 债权申报截止日确定之前，而这原本是受托人的\n10 初始职责。\n11 因此，我不信服。我不信服。如果你们\n12 ——你们看看——这些是关于破产\n13 法的权威论著，而这正是它们所说的，在——论及\n14 第502节以及论及第1109节时都是如此。\n15 其中谈到，利害关系方\n16 未必总能做利害关系方认为其可以依据——\n17 第1109节所做的事情。\n18 CESARONI 先生：因此，我熟悉《Collier》中的\n19 表述，在第11——我认为是——实际上，我想它是在\n20 第502节中——\n21 法院：是在第502节中。\n22 CESARONI 先生：——在第502节中。\n23 法院：没错。\n24 CESARONI 先生：其中说，第11章债务人——它\n25 将第11章债务人与第7章债务人混为一谈\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交于 02/03/23\n录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 实际上还援引了——\n2 法院：嗯，我不确定它——我不确定\n3 它将二者混为一谈。我认为，你们知道，这是一部权威论著。\n4 他们对此作了非常仔细的考量，并且它说，在\n5 第7章案件中，或者在债务人\n6 并非占有中的债务人，且不存在\n7 向债务人返还剩余财产可能性的第11章案件中，债务人对\n8 债权异议结果不具有金钱利益，\n9 因此无权对债权提出异议。这正是它所说的。\n10 我不会称此为混为一谈。我会称其为——\n11 你们可以不同意。我理解这一点，但是\n12 它援引了两个案件，而这被公认为\n13 破产法领域的权威论著。\n14 因此，我理解——我只是——我只是——你们\n15 可以说你们不同意。我很乐意听你们这样说，但我\n16 不认为这属于混为一谈。\n17 它对债务人非占有中的\n18 第11章案件作了非常具体的说明。这正是本\n19 案的情形。而且，自债务人不再处于占有中之后的第一时间起，\n20 你们就已向法院明确说明这一点，\n21 这没有问题，而且你们是正确的。\n22 但是，与此同时，这也带来了这个问题，即\n23 我看不出在目前这个阶段你们如何有资格对债权提出异议。\n24 你们尚未证明——尚未证明\n25 债务人具有偿付能力。你们尚未证明将会有\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交于 02/03/23\n录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 剩余财产。你们尚未证明债务人对\n2 本案结果具有任何金钱利益。\n3 而且，在目前这个阶段，我不知道你们如何能够证明这一点，因为\n4 本案记录中有关债务人\n5 财务状况的唯一证据是：他没有收入，他的资产\n6 少于 \\$4,000，而且他认为在本案中其收入\n7 状况不会发生任何变化。\n8 因此，我——你们知道，你们可以就第\n9 1109节提出你们的论点，我理解这些论点，但你们所提出的论点——\n10 我没有被其说服。\n11 CESARONI 先生：我理解，法官阁下。尽管\n12 我——你们知道，我不认为必须存在——\n13 剩余财产才是正确的分析，因为，你们知道，\n14 这里有一名第11章受托人，但债务人并未被完全剥夺其在本案中的——\n15 他的利益，我在我们提交的文件中\n16 援引了讨论该问题的判例。真正的问题是——因为\n17 债务人可以提交一项计划，而且——\n18 法院：对。\n19 CESARONI 先生：——他可以提交计划这一事实\n20 ——\n21 法院：请继续。\n22 CESARONI 先生：——使其对本\n23 财产具有利益。除第1109节的论点之外——\n24 法院：而且我已经建议过——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交于 02/03/23\n录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 CESARONI 先生：——即——\n2 法院：——你们可以就这些债权\n3 以及你们将代表债务人提交的这项计划采取何种做法。\n4 他可以在该计划中说明，这些债权\n5 无效，并且在确认之后将有债权异议程序。\n6 但是，如果他无法确认一项计划，\n7 律师，那么这实际上就无关紧要了。明白吗？这就是\n8 关键。\n9 CESARONI 先生：嗯，我——\n10 法院：关键在于，这是一个第11章\n11 案件。要么会有一项计划，要么不会有\n12 计划。所提交的计划，如有提交，\n13 必须能够得到确认。\n14 如果无法得到确认，那么实际上——我不会耗费这段时间——\n15 耗费本法院的时间或资源，\n16 也不会处理有关债务人对债权人\n17 进行证词录取、书面质询以及\n18 其他任何事项的证据开示问题。这不会发生。\n19 CESARONI 先生：我当然理解\n20 法院的立场，尽管，你们知道——我只想说，\n21 最后一点是，你们知道，我们非常相信，能够——而且很可能\n22 解决本案的主要障碍，\n23 是存在这些债权；我不知道受托人对于其\n24 有效性的看法是什么，而且我不——但是债务人，\n25 你们知道，显然不认为这些债权有理由获得确认。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交于 02/03/23\n录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 法院：这三项\n2 债权的总额是多少？\n3 CESARONI 先生：大约是 \\$10 million。但是，\n4 当然，债权——债权申报截止日还要过一段时间才到，所以——\n5 法院：我问的是这三项债权，\n6 \\$10 million，对吗？\n7 CESARONI 先生：大约是 \\$10 million。\n8 法院：好的。\n9 CESARONI 先生：因此，随着该数字\n10 在理论上增长，这个问题将变得更大，\n11 我们希望现在处理它，以便能够达到某个阶段，\n12 在该阶段我们可以，你们知道，可能尝试提交一项——你们知道，想法是尝试——\n13 是取得共识并尝试解决本案。\n14 而且显然，法院已经命令我们进行\n15 调解，债务人将——你们知道，将充分参与其中，\n16 希望这能够以善意方式进行，并希望本案能够\n17 得到解决。\n18 但是，你们知道，除此之外，存在这些债权，\n19 事情将会非常困难，而——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 92 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 论点将是你们并非——我认为论点将\n2 是，好，债务人，你们可能已经提出——你们说\n3 债权池是这个数额，但实际上不是，而是这个数额。\n4 而我认为，那将是——这是一个关键问题，\n5 如果我们现在不予处理，我认为在本案后续程序中\n6 将会造成不利影响，这就是我们迅速\n7 采取所作措施的原因。\n8 法院：好的。我理解，但我将\n9 驳回对全部三项债权提出的异议。我将\n10 作出一项命令，规定债务人未经\n11 向法院请求并取得授权，不得对任何债权提出异议。\n12 \n13 关于你们的意见，我理解\n14 你们关于债权人范围或者可能面临风险的\n15 金额的意见。\n16 但是，在第11章案件中，你们可以提交一项计划，说明如果\n17 债权金额是这些数额，计划将如此执行，即 A 部分。\n18 \n19 如果债权金额是这些数额，计划将如此执行，即 B 部分。\n20 如果债权金额是这些数额，\n21 计划将如此执行，即 C 部分。这完全\n22 可以做到。这已经一次又一次地完成过，而\n23 所提出的论点没有说服力。\n24 在目前这个时间点，债务人没有权限或\n25 资格做他正在做的事情。一项\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 93 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日\n\n1 债权申报截止日尚未届满，而称这些\n2 债权无效的债权人，根据其财产申报表，没有记录，\n3 没有账簿或记录，却可以称\n4 这些债权无效，我不会走上\n5 处理证据开示争议和其他问题的道路，这些问题将浪费\n6 本法院的时间。\n7 如果债务人和各方——我指的是所有各方——\n8 确实都本着善意希望\n9 解决本案，那么你们现在有机会和途径\n10 这样做。明白吗？\n11 因此，对全部三项债权的异议均予驳回。\n12 将作出一项命令，规定债务人\n13 除非且直至其获得法院授权，否则不得对任何债权\n14 提出异议。\n15 CESARONI 先生：明白，法官阁下。谢谢。\n16 KINDSETH 先生：因此，法官阁下，为明确起见，\n17 关于驳回，是否可以不妨碍再次提出，法官阁下，\n18 以便记录——\n19 法院：嗯，我刚才说过，你们可以请求\n20 授权提交——\n21 KINDSETH 先生：谢谢。\n22 法院：——新的债权异议。\n23 KINDSETH 先生：谢谢。\n24 法院：这就是我所说的。好的。那么\n25 今天下午我们还需要处理什么？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日 94 DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，我们能否在周二增加一次仅就 PJR 事项举行的状态会议？我认为这不会有争议。法院：嗯，你们可以做任何你们想做的事，但我们不会按原定安排在二月份举行 PJR 听证会。所以——DESPINS 先生：不，不，我们想要——法院：——如果有人没有明白这一点，那么——DESPINS 先生：不，不。我们——法院：——我不知道我还需要说得多么清楚。DESPINS 先生：我们已经完全明白了。法院：好的。DESPINS 先生：这——不是要重新讨论该问题。这是程序性问题，法官阁下，基本上——就是这样。法院：好的。关于债权申报事项和 Epic（埃匹克）事项的状态会议，关于 Epic 命令以及我被告知将会发生的情况和正在发生的情况，有几个问题；我认为我们可以解决，但我们需要解决这些问题。我被告知——因为我想，Despins 先生，您会记得，当——您不会记得在\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 94 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1440 提交于 02/03/23 录入于 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 95 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX 诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年1月26日 95\n1 在您被任命之前发生的事，但在您被任命之前，\n2 占有中的债务人希望聘用一名债权申报代理人，\n3 而我当时对律师说，我看不出\n4 本案为何需要债权申报代理人。这只会导致\n5 产生额外的行政费用，而且\n6 书记官办公室完全具备处理\n7 债权申报的能力。\n\n债务人先前的律师表示：“好的，行，我们不会再推进该动议。我们不会申请指定债权申报代理人，尽管该债权申报代理人在法院就是否应当指定债权申报代理人作出任何裁定之前，就已开始送达文书。”\n\n这不是一家公司的第 11 章纽约南区破产案件——你知道，这根本不是——不是那样的案件。\n\n于是，Despins（德斯平斯）先生，我们讨论过这个问题。当你出庭时，你说：“我希望设立一名债权申报代理人，因为我担心某些债权申报的保密性，而且人们害怕提交债权申报，因为他们相信债务人会因他们提交债权申报而对其采取行动。”\n\n我说：“好的，不过——我想同 Epic（艾匹克）说清楚，因为我说过，我不——如果他们只是在做这些，为什么我们会有赔偿责任条款以及所有其他这些条款？”我们讨论过这些。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1440 已提交 02/03/23 已录入 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 96 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- January 26, 2023 96 无论如何，我认为所提交的命令草案比我原以为会发生的情况走得更远。现在，我——我的理解是，Epic 正在送达本案中的诉讼文书。他们不只是维护一份含有保密债权申报的债权申报登记册，还在送达不同文件；而且据我理解，对于他们应当向谁送达何种文件，并没有真正的指示。\n\n我对此的问题是，我——我对此感到担忧。我不知道他们在向谁送达，而前几天我们举行了一次听证会，他们直到听证会开始后才提交送达证明。这对我并没有什么帮助。我需要知道向谁送达、为何送达、何时送达，并且需要在听证会之前提交送达证明，但这些都没有发生。\n\n现在，我没有理解或意识到你们让他们送达任何文件，因为我以为 Epic 的全部目的就是维护这份保密债权申报登记册。如果你们希望他们送达文件，那么我们需要把这件事理顺，因为现有命令对此并不明确。\n\n我还认为他们需要以不同方式送达文件，并且需要清理送达名单，因为他们正在向已经由律师代理的人送达文件。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1440\n已提交 02/03/23\n已录入 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- January 26, 2023\n\n他们曾四次通过邮寄方式向 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）送达文件。我不明白这一点，而且这不会得到补偿。明白吗？\n\n正如我们都知道的，这是一个——他们——我们不会不必要地发生行政费用。这只会——这不会有助于实现各方刚刚所说希望实现的目标，即本案的整体解决。\n\n因此，Despins 先生，我需要你——或者说与你一道协助你的人——去同 Epic 沟通，并且准确告诉我他们在做什么以及如何做，清理送达名单，停止列出——制作一份载明以电子方式接受送达人员的文件。\n\n美国每一地区法院的地方法则以及破产法院地方法则均规定，电子提交通知就是送达证明。我不需要再有这个。也不需要再多出一页塞进信封，让他们可以就此收取复印费——我并不是在责备他们。我不是——这不是责备——我只是说，在本案中，这种情况不会发生。我们正在整顿这个问题。这需要整顿。\n\n我需要了解他们在送达什么。我需要了解他们在接受谁的指示，如果有人指示他们的话，而且他们应当接受指示。他们需要接受书记官办公室、法院或者你的指示。\n\n而我们——或者无论是谁提交什么文书。我不只是说你。我不知道他们在送达什么。我不知道他们是否在送达其他人的动议。我完全不知道他们在做什么，但这需要整顿。\n\n而且我们可能需要弄清一个程序——我不知道——我并不完全明白，不过我的意思是，我想我明白，但我还没有看到——他们一定是在创建一份保密债权申报登记册。可以。这没有问题。\n\n但是，我需要知道正在提交多少债权申报，而且可能需要为书记官办公室制作该债权申报登记册的某种副本，因为法院应当维护——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——本案的记录。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：明白吗？密封没有任何问题。我们已经处理过这些。我们同意，一切都将受密封处理。我们的书记官办公室需要——知道如何处理密封文书。他们经常这样做，明白吗？\n\n因此，我需要你最迟在周二之前，如果不是更早，告诉我。我希望看到一份关于聘用和指定 Epic 的修订命令。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1440\n已提交 02/03/23\n已录入 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- January 26, 2023\n\n他们只是债权申报代理人，还是通知代理人？\n\n如果他们是通知代理人，那么我想准确知道他们在通知什么以及如何通知，并且向他们明确说明，他们必须清理这些送达问题。\n\n我不是——再次说明，我不是在责备他们。我只是告诉你，这是本案中一个非常具体的问题，我不希望它失去控制，而这就是处理方式。明白吗？\n\n现在，可能他们确实必须送达所有文件。因此，也许 Epic 必须在明天和周一之前与法院书记官沟通，但他们必须以合理的方式这样做。明白吗？\n\n他们可能必须送达所有文件，而我现在还不知道这个问题的答案，不过——因为他们拥有那份保密债权申报登记册。但他们必须解决这个问题。每个人都在对各种事情作出假设，而没有人真正了解其他人在做什么，所以我们需要解决这个问题。明白吗？\n\n因此，我会——我们将在周一——抱歉，周二将此事列入日程。但如果你们在那之前提交一份修订命令，而且该命令合理，那么——如果我签发该命令，那么你们就知道我们不必在周二讨论此事，明白吗？至于——关于 Epic 的问题就这些。有人有任何问题吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，我只想说，我本人没有，不过我的同事 Bongartz（邦加茨）先生一直每日同他们联系，而据我了解，他们一直同书记官办公室保持联系。他们只送达了申报截止日期通知和那一项命令——我是说，我会确认这一点——但书记官办公室曾问他们是否可以——\n\n法庭：他们还送达了一份听证会通知。他们做了其他事情。而且他们——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——你刚才那样说让我想起了一件事。现在我又忘了。我现在想不起来了。\n\nDESPINS 先生：那么，我们——\n\n法庭：无论如何——\n\nDESPINS 先生：——我们会解决。\n\n法庭：我们只是需要你们——\n\nDESPINS 先生：我们会——\n\n法庭：我们只是需要把它理顺，仅此而已。\n\nDESPINS 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：只是，我们需要把它理顺。\n\nDESPINS 先生：当然。这不是问题。\n\n法庭：就这些。我们只需要——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1440 已提交 02/03/23 已录入 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 100 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1440\n已提交 02/03/23\n已录入 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- January 26, 2023\n\nDESPINS 先生：我们会解决的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——我们只需要把它理顺。明白吗？好的。\n\n哦，我知道我刚才要说什么了。因为随申请附上的服务协议没有非常明确地说明——如果它提到了作为通知代理人，也只是将其表述为他们的职称，而不是具体界定文件送达。明白吗？\n\n我认为他们是故意这样做的，因为 Despins 先生说：“嘿，她不希望你们做所有这些事情。她希望你们只做债权申报登记册。”他们帮了你们一个忙，他们——你们说，因为他们知道他们不知道自己是否会得到报酬，我理解这一点。我确实理解。\n\n因此，我认为该服务协议可能不同于他们在其他案件中使用的协议。他们可能删掉了一些内容，诸如此类。但是，只要有人看一下并把它理顺。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我们会向法院报告，并且会准确了解他们将就送达做什么，或者不做什么，我们会完成所有这些。好的。\n\n法庭：是的。我知道，这不是问题，但我是在向你解释这件事应当如何处理——我知道这会得到解决，但这就是你们必须做的，你们必须解决它。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。关于债权申报问题，我今天将此事列入日程安排举行案件状态会议，原因是我不知道各方会就已经提交的债权申报及对债权申报提出的异议如何主张。我已经听取了论点。我驳回对债权申报的异议，并准许债务人日后提出申请以反对债权申报，该申请可能获准，也可能不获准。\n\n不过，如果债权申报程序仍存在问题，我所担心的是，Cesaroni（切萨罗尼）先生，无论最终出具何种命令以反映我刚才驳回这些异议，你都必须向那些债权人送达该命令，以便他们知道自己不必在 February 17th 之前提交答复。我会将此写入命令，明白吗？\n\nCESARONI 先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：这样他们才能理解。而我所担心的——不是那个问题，明白吗。我的总体担忧是，现在是 January 26th，对吧，因此债权申报期还剩一个月。\n\n我必须告诉你们，我也正在考虑——我会在周二告诉你们我是否会采取任何不同的做法。但我正在考虑延长该截止期限。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1440\n已提交 02/03/23\n已录入 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）- January 26, 2023\n\n日期。我是否会这样做，我不知道；我将在周二给各位机会，说明你们对此的看法。\n\n这就是为什么我今天将此事与所有其他事项一并列入日程。\n\n这必须是一个公平、透明且准确的程序；如果有人认为其拥有申报债权的依据——有效债权，我不希望任何人无论出于何种原因不提交债权申报。\n\n当然，其债权最终可能并不有效；但是，我不希望出现任何一种可能的印象，即人们不应提交债权申报。\n\n如果你们回去重读 Stern，Roberts首席大法官对最高法院关于破产的观点表述得非常明确，即这是一个债权申报程序。债权申报程序不应以任何方式、形态或形式受到干扰。因此，我现在告诉各位，我正在考虑这一点，并将在周二让各位说明你们对此的看法。明白吗？\n\n我不会就任何事项作出裁定。我只是鉴于已提请本院注意的不同问题，以及坦率地说，今天就本项关于藐视法庭的临时禁令动议所提交的证据，而感到关切。\n\nBassett先生，我今天不会就你们动议中关于藐视法庭的部分作出裁定。我必须对此进行考虑。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1440 提交日期 02/03/23 录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54 第 104 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年1月26日\n\n我必须审阅你们提交的材料。正如你所说，你们昨晚10:00左右提交了这些材料。我直到现在才看到。我在我们讨论此事期间审阅了它，但我必须回去再看一遍。\n\n我必须考虑Wachen先生所说的一些事情。我的意思是，所有证据附件均已提交。我并非提出任何相反意见；但是，最后一项——有关那篇文章的附件——你知道，我说过我会给予其我认为应有的权重，对吗？因此，我必须对此进行考虑，而且我会这样做。\n\n因此，我将把Epic事项和债权申报事项的状态会议——我现在正看着法庭书记员——也延期至周二。如果在此之前就Epic事项作出某种裁定，其中一项或许不会继续进行。\n\n关于申报截止日期问题，我将保留在听证会上讨论，因为我将要——不，我不希望任何人提交任何文件。明白吗？我知道各方的立场。我不需要任何文件。我只想听听你们对于申报截止日期问题、即是否应进一步延长申报截止日期的看法。明白吗？\n\n我认为这就处理完今天下午的所有事项了。\n\n律师，你有什么要说的吗？\n\nCANTOR先生：是的。法官阁下，我可以简要陈述吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nCANTOR先生：谢谢。法官阁下，我是代表PAX的O'Melveny（美迈斯律师事务所）律师Daniel Cantor（丹尼尔·坎托尔）。法官阁下，PAX只是想就本院决定将本案交付调解，以及本院在裁定中列明的程序，表达其真诚而深切的感谢。我们非常支持该程序。我们认为，在本案目前阶段，这是完全正确的举措。PAX打算积极参与调解，打算成为建设性的参与者，并将尽其所能促成这一切顺利进行。我们希望并期望调解能够成功。\n\n但是，任何调解若要成功，当事人必须信任并相信其在该程序中进行谈判的对方当事人具有善意。法官阁下，您刚才听到Cesaroni先生提到，Kwok先生将善意参与调解。但是，坦率地说，法官阁下，鉴于针对PAX、其高管及其外部律师持续进行且目标明确的骚扰活动，PAX很难相信Kwok先生是具有善意的谈判对方。\n\n例如，法官阁下，今天上午，Sarnoff先生住所外的示威活动仍在继续，完全不尊重、也不承认法官阁下临时禁令命令中有关时间、地点和方式的限制。\n\n此外，本月早些时候，法官阁下，Kwok先生的支持者对PAX、Shan先生（语音拼写）以及O'Melveny和Sarnoff先生提起了完全轻率的诉讼——应当说是多起诉讼——并主张，除其他事项外，他们是中华人民共和国未登记的外国代理人。\n\n法官阁下，这必须停止。但是，法官阁下，停止这场骚扰活动不能只是调解的最终目标。\n\n它不是为了通过谈判实现某些目标而在谈判桌上交换的某种筹码。相反，法官阁下，这是创造有利于富有成效谈判的环境所必需的——极其重要的条件。\n\n而且，法官阁下，Kwok先生知道这一点。正如您在临时禁令听证会上所听到的，以及正如您在就临时禁令动议作出的裁定中所指出的，去年10月，当事人正在讨论可能解决本事项时，Kwok先生向其支持者广播，呼吁其所谓的“战友”、中国新联邦国的朋友们，停止曝光和骚扰PAX的高管、家属和律师。\n\n您在听证会上听到，各方均理解，为了有机会达成成功的谈判，这是必要的。\n\n因此，法官阁下，在我们迈向调解程序之际——PAX真诚希望该调解程序将如您今天数次提到的那样，促成一项全面解决方案，终结各方之间的争议，并为整个程序带来和平——我们只是想指出这一点。非常感谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Despins先生？\n\nDESPINS先生：我只是想对此表示百分之一百五十的赞同。我这样说，是代表我自己、代表Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）和我的家人。有人用枪顶着我们的头时，我看不出我们如何能够进行建设性的讨论。因此，我不会再进一步说下去，但我认为这是一个非常重要的问题。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。而且，正如所指出的，我已在临时禁令动议中指出，这显然在去年10月能够实现；我当然希望在本法庭内的当事人能够理解，仍然有办法再次实现这一点。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1440\n提交日期 02/03/23\n录入日期 02/03/23 15:38:54\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）/PAX（PAX）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年1月26日\n\n因此，你们需要就所有这些问题与Tancredi法官沟通。明白吗？\n\n好的。今天的听证至此结束，现休庭。\n\n书记员：好的。现休庭。\n\n（程序于下午2:34结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员及誊录员，特此证明：上述内容系对上述案件程序官方电子录音的正确誊录。\n\n2023年2月2日\n\nChristine Fiore，CERT\n\n誊录员","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","Guo","GETTR","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":160,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":33017,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-02-03 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-02-03","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:41:48"}