{"id":"batch-000149","number":149,"revision":3,"date_start":"2026-08-20T10:49:50.578Z","date_end":"2026-08-21T20:41:25.671Z","total_messages":177,"summary_en":"Community discussion, batch 149 (Aug 20, 2026 – Aug 21, 2026), 177 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Between Aug 20 and 21, 2026, participants tracked two threads: CIPA disclosure and forfeiture over Guo-related proceeds. They dispute when CIPA objections became viable and whether sealed material handling in ECF 111, 340-341, 353-356, 783, and 805 should have been reopened at sentencing. They also contest whether Dkt. 858’s $889M figure under §853(n) and Honeycutt complies with United States v. Elias and United States v. Guan after control-based findings. Community statements, not court findings.","guide_en":[{"title":"Timeliness and Nature of Post-Indictment CIPA Claims: Whether They Are Merely Premature Requests","description":"roy*** argues that CIPA was raised by defense as early as ECF 111 in 2023 and that participants dispute whether later use reflects premature framing versus a merits dispute on scope, not merely a late invention. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286","q720d47a774f031d37dd8"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286","summary_en":"roy*** argues the record suggests early CIPA engagement (ECF 111, ECF 52, ECF 252) and warns that the later CIPA trail was part of an ongoing defense strategy from 2023 onward, not a late discovery stunt. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q720d47a774f031d37dd8","summary_en":"roy*** claims ECF 111 plus later sealed filings show a layered dispute where no court finding equals no Brady value, and he argues a sealed-record review should test whether the same issue remained unresolved through later phases. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Core Dispute Shifts From Procedural Attack to §6(a) Weight: Whether Further Disclosure Is Needed to Preserve Cross-Examination","description":"roy*** argues the fight moved from whether disclosure motions were procedurally premature to whether §6(a) and substitution rulings improperly limited confrontation and the chance to present a complete defense. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q320d0d94acdaa1e5b7c2","qe69951db654ec65846a0","q2e83cc631fce81b32a17"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q320d0d94acdaa1e5b7c2","summary_en":"roy*** argues that Torres denied a Witness-2 notice on timing objections but still excluded the intended cross-exam content under §6(a) as limited in probative value, creating a potential appellate tension over the defense’s right to cross-examine. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qe69951db654ec65846a0","summary_en":"roy*** argues the earlier refusal was framed as prematurity, while he contends that sentencing and forfeiture stages now made the same victims/loss issues materially mature for reconsideration. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q2e83cc631fce81b32a17","summary_en":"roy*** argues ECF 353 to 356 are now tied to the Witness-2 CIPA litigation, and that the defense’s theory is focused on potential impeachment and confrontation effects if the witness’s prior statements cannot be tested before a jury. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Witness-2 Disclosure Timing and Path: Whether the §3500 and CIPA Conference Link Is Vulnerable","description":"roy*** argues Witness-2 disclosures are a concrete timeline issue, and participants dispute whether late-classified material and substitution history should have been tested sooner through a fuller Rule 3500/CIPA process. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qc1811ee79f1e78cc8032","q67ae2b083f57a80c41e9","q71155936bc4367d7cd31"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qc1811ee79f1e78cc8032","summary_en":"roy*** argues the ex parte roadmap issue is about judicial access to defense theory when materials are unavailable to counsel, and he claims this pattern repeats between 2023 and 2026 requests for sealed-record review. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q67ae2b083f57a80c41e9","summary_en":"roy*** argues late §3500 delivery of Witness-2 material on 2024-05-06 and a same-week CIPA conference indicate the defense acted quickly after learning its potential use, despite the witness’s long-standing government ties. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q71155936bc4367d7cd31","summary_en":"roy*** argues ECF 341 confirms only filing milestones while key §5 notice content remains sealed, and he claims this makes late trigger disclosure a central appellate point because defense had only days to pursue cross-examination issues. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Rule 16 and Requests 5/19 Parallel Disputes: CCP Targeting, Coercion, and Unresolved Victim Identity","description":"roy*** argues Rule 16 requests and Requests 5/19 are linked to CCP targeting and coercion theories, and participants dispute whether unresolved victim identity and losses should be revisited once those theories affect sentencing consequences. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff","qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff","summary_en":"roy*** argues Torres recognized material CCP-targeting evidence under Rule 16, including government-to-Guo and company-related categories, while Requests 5/19 were withheld as premature to preserve later impeachment handling around witness testimony. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","summary_en":"roy*** argues the record did not reject coercion theories as false, but he disputes whether those issues became effectively unresolved once trial, restitution, and forfeiture required concrete victim and loss determinations. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf","summary_en":"roy*** argues the appellate line is that material CCP-targeting evidence was acknowledged but parts stayed classified/excluded, and he disputes whether unresolved victim identity can remain unreviewed while loss findings later drive sentencing and forfeiture. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Brady Boundary Spills Into Intelligence Framework: ECF111 and Post-ECF111 Claims to Expand Disclosure Duties","description":"roy*** argues the Brady thread now claims overlap with intelligence assessments and asks whether government-classified material on PRC targeting and witness background should narrow disclosure limits beyond ordinary prosecution records. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q720d47a774f031d37dd8","qd12cd3c0e4c7d2c85e85","qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q720d47a774f031d37dd8","summary_en":"roy*** argues the central claim is not a finding of hidden exoneration material, but a dispute over whether no-reopening decisions left potentially favorable intelligence-linked material in sealed form. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qd12cd3c0e4c7d2c85e85","summary_en":"roy*** argues one possible disclosure pathway is a government PRC targeting assessment, another is prior U.S. government contact with Guo, and a third is classified government relationships of prosecution witnesses affecting credibility. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286","summary_en":"roy*** argues early CIPA steps (ECF 52, ECF 252, ECF 111) show defense reliance on classified-material disputes from an early point, and he disputes that later Brady framing was created only at sentencing. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Sentencing Reconsideration in ECF783/805: Focus on Non-Reopening Rather Than Substantive Rejection","description":"roy*** argues sentencing review centered on whether earlier CIPA holdings should be re-opened, and participants dispute whether ECF 783 and ECF 805 represent discretionary refusal versus a substantive rejection of potential Brady disclosure. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf","q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","summary_en":"roy*** argues ECF 783 was framed as a sentencing-stage request for renewed CIPA review and ECF 805 denied that request on discretion and delay grounds, and he disputes whether this avoided meaningful merits reassessment. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf","summary_en":"roy*** argues the sequence still left national-security evidence partially sealed or excluded from the jury, and he disputes whether the court later resolved whether victim, loss, and forfeiture implications were fully adjudicated. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff","summary_en":"roy*** argues later arguments in this stream connect trial exclusions to sentencing claims, and he disputes whether timeliness objections were the true exclusion reason where timing was accepted and evidentiary balancing was decisive. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Former-Counsel Evidence Route as a New Entry: Rule 17(c) and ECF120/814/823/829 and Sentencing Mitigation","description":"roy*** argues the former-counsel evidence channel is a separate mitigation path and participants dispute whether Rule 17(c) materials about FBI and intelligence contacts should narrow forfeiture exposure and sentencing outcomes. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q31526ee3bcbf1b3a0398","q1c01b837bddfe185e0d2","qff55509b150f9726171c"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q31526ee3bcbf1b3a0398","summary_en":"roy*** argues ECF 814 and ECF 823 allowed targeted Rule 17(c) subpoenaing tied to mitigation and law-enforcement interest protections, and he disputes whether partial sealing masked records materially supportive of sentencing arguments. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q1c01b837bddfe185e0d2","summary_en":"roy*** argues Torres denied a compel after sealed good-faith-search declarations, while he disputes whether that leaves a closed loop because former counsel’s possession and partial production were central to proving FBI/Intelligence contact history. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qff55509b150f9726171c","summary_en":"roy*** argues ECF 120 already indicates a sustained 2018-2019 FBI Agent-1 contact pattern with classified-details support, and he disputes whether those details are merely peripheral to the post-conviction mitigation narrative. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Timeline Dispute Escalates: 2018-2019 FBI Contact, TIN Start, 2020 CFU, and Later Charges","description":"roy*** argues the timeline itself is central, and participants dispute whether FBI contact, TIN investigation, and CFU inquiry formed a connected chain or merely parallel tracks that later converged in 23-cr-118. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qad868f256ff555b69a17","qf41453b0577b6ff94006","qa576ab718aab9746c418"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qad868f256ff555b69a17","summary_en":"roy*** argues 2018-2019 FBI contact, the 2019 TIN opening, and 2020 CFU investigation form a chronological chain that could support a derivative-use challenge if early materials fed later counts. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qf41453b0577b6ff94006","summary_en":"roy*** argues the open question is whether TIN-seized material transferred into CFU-related prosecution, and he disputes whether any redacted ECF 216 language might identify source/cooperator pathways. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qa576ab718aab9746c418","summary_en":"roy*** argues ECF 120 includes classified supplements on both Agent-1 contacts and the TIN–CFU relationship, and participants dispute whether these undisclosed portions are the decisive link between intelligence contact and later fraud charges. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Forfeiture Focuses on §853(n) Actual Gain or Control Rather Than Simple Boss Label","description":"roy*** and ntp*** argue forfeiture should be tested by defendant-specific acquisition and control evidence, and participants dispute whether Dkt. 858’s control approach can absorb the $889M figure without clearer proof under Honeycutt-like principles. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q3f42ee3f2c380a92e81b","q29713dda849256bf08ce","q57952647103252f3550a"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q3f42ee3f2c380a92e81b","summary_en":"roy*** argues United States v. Elias, read with Honeycutt, may require tighter proof that each proceeds amount was obtained or controlled by Guo, and he disputes whether a leadership label alone can sustain the full amount in Dkt. 858. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q29713dda849256bf08ce","summary_en":"roy*** argues the 858 order separating victim identity findings from proceeds forfeiture does not erase the need to prove each gross inflow was subject to Guo-specific proceeds control; he disputes whether that step was met for all funds. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q57952647103252f3550a","summary_en":"ntp*** argues there was no final forfeiture order on June 29, and that ECF 858 should be read as a Southern District order on Guo’s challenge to a preliminary forfeiture ruling rather than a final merits conclusion. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Bankruptcy/Asset Path Shifts to Substantive Property Claims: 870 and 5739 Prompt Identity and Boundary Checks","description":"roy*** and other participants argue bankruptcy discussion shifted to concrete economic rights, and participants dispute whether settlement documents 870 and 5739 indicate broader third-party standing or only collateral settlement administration. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","qd4bd8188fb0d6bb07af1","q90d0fea82e873ea0b946"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","summary_en":"ntp*** argues that 870 and 5739 were understood as settlements with prosecutors, and he disputes what that means for each claimant’s status versus criminal-labeled victim identity. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qd4bd8188fb0d6bb07af1","summary_en":"roy*** argues 870 (July 29, 2026) and 5739 (July 30, 2026) were filed in close sequence and shared government counsel, which he disputes as merely routine but notes supports an argument of coordinated forfeiture-interest handling. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q90d0fea82e873ea0b946","summary_en":"roy*** argues bankruptcy standing depends on direct creditor or property rights in 22-50073 proceedings, and he disputes assumptions that criminal-victim labels automatically translate into bankruptcy party status. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Social-Media and Emotional Framing Are Treated as Opinions: Debate Returns to Verifiable Source Material","description":"Participants claim the discussion should move from social or emotional assertions to citable record material, and they dispute whether unsourced commentary can carry evidentiary weight in legal argumentation. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qebb00e099459577fe9fd","q0ec10d034e269e871bad","qcf549eac28fe3bd1c688"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qebb00e099459577fe9fd","summary_en":"ntp*** claims AI-style assertions should be challenged when unsupported, and he disputes arguments that are not anchored to ECF identifiers or other citation-ready sources. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q0ec10d034e269e871bad","summary_en":"chu*** shared a social-media reference in the thread, and participants claim such links should be treated as contextual commentary unless backed by verified case filings. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qcf549eac28fe3bd1c688","summary_en":"_ki*** claims the thread is continuing that existing itemized point, and participants dispute whether side-topic noise should divert attention from the primary legal questions. Community statements, not court findings."}]}],"summary":"讨论围绕郭案CIPA与财产没收两大线并行推进，核心不是是否存在争议，而是封存信息是否实质影响辩护与对质权。参与者普遍认可起诉后即有CIPA主张并已获部分程序确认，但在其是否应提前启动、范围是否过宽上分歧；尤其是Witness‑2相关CIPA会议、§6 hearing与§3500晚披露被认为可能压缩交叉询问空间。证据面逐步从“是否有神秘操盘人”转向2018-2019年FBI接触、TIN/CFU衍生链条、前律师取证材料是否改写定性。财产层面，forfeiture争议从“是否受害者”转向“§853(n)下的实际控制和具体财产权”，并与破产程序中的第三方身份边界、870/5739和解条款中的受益人表述交织，多项结论仍待更完整材料确认。","guide":[{"title":"起诉后CIPA主张的时效与性质：是否属于临时性诉求出现分歧","message_ids":["qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286","q720d47a774f031d37dd8"]},{"title":"核心争论由程序性攻击转为§6(a)证明力：是否应再披露以保对质权","message_ids":["q320d0d94acdaa1e5b7c2","qe69951db654ec65846a0","q2e83cc631fce81b32a17"]},{"title":"Witness-2相关披露时点与路径：§3500与CIPA会议后续关联受质疑","message_ids":["qc1811ee79f1e78cc8032","q67ae2b083f57a80c41e9","q71155936bc4367d7cd31"]},{"title":"Rule16与Requests 5/19并行争点：CCP targeting、胁迫、受害者身份未完全闭环","message_ids":["q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff","qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf"]},{"title":"Brady边界外溢至情报体系：ECF111/111后主张扩大检方披露义务","message_ids":["q720d47a774f031d37dd8","qd12cd3c0e4c7d2c85e85","qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286"]},{"title":"量刑重审中的ECF783/805：焦点在“未重新评估”而非“已被否定”","message_ids":["qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf","q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff"]},{"title":"前律师取证链条成为新入口：Rule17(c)与ECF120/814/823/829是否左右减刑","message_ids":["q31526ee3bcbf1b3a0398","q1c01b837bddfe185e0d2","qff55509b150f9726171c"]},{"title":"时间链争议升级：2018-2019 FBI接触、TIN启动到2020 CFU与2023起诉的衍生关系","message_ids":["qad868f256ff555b69a17","qf41453b0577b6ff94006","qa576ab718aab9746c418"]},{"title":"没收争点聚焦§853(n)实际取得/支配标准，反对将Boss身份等同于财产权","message_ids":["q3f42ee3f2c380a92e81b","q29713dda849256bf08ce","q57952647103252f3550a"]},{"title":"破产/财产路径转向实质财产主张：870与5739文本引发第三方权益与身份边界核对","message_ids":["qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","qd4bd8188fb0d6bb07af1","q90d0fea82e873ea0b946"]},{"title":"社媒与情绪化说法被提醒为观点非事实：讨论强调需回到可核验材料","message_ids":["qebb00e099459577fe9fd","q0ec10d034e269e871bad","qcf549eac28fe3bd1c688"]}],"closed":true,"is_finalized":true,"updated_at":"2026-09-06T19:36:36.445Z","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_batch","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149","base_batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-batches/batch-000149","page":1,"page_size":200,"total_pages":1,"has_more":false,"next_url":null,"prev_url":null,"messages":[{"id":"q0b575372f129b1b4439d","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":1,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T10:49:50.578Z","text":"这个要不要挖？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0b575372f129b1b4439d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb097f44437a5584b0cce","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":2,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T10:50:28.708Z","text":"170，172，243，可以找给我完整版吗","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb097f44437a5584b0cce","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":3,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T10:52:36.150Z","text":"继续挖以后，我找到一个比“CIPA里可能有秘密”更具体、而且对郭明显有利的结构。\n\n最重要的是：2024年2月Torres已经正式认定，郭要求的多类“中共针对郭及其体系”的材料，达到了Rule 16的materiality门槛。这不是辩方自己说重要，而是法院说这些证据可能反驳政府、支持辩方。\n\n法院当时明确批准了 Requests 2、3、4、8，这些包括：\n\n* Bai案相关的中共针对行动；\n* Operation Fox Hunt对郭的针对，包括向美国人支付贿赂、游说美国官员把郭送回中国；\n* 中共针对郭家人的材料；\n* 中共针对GTV、Saraca Media、G|CLUBS、G|Fashion、Himalaya Exchange这些涉案实体的材料。\n\n而Torres给出的理由非常关键。她说这些材料可以支持郭至少三种非犯罪解释：\n\n第一，Mahwah庄园。\n政府说买庄园是郭为自己和家人享受；郭说是因为中共威胁，需要一个安全、隐蔽的反共活动场所。Torres明确说，如果中共针对郭的恐惧是客观真实的，这可以支持一个“alternative, nonculpable explanation”，也可能支持他对G|CLUBS资金用途存在good-faith belief。\n\n第二，GTV估值。\n郭说GTV针对的是突破中国网络封锁、提供民主信息的市场。Torres说，如果中国政府确实采取措施压制郭的线上平台，这可以支持“这个市场需求确实存在”，因此可能支持他对GTV估值的good-faith解释。\n\n第三，多手机、多银行账户。\n政府可以把这些当作“consciousness of guilt”；郭的解释是为了躲避中共黑客、冻结账户和Operation Fox Hunt。Torres同样认为，中共针对证据可以为这些行为提供非犯罪解释。\n\n这一点我觉得对26-1853很重要，因为法院自己已经承认：\n\nCCP-targeting evidence can bear directly on fraudulent intent.\n\n也就是说，这不是外围政治背景，而是可能直接触到wire fraud最核心的intent。\n\n更值得你注意的是 Request 5和Request 19。\n\n这两个到底是什么，现在已经找到了：\n\nRequest 5：中共是否针对本案所谓“受害者”；\nRequest 19：所谓“受害者”关于NFSC的任何陈述。\n\n郭当时为什么要这些？法院判决把他的理由写得很直白：\n\n郭认为存在一种可能：至少部分政府所谓受害者受到中共胁迫，从而向美国当局作出虚假指控。\n\n法院当时没有说这个理论荒谬、虚假或者毫无根据。它拒绝Requests 5和19的理由是premature（时机过早）——因为如果这些人后来作为政府证人出庭，这类材料可能属于impeachment/§3500材料，可以到证人出庭阶段再处理。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q320ccd18ba64c7f882ff","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":4,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T10:53:07.395Z","text":"这个区别很重要：\n\n不是“法院认定不存在中共胁迫假受害者”；\n而是“现在要求这些证人材料太早”。\n\n而后来你们一直关注的victim真实性、loss、forfeiture/remission问题，恰恰又在定罪以后重新成为核心问题。\n\n所以从上诉角度看，有一个非常值得追问的问题：\n\nRequests 5/19在trial以后有没有真正被完整解决？\n\n因为2024年的“premature”理由，到2026年量刑、forfeiture、victim determination阶段，逻辑基础已经发生变化了。到了那时候，谁是真victim、谁的loss怎么算，已经直接关系sentence和forfeiture。\n\n然后是你问的 CIPA秘密本身。\n\n2024年的命令明确说，法院批准的CCP-targeting材料里，如果存在classified intelligence assessments，法院会根据CIPA §4决定是披露、删减还是替代。\n\n换句话说，CIPA材料与“中共针对郭/NFSC/相关公司”之间的联系，现在不是猜测——公开判决自己已经把两者连接起来了。\n\n还有那段 2018年8月26日录音。\n\n现在可以确认：\n\n政府确实拥有那次interaction的录音；2023年12月22日给郭的版本里，有约5分钟被删掉。郭要求完整版本，Torres自己in camera看了那5分钟的transcript，最后认定对trial defense不relevant/material，所以拒绝披露。\n\n但2026年新律师为什么又回来追CIPA？原因也更清楚了。\n\nECF 783不是简单要求“把以前没给的材料再给一遍”。新律师明确要求Torres按照sentencing标准重新审查CIPA §4材料，因为Brady同样适用于量刑，而且他们希望向法院ex parte提供一个“roadmap”，告诉法官他们有good-faith basis相信什么东西就在密封材料里面。\n\n法院最终在 ECF 805，2026年2月20日拒绝重新打开CIPA问题。公开索引显示，Torres认为没有充分理由重新审查过去的CIPA裁定，并且认为请求太晚、会进一步推迟量刑。\n\n这实际上给26-1853留下一个比较清楚的 appellate sequence：\n\n① District Court认定CCP-targeting材料对fraudulent intent是material；\n② 其中部分材料进入CIPA §4密封审查；\n③ 某些classified材料没有完整交给辩方；\n④ trial时Witness-2又触发了一次新的classified-information争议；\n⑤ jury最终没有听到那部分内容；\n⑥ 定罪以后新律师认为sealed CIPA record对sentencing还有帮助，要求重新审查；\n⑦ Torres拒绝重新打开。\n\n而Witness-2这条也比我之前说的更确定。\n\n政府在 2024年5月6日才把Witness-2的§3500材料交给辩方。辩方看完以后才意识到：Witness-2几年前曾经亲自向郭披露过某件事情，而这件事情涉及classified information。辩方三天以后就要求CIPA conference。\n\nTorres后来没有因为通知迟延挡掉辩方——反而认定郭的CIPA §5 notice及时而且足够具体。真正挡住内容进入陪审团的是§6(a)：法院认为其证明力有限，而且可能产生累积证据和陪审团混乱。\n\n所以我现在反而认为，26-1853里CIPA最值得攻击的不是“政府一定藏了能证明郭无罪的大秘密”这种说法。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc4c59bb4ef2341ab95ad","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":5,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T10:53:32.329Z","text":"真正可以认真研究的是：\n\nDistrict Court itself found CCP-targeting evidence material to Guo’s good-faith/intent defense, yet portions of the national-security record remained classified, substituted, redacted, or excluded from the jury, and the court later declined to revisit that record at sentencing.\n\n这个是有record支撑的。\n\n而且现在出现了一个我觉得你会特别敏感的交叉点：\n\nRequest 5 = 中共是否针对所谓victims。\n\n你们后来一直在打的正是：\n\nvictim identity → victim credibility → loss → restitution/remission → forfeiture。\n\n也就是说，2023年郭律师已经把“中共可能影响所谓受害者”这个问题正式提进23-cr-118；不是2026年才有人突然想到。\n\n而法院当时只是说“现在太早”。\n\n这件事到2026年sentence/forfeiture阶段有没有真正得到终局回答，我认为非常值得继续追。\n\n如果没有，那么它可能形成这样一条上诉问题：\n\n法院在trial前以prematurity拒绝 → 到trial后/量刑阶段问题已经成熟 → 但最终仍没有实质审查 → 同时victim/loss又被用于重大forfeiture和sentencing后果。\n\n这条线，我觉得比单纯猜“CIPA里藏了谁的名字”要强得多。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2589e692fe3c2f3570cf","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa117bcdc7ebc9bbdb8e0","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":6,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T10:59:47.818Z","text":"这段分析值得仔细看","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa117bcdc7ebc9bbdb8e0","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":7,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:03:19.310Z","text":"继续往前追以后，我发现一个更重要的点：郭方不是到了2024年才突然想到CIPA。最迟在2023年7月，郭的律师就已经主动要求过CIPA下的ex parte conference。 公开案卷索引显示，ECF 111 的标题就是 Request for Ex Parte Conference Under CIPA by Ho Wan Kwok’s Counsel。这说明从案件非常早期开始，辩方就已经判断：本案中存在涉及classified information、而且对辩护策略重要到需要单独向法官说明的问题。\n\n而且政府这边也不是被动应付。更早的 ECF 52 就是在讨论CIPA程序框架；后来 ECF 252 又明确是政府提交的 Filing of Classified Motion Pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA。也就是说，这不是辩方单方面“幻想有秘密材料”，而是政府确实正式使用了CIPA §4机制要求法院允许其删减、替代或不披露某些classified discovery。\n\n这让我现在比较确定地说：CIPA在23-cr-118不是边角料，而是案件结构的一部分。\n\n更值得注意的是时间顺序。案子2023年3月才起诉，到了7月郭方已经主动要求CIPA ex parte conference；随后政府持续走§4；2024年又围绕Witness-2、CCP targeting、专家证言继续发生classified-information争议；到2026年量刑阶段，新律师还在要求重新审查。这个跨度太长，说明辩方一直认为sealed/classified record里有东西没有真正被公开法庭消化掉。\n\n我还发现一个对“郭一直想撬开CIPA”特别有利的旁证：Torres在trial阶段并没有把“中共针对郭”全部当成政治宣传排除掉。 2024年6月24日，她允许辩方专家Paul Doran至少就两类事情作证：中共反对郭公开支持的特定政治事业，以及纽约存在的秘密、法外中国警察站。也就是说，法院自己承认这类foreign-influence / transnational-repression背景至少有一部分与案件有关。\n\n所以现在可以把CIPA线分成三层：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa57ca8af83bd3fbf8286","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q720d47a774f031d37dd8","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":8,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:04:11.000Z","text":"第一层，已公开证明：\n政府确实持有classified material，并使用CIPA §4限制披露；郭方从2023年就主动要求进入CIPA程序。\n\n第二层，法院也承认有相关性：\nCCP targeting、秘密警察站、针对郭及相关组织的行动，可以至少在某些范围内支持非犯罪解释或影响intent判断。\n\n第三层，现在仍看不到：\n被删掉、替代、密封的原始classified information到底是什么；有没有涉及美国政府自己过去处理郭、外国影响、遣返、情报来源或某些证人的真实背景。\n\n这里还有一个我现在反而觉得非常关键的点：ECF 111本身。\n\n如果能拿到ECF 111的正文，而不只是标题，它很可能会告诉我们：\n\n* 郭方最初为什么主动触发CIPA；\n* 他们想向法官ex parte讲什么主题；\n* 是因为郭本人掌握某段classified information，还是因为政府证据里出现了classified overlap；\n* 这个主题后来有没有和Witness-2、2018年录音、Requests 5/19汇合。\n\n如果ECF 111里主题和后来2024/2026反复追的是同一件事，那就很重要，因为它说明：\n\n从2023年起，辩方一直在追同一个sealed national-security issue；不是事后为了量刑临时制造。\n\n还有一点很值得你注意：2026年的ECF 805只是拒绝重新审查/披露，它并没有公开认定“密封材料里不存在有利内容”。它的逻辑更多是：此前已经审过，没有足够理由重开，而且动议过晚、会继续拖延。\n\n所以这两句话法律意义完全不同：\n\n“里面没有Brady材料。”\n\n和\n\n“法院认为没有必要重新审查以前的CIPA决定。”\n\n目前公开记录更接近第二种。\n\n这对26-1853就留下了一个真正可以上诉审查的问题：二巡可以自己检查sealed CIPA record，看看district court对materiality、substitution、exclusion以及后来拒绝重审的判断有没有滥用裁量或者宪法问题。\n\n我现在对“大秘密”的判断比前面更具体一点：\n\n最可能不是一张‘证明郭无罪’的神秘文件，而是一整套关于郭与美国政府/情报体系、CCP targeting、外国影响、特定证人和2017–2018历史接触的classified背景材料。\n\n真正最值得继续撬的是 ECF 111正文 + ECF 52 + ECF 252/257 + Witness-2相关CIPA order。如果这几组材料的主题能互相对上，我们就可能知道这个sealed issue到底是一条线，还是几个互不相干的问题。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q720d47a774f031d37dd8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q72f30fc5589675f7f902","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":9,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:06:27.802Z","text":"继续挖到 ECF 111 原文以后，线索更清楚了，而且这里有一个非常重要的变化：\n\n郭方在2023年7月21日申请CIPA §2 ex parte conference时，已经明确告诉Torres：本案起诉本身“很可能触及classified information”，而且这些材料会直接关系政府的 discovery obligations。 这不是后来因为某个证人才临时想到的。\n\n更关键的是，ECF 111里辩方专门把问题指向了美国情报界 Intelligence Community（IC）。他们告诉法院，Brady/Giglio义务不能只查SDNY检察官办公室；如果其他政府机构是prosecution team的一部分，或者根据案件性质有可靠迹象掌握有利材料，政府有义务搜索。辩方进一步引用DOJ规则，明确要求搜索可能由美国情报界掌握的信息。\n\n这就比我们之前推测的更具体了。\n\n郭方从案件早期追的，很可能不仅是：\n\n“中国共产党是不是迫害郭？”\n\n而是：\n\n“美国情报机构自己关于郭、中共针对郭、相关人物/组织、以及可能的外国影响活动，到底掌握了什么？”\n\nECF 111还特别引用二巡 United States v. Aref，强调classified information的披露门槛是 “relevant and helpful”，甚至可以低于普通Brady意义上的“有利且足以改变结果”。辩方实际上是在提前告诉Torres：不要只听政府告诉你这些秘密材料没用，你必须站在看不到材料的辩护律师角度判断它到底是否能帮助辩护。 \n\n而且有一句尤其值得注意。ECF 111明确说：\n\n政府准备提出§4 motion，本身就意味着政府已经知道存在可能属于discoverable范围的classified information。\n\n同时政府此前还表示，有可能向获得security clearance的辩护律师披露classified information。 \n\n这就能排除一种说法：\n\n“郭方只是自己幻想本案里有国家安全秘密。”\n\n不是。政府自己已经走CIPA §4，并且承认存在可能需要向cleared counsel披露的classified information。\n\n⸻\n\n我现在认为真正可能藏在CIPA里的东西，大致有三种，按重要程度排序。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q72f30fc5589675f7f902","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd12cd3c0e4c7d2c85e85","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":10,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:07:43.262Z","text":"第一种，也是我最关注的：美国政府自己对“郭被PRC targeting”的情报评估。\n\n我们现在已经知道公开司法记录确认过Broidy等人秘密推动遣返郭，也知道美国政府后来处理过中国跨国镇压案件。假如CIA/FBI/State/NSC或其他机构曾经形成classified assessment，比如：\n\nPRC intelligence / MSS / MPS正在针对郭；\n有人试图渗透NFSC/GTV；\n有人试图制造指控或影响郭周围人员；\n美国政府掌握具体行动方式和参与者；\n\n那这类材料会直接碰到郭案里的intent、witness credibility、victim credibility和alternative explanation。\n\n而且这正好解释为什么郭方从一开始就坚持：不能只让检方自己挑选什么秘密材料给法官，必须让辩护律师私下告诉法官应该去找什么。\n\n⸻\n\n第二种：美国政府过去与郭本人之间的接触。\n\n这一点我现在觉得可能性不能忽视。\n\n因为ECF 111的措辞不是仅仅要求“PRC targeting reports”，而是说存在一些由本案本身置于争议中的classified issues。\n\n后来又出现：\n\n2018年8月26日interaction录音被删5分钟；\nWitness-2过去亲自告诉郭的事情涉及classified information；\n新律师2026年仍要求重新查看这批sealed材料。\n\n如果这些节点属于同一条线，那很可能涉及：\n\n郭过去和美国政府人员、情报人员、政府来源或与国家安全有关人物之间的接触。\n\n但这一点目前仍然是推论，公开记录还不足以告诉我们到底是谁。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd12cd3c0e4c7d2c85e85","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qc1811ee79f1e78cc8032","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":11,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:08:07.984Z","text":"第三种：政府证人的classified背景。\n\nWitness-2尤其值得盯。\n\n2024年政府交§3500材料以后，辩方才发现这个证人过去告诉郭的某些事情涉及classified information；辩方随后马上启动CIPA §5。\n\n这可能意味着classified问题并不只是关于郭本人，还可能影响：\n\n政府证人的动机、身份、政府关系、外国政府关系或者他向郭讲过的事情是否真实。\n\n如果这种内容能够用于cross-examination，却最终因为CIPA/Rule 403等原因没有让jury听到，那么在26-1853里可以形成的就不仅是“CIPA discovery”问题，还可能连接到：\n\nConfrontation Clause / right to present a defense / impeachment。\n\n⸻\n\n另外我找到一个小但非常关键的程序事实。\n\nECF 111的律师引用 Schulte 案，要求Torres真正“站在辩护律师的位置”审查政府不让辩方看的classified record。理由很简单：\n\n辩方自己看不到材料，所以只有法官可以替他们检查；但如果法官不知道辩护理论是什么，也根本不知道应该找什么。 \n\n这就让2026年新律师要求给Torres一个ex parte roadmap显得不是偶然。\n\n实际上这两件事结构几乎一样：\n\n2023旧律师：请私下告诉法院我们的defense theory，让法院正确审查CIPA材料。\n↓\n2026新律师：请允许我们私下告诉法院应该重新在CIPA材料中寻找什么。\n\n这意味着同一个问题跨了将近三年一直没有消失。\n\n这一点对上诉比“大秘密”三个字更有价值。\n\n因为可以形成非常干净的appellate question：\n\nDistrict Court是否充分掌握了defense theory以后，真正独立审查了classified record中所有“relevant and helpful” information？\n\n尤其如果2026年法院又因为timeliness / sentencing delay拒绝重新review，那二巡完全有理由自己检查sealed record，看有没有材料的意义直到trial和sentencing发展以后才真正显现。\n\n还有一个有趣的外围节点：2023年6月5日Torres就曾经专门命令Luc让郭刑事辩护团队进入 Sherry-Netherland Apartment，在破产Trustee出售之前进行检查、录像和拍照。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc1811ee79f1e78cc8032","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q3fc07535ad1437398eb0","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":12,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:08:28.329Z","text":"这说明Torres很早就意识到：\n\n破产案对资产的处置可能影响刑事辩护证据保存。\n\n把这个和Mahwah、CIPA放在一起看，会出现一个很值得研究的主题：\n\n刑事案件尚在发展 → Luc已经控制/出售某些相关资产 → 辩护方必须不断要求保存、检查、获取信息 → 同时另一部分国家安全材料又被CIPA密封。\n\n我现在还不会说这些已经证明“系统设计”，但它已经足够支持一个很严肃的问题：\n\n郭的辩护团队是否真正获得了完整、有效地测试政府案件理论所需要的资产证据 + classified evidence + witness impeachment information？\n\n这个问题比单纯“CIPA里是不是藏着大秘密”更接近二巡真正可能处理的法律问题。\n\n下一步最值得挖的两个点已经非常明确：ECF 52到底是政府最初怎样描述classified material的；以及ECF 111之后Torres有没有真正召开那个defense-only §2 conference，会议留下了什么sealed/transcript record。如果能把这个conference定位出来，我们可能第一次知道郭律师2023年私下到底让Torres“去CIPA材料里找什么”。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3fc07535ad1437398eb0","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q67ae2b083f57a80c41e9","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":13,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:09:45.883Z","text":"我又往下挖了一层，这次出现了一个比“CIPA里可能有有利材料”更具体的程序异常点：\n\nWitness-2 这条线不是普通的“秘密材料没给”，而是政府自己在离开庭很近的时候才交出§3500材料，辩方随后才发现：这个证人几年前对郭讲过的某件事，居然涉及classified information。\n\n公开的 ECF 340 把时间线写得非常清楚：\n\n政府直到 2024年5月6日午夜前后才交Witness-2的§3500材料；辩方看完后才知道郭与Witness-2过去的一次互动牵涉classified information。仅仅三天后，5月9日辩方就向法院提出CIPA §2 ex parte conference；法院在 5月14日真的开了这个conference；同一天，辩方立刻提交了§5 notice，而且因为来不及进SCIF打字，甚至是手写的notice。\n\n这说明两件事。\n\n第一，法院确实开过那个defense-only CIPA conference。这不是我们之前的推测。ECF 340明确说，conference在5月14日举行。\n\n第二，也是更值得注意的：辩方明确指控政府很早就知道Witness-2与美国政府之间的关系。ECF 340写道，政府调查本案已经接近四年，并且“since close to the inception of the investigation”就和Witness-2保持接触，因此理应知道他与美国政府的互动；但触发郭方CIPA notice的substitution，却直到开庭前约两周才披露。\n\n这个点很重要，因为它把问题从：\n\n“郭自己知道某个秘密”\n\n升级成了：\n\n“政府的一个重要证人，与美国政府存在某种涉及classified information的互动，而政府很早就知道。”\n\n这就可能同时碰到：\n\nCIPA + Brady/Giglio + impeachment + confrontation。\n\n当然，我们现在仍然不知道那个classified内容到底是什么，公开版本在最关键的位置被遮掉了。ECF 340在“Specifically, Witness-2’s §3500 material contained …”后面内容就是封掉的。\n\n但这其实反而告诉我们：真正核心的东西就在这一句后面。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q67ae2b083f57a80c41e9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q71155936bc4367d7cd31","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":14,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:10:13.298Z","text":"而且还有一个新确认：ECF 341只公开确认了§5 notice确实在5月14日交给政府，并于5月20日正式入卷，但notice正文并没有在公开版本里展开。也就是说，真正描述郭方打算从Witness-2嘴里问出什么classified information的文本，仍然是密封/受限状态。\n\n所以现在CIPA最关键的“黑箱”已经缩小到很具体的三个对象：\n\n① 5月14日ex parte CIPA conference的sealed transcript/record；\n② 郭方手写的§5 notice正文；\n③ Witness-2 §3500材料中那段被遮掉的substitution内容。\n\n这三个如果二巡调阅sealed record，就能直接看到。\n\n还有一个程序点对郭方也不差：辩方不是拖延。ECF 340详细强调，他们是在知道Witness-2会出庭 + 收到3500 + 识别出classified nature以后立刻行动。政府则主张notice晚了，但公开记录里的时间线明显支持辩方“as soon as possible”的解释。\n\n所以如果26-1853真正打CIPA，这条比“政府藏了什么大秘密”强得多：\n\nGovernment disclosed the classified nexus to Witness-2 only shortly before trial, despite having known and worked with Witness-2 since near the beginning of the investigation, leaving the defense only days to invoke CIPA and litigate whether it could cross-examine him about the matter.\n\n中文就是：\n\n政府从调查早期就知道Witness-2及其政府关系，却直到开庭前很晚才披露触发CIPA的问题，辩方只剩极短时间争取利用这些材料进行交叉询问。\n\n这已经是一个非常标准的appellate issue形态。\n\n我现在更想继续挖的是：Torres最后到底以什么理由禁止Witness-2这部分内容进入陪审团——是纯Rule 403、hearsay，还是CIPA §6 relevance/admissibility ruling？ 因为这个区别决定了二巡review标准和Confrontation Clause力度。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q71155936bc4367d7cd31","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q320d0d94acdaa1e5b7c2","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":15,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:11:34.571Z","text":"继续深挖以后，我觉得真正最值得注意的新连接，不是单独某一份CIPA文件，而是“Witness-2 CIPA争议”和“Nickie Lum Davis subpoena”几乎在同一时间窗口发生。\n\n先说已经能确认的硬事实。\n\n2024年5月29日，Torres公开了CIPA争议的结果：\n政府根据CIPA §5和§6(a)要求禁止郭在庭审中从Witness-2那里引出某段classified information。Torres最后否掉了政府关于§5 notice不及时/不具体的攻击，明确认定郭的notice是及时且足够具体；但她同时依据§6(a)把这段信息排除，理由是它的证明价值有限，同时存在累积证据和误导/混淆陪审团的风险。\n\n这个程序姿态其实对郭很重要，因为它排除了一个政府常用的解释：\n\n“是郭自己程序没走好，所以没让陪审团听。”\n\n不是。法院已经明确说，郭在知道问题以后及时、具体地触发了CIPA。真正挡住内容的是法院对相关性和Rule 403式衡量的判断。\n\n更值得注意的是，政府自己在ECF 339里写得很清楚：即使法院不因§5程序问题排除，他们还会继续主张这段信息属于hearsay、irrelevant以及Rule 403应排除；政府甚至强调郭可以利用手里的unclassified materials“大致做同样的辩护”。\n\n这就给二巡留下一个非常具体的问题：\n\n所谓“unclassified substitute / alternative”是否真的让郭拥有“substantially the same ability to make his defense”？\n\n如果不是，那么这就不是简单的证据裁量问题，而可能开始碰到right to present a complete defense。\n\n⸻\n\n但我这次挖到一个更有意思的节点。\n\n就在CIPA Witness-2争议发生之后，郭又向Nickie Lum Davis发出了Rule 17 subpoena。\n\n公开docket显示：\n\nECF 358：Nickie Davis申请撤销郭向她发出的subpoena；\nECF 359：支持撤销的法律备忘录；\nECF 360：Nickie Davis本人的declaration。\n\n然后到了2024年5月29日，郭方告诉法院，他们基于与政府达成的某种agreement，撤回对Nickie Davis的Rule 17 subpoena；Torres最终在6月13日把Davis的motion to quash作为moot处理。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q320d0d94acdaa1e5b7c2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q0e53c9a9cf73f2b1865e","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":16,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:12:10.685Z","text":"这个时间点很值得注意：\n\n5月14日：CIPA §2 conference\n→ 5月17–21日：Witness-2 CIPA litigation\n→ 5月21日：sealed §6(a) ruling\n→ 5月29日：公开CIPA order\n→ 同一时期：郭又在试图传唤Nickie Lum Davis。\n\n为什么Nickie Davis重要？\n\n因为她不是普通外围人物。她正是之前我们已经查到的那个秘密推动把郭送回中国的外国影响网络成员之一。她后来因相关未登记外国代理/游说行为承担刑事责任。\n\n所以现在出现一个非常值得研究、但目前还不能直接画等号的可能连接：\n\n郭在审判前后，一边试图通过CIPA把某段classified government/Witness-2关系带进jury；另一方面又试图直接传唤一个已经被司法确认参与过“推动遣返郭”网络的人。\n\n这说明郭的trial defense团队明显不只是抽象地讲：\n\n“CCP persecuted me。”\n\n他们似乎是在试图把具体人物、具体政府接触、具体历史事件带到庭上。\n\n不过这里必须保持严谨：目前公开记录还不能证明Witness-2就是Nickie Davis，也不能证明CIPA内容就是Broidy/Davis遣返网络。这一步现在没有证据，不能乱连。\n\n⸻\n\n反而，真正让我觉得值得继续追的是：\n\n为什么郭后来撤回了对Nickie Davis的subpoena，而且文件明确说是“based on an agreement reached with the government”？\n\n这个agreement到底是什么？\n\n如果只是政府同意提供某些材料，事情比较普通。\n\n但如果是：\n\n政府提供stipulation / admissions / documents，所以郭不再需要Davis本人出庭；\n\n那就应该能在trial record里找到替代证据。\n\n如果什么都没进入jury，那么就值得问：\n\n郭原本想从Davis那里证明什么？撤回subpoena后，政府到底给了什么作为交换？\n\n这是我现在认为非常值得继续挖的一个口子。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一条对上诉很重要。\n\nTorres在另一个2026年的SDNY案件 United States v. Guan 中，另一位法官直接引用Guo案2024年5月2日裁定，确认这样一个命题：\n\n能够证明对CCP targeting的恐惧“客观真实”的证据，可能为被告行为提供非犯罪解释。\n\n所以现在已经不能把CIPA/CCP evidence描述成“纯政治背景，与诈骗罪无关”。\n\n南区自己的判例记录已经承认它能直接影响criminal intent。\n\n这会让Witness-2那段被排除classified information的重要性变得更敏感：\n\n如果那段材料不是重复背景，而是能够具体证明：\n\n谁在针对郭、美国政府知道多少、某个证人与政府是什么关系、或者为什么郭采取某些资金/组织/安全行为，\n\n那么“probative value limited”的判断就值得二巡认真review。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0e53c9a9cf73f2b1865e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q8650c749e419467c3045","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":17,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:12:39.580Z","text":"我还看到一个对你们现在第三方/forfeiture线非常有意思的后续反差。\n\n2026年6月29日Torres在forfeiture判决里明确说，6512名Himalaya Exchange成员以及Hamilton等第三方反对自己被称为victim，不影响她先判断哪些财产属于犯罪所得；第三方权利以后走§853(n)。\n\n但回到2024审前，郭的Request 5正是在追：\n\nCCP是否针对所谓victims。\n\n所以现在出现一条可能的上诉链：\n\n郭早期要求检查所谓victim是否受到CCP影响\n→ 法院说当时premature\n→ 部分national-security信息后来进入CIPA黑箱\n→ jury没有看到Witness-2相关classified内容\n→ 定罪以后成千上万人又明确反对自己被定义成victim\n→ forfeiture法院仍把这些争议推给后续ancillary proceeding。\n\n这不自动证明判决错误。\n\n但是从record完整性角度，这条线是相当值得研究的。\n\n⸻\n\n所以我现在把CIPA“大秘密”的可能性重新排序：\n\n最值得怀疑的不是“政府藏着一份证明郭完全无罪的文件”。\n\n更现实、也更有法律价值的可能是：\n\nsealed record里存在关于美国政府对郭遭PRC targeting的认识、某些政府证人/政府来源的关系、以及2017–2018遣返郭网络或相关国家安全事件的信息；这些材料的一部分可能对郭解释intent、攻击证人可信度或证明alternative explanation有帮助，但最终没有完整进入jury。\n\n现在我认为接下来最该挖的三个文件已经变了：\n\nECF 358–360（Nickie Davis为什么要quash、郭到底向她要什么）；\n郭与政府导致withdraw subpoena的“agreement”到底留下了什么record；\nWitness-2在正式trial transcript里究竟是谁、实际作了什么证词。\n\n如果最后发现Davis subpoena主题和Witness-2/CIPA主题重合，那条线就会突然变得非常重要。\n\n目前我们还差这一环","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8650c749e419467c3045","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa5f7b624cb2bbf59fb6e","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":18,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:14:11.871Z","text":"继续挖以后，我找到一个新的、而且比前面更具体的点：\n\n郭传唤 Nickie Lum Davis，不是泛泛想让她来讲“我被中共迫害”。她自己在申请撤销传票的文件里明确写了，郭的 subpoena 还要求她带来与她和第三方之间“某些邮件”有关的文件。也就是说，辩方明显是在追一组具体通信记录。\n\n这很关键，因为 Nickie Davis 不是普通外围证人。她属于前面那套已经被美国刑事司法记录确认过的外国影响/遣返郭网络人物之一。于是，郭方在2024年5月15日给她发 subpoena，要求她5月22日出庭并带邮件；而就在同一时间，郭方正在激烈处理 Witness-2 的 CIPA 问题。Davis的motion显示，传票确实于5月15日送达，而且包含document requests。\n\n更值得注意的是：郭后来并不是因为法院判他无权传唤Davis而放弃。\n\n2024年5月29日，郭的律师向Torres明确写：\n\nbased on an agreement reached with the government\n\n因此撤回对 Nickie Lum Davis 的 Rule 17 subpoena。法院后来只是因为撤回了，才把Davis的motion to quash判为moot。\n\n这句话的意义比我前面判断的还大一点。\n\n因为现在可以确定：\n\nDavis本人要求法院撤掉传票\n→ 郭没有等法院裁决\n→ 郭与“政府”达成了某种agreement\n→ 然后郭主动撤掉Davis传票。\n\n但公开的 ECF 367 完全没有说明这个agreement是什么。\n\n所以现在真正值得问的不是“为什么Davis不作证”，而是：\n\n政府到底给了郭什么，才让郭同意不再追Davis本人以及那些emails？\n\n这可能有几种解释，从普通到敏感程度不同：\n\n政府可能已经交付了郭想要的部分documents；可能同意某些事实stipulation；可能说明相关材料已经在§3500/Rule 16/CIPA discovery里；也可能双方就证人/证据使用范围达成其他安排。\n\n现在没有公开证据允许我们挑其中一种当事实。\n\n但是——这就是非常值得二巡律师追 sealed/nonpublic record 的地方。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa5f7b624cb2bbf59fb6e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q18279d62b006ce191b84","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":19,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:14:52.731Z","text":"还有一个新发现：\n\nDavis自己的声明非常刻意地说她“对郭案一无所知”，也“不认为自己拥有郭要求的文件”。\n\n这和她已知的历史身份之间形成一个值得核对的事实问题。不是说她一定撒谎，而是：\n\n郭为什么会认为她拥有特定emails？\n郭方的good-faith basis是什么？\n这些emails涉及谁？\n政府为什么能通过一个agreement使郭撤回？\n\n如果这些邮件只是无关材料，政府其实没什么必要介入达成agreement；当然，检方为了避免trial disruption也完全可能协调解决，所以这本身仍然不能证明“藏秘密”。\n\n但它已经足够说明：Davis线不是网友后来硬拼出来的，郭的trial lawyers在正式刑事案中确实主动追过她和第三方的具体通信。\n\n更有意思的是同一段docket。\n\n就在Davis相关的 ECF 353、354、355、356 前后，公开docket显示有连续四份 Sealed Document；然后才出现Davis的357–360。\n\n我不能说353–356一定与Davis或者CIPA有关，因为公开索引只写“Sealed Document”。但是从排列时间上看，这几份sealed filings非常值得定位元数据和提交日期。如果其中任何一份属于：\n\n* CIPA §6；\n* Nickie Davis；\n* Rule 17 subpoena；\n* government response；\n* Witness-2；\n\n那整个连接会明显增强。\n\n同时，我还确认了 ECF 347：这是2024年5月14日Torres主持的conference transcript。公开docket明确把它列为 Transcript of Proceedings … Conference held on 5/14/2024。\n\n而我们之前已经知道，5月14日正是郭方围绕Witness-2进行CIPA conference并提交§5 notice的关键日期。\n\n所以现在有一个很清楚的“黑箱窗口”：\n\n5月14日：CIPA conference\n→ 5月15日：Nickie Davis subpoena送达\n→ 5月21日前后：Davis申请quash；同时CIPA §6 litigation\n→ 5月底：连续sealed filings / CIPA ruling\n→ 5月29日：郭称与政府达成agreement，撤回Davis subpoena。\n\n这个时间压得非常紧。\n\n我现在不会说“所以Davis就是CIPA秘密”。没有证据支持这个等号。\n\n但我会说：\n\nDavis subpoena与Witness-2 CIPA dispute在时间上高度重叠，而且Davis subpoena针对的是具体第三方emails；随后郭不是被法院强制放弃，而是在与政府达成未公开内容的agreement后主动撤回。\n\n这已经是一个非常值得26-1853律师检查sealed record和trial counsel files的问题。\n\n而且还有一个更大的后续信号：到了2026年，郭的新律师又使用 Rule 17(c) 去追一位“former attorney”的材料，并且告诉Torres，详细理由因为会暴露被传唤人的身份，所以只能sealed提交。法院后来处理了这个问题。\n\n这说明新律师其实也一直在向trial record之外/边缘材料深挖，并不是单纯接受原审律师留下的公开record。\n\n所以现在我认为CIPA这条线最应该建立的是一个封闭材料目录，而不是继续猜“大秘密是谁”：\n\nECF 111 → CIPA起点\nECF 252等 §4 submissions\nECF 338–341 → Witness-2/CIPA\nECF 347 → 5/14 conference transcript\nECF 353–356 → 连续sealed filings\nECF 358–360 → Davis subpoena/quash\nECF 367 → government agreement后撤回\n2026 ECF 783/805 → 新律师要求重新审CIPA。\n\n如果这套东西最终进入26-1853的sealed joint appendix或者二巡要求district court传送sealed CIPA record，那才是真正值得紧盯的节点。\n\n我现在最想继续挖的是 353–356到底是什么，以及Davis subpoena附件里具体列出的email对象/日期范围。只要把这两个点搞清楚，我们对“Davis线和CIPA线到底有没有重合”就会从猜测进入证据层面。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q18279d62b006ce191b84","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qe69951db654ec65846a0","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":20,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:18:42.464Z","text":"这次能把 ECF 353–356 基本定位清楚了，而且结果很关键：它们确实不是和Davis无关的随机sealed filings，而就是Witness-2那条CIPA争议的核心密封文件。\n\n公开的5月29日Torres命令已经把编号对应关系写出来：\n\n* ECF 354：郭方对政府CIPA §6(a) motion的密封反对意见；\n* ECF 355：政府的CIPA §6(a)密封memorandum；\n* ECF 356：Torres于2024年5月21日作出的密封CIPA裁定；\n* 公开命令还确认，5月21日法院为这件事举行了双方参加的 §6(a) hearing。\n\n而ECF 356的结果，现在已经可以确定：Torres拒绝了政府“郭的§5 notice太晚/不具体”的论点，但仍然禁止郭从Witness-2那里引出那段classified information。理由不是国家安全本身，而是法院认为该信息的证明价值有限，并被“重复证据 + 混淆陪审团”的风险压过。\n\n这实际上让问题变得比之前更有意思。\n\n因为政府没有靠“郭程序违规”赢，而是靠“这东西没那么重要”赢。\n\n而郭方ECF 340留下的时间线又很有利：政府5月6日才交Witness-2的§3500材料，郭方从里面第一次意识到这个早年interaction涉及classified information；三天后就要求CIPA conference，5月14日conference之后当天手写§5 notice。\n\n所以这条线现在可以很干净地表述为：\n\nDefense learned of the classified nexus only from the Government’s late-produced §3500 material, acted immediately, complied with CIPA, and was nevertheless prevented from presenting the information because the court deemed its probative value limited.\n\n这比“政府藏秘密不给”更适合作为真正的上诉问题。\n\n还有一个我要纠正前面自己的推测：353–356和Davis的时间虽然挨得很近，但目前能确认的354–356就是Witness-2 CIPA litigation。所以不能因为编号相邻就说Davis和CIPA必然是一套材料。公开docket只把353仍然显示为Sealed Document；354–356的身份已经由Torres公开命令揭开了。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe69951db654ec65846a0","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q2e83cc631fce81b32a17","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":21,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:19:28.253Z","text":"那真正值得继续追的变成了 ECF 353\n\n它就在：\n\n352 政府GNews/GETTR motion\n→ 353 Sealed Document\n→ 354 郭CIPA §6 opposition\n→ 355 政府CIPA §6 memo\n→ 356 CIPA sealed order\n→ 357–360 Davis subpoena\n\n之间。公开镜像仍然只写“Sealed Document”，没有暴露标题。\n\n它很可能仍属于CIPA sequence，但目前我不会把这个当成确定事实。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个比353更重要的发现\n\nTorres在公开5月29日命令里写得非常明确：\n\n郭想通过Witness-2引出的，就是 “Purported Classified Information”，而这个信息源自：\n\nWitness-2几年前亲自告诉郭的内容。\n\n然后政府的§3500材料才让郭方意识到：原来这件事情在美国政府体系里被视为classified。\n\n这非常特别。\n\n因为通常CIPA争议是：\n\n政府手上有秘密 → 被告想拿。\n\n这里却至少部分是：\n\n郭本人早就知道某件事情\n→ 某个后来成为政府证人的人以前告诉过郭\n→ 郭不知道这件事情属于classified\n→ 政府自己的3500材料暴露了它的classified性质\n→ 郭想在cross里问这个政府证人\n→ 法院不让jury听。\n\n所以这里潜在的问题其实不是普通discovery，而可能是：\n\n为什么一个政府证人以前会向郭披露后来被政府认为是classified的信息？\n\n这可能涉及很多完全不同的解释：证人的政府关系、证人过去的身份、证人知道某个政府行动、或者证人只是接触过受保护信息。目前公开record无法告诉我们是哪一种。\n\n但这个问题本身很敏感。\n\n⸻\n\n我现在认为CIPA上诉线真正最强的地方变成了“交叉询问权”\n\n因为郭本来打算从政府自己的Witness-2嘴里把这件事情问出来。\n\n如果classified信息能够显示Witness-2：\n\n* 对郭说过与其庭审证词不一致的事情；\n* 与美国政府的关系比jury知道的更深；\n* 知道美国政府/PRC targeting相关事实；\n* 对郭某些行为提供非犯罪解释；\n* 或影响他的bias、motive、credibility，\n\n那么它就不仅是一般Rule 403问题，而可能碰到 Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause。\n\n当然，二巡通常会给district court的Rule 403判断相当大的裁量空间。但如果被排掉的是有效揭示政府证人bias或动机的核心交叉材料，Confrontation Clause的审查会更敏感。\n\n现在真正的问题就是：ECF 356密封裁定里Torres到底怎么描述这段信息的probative value。\n\n公开命令只告诉我们她说“limited”。\n\n二巡看到sealed record以后，却能直接问：\n\nLimited compared to what?\n\n特别是郭案另一份公开裁定已经承认：证明CCP targeting客观真实的证据能够支持nonculpable explanations。这个原则甚至在2026年的 United States v. Guan 中又被南区法院引用。\n\n于是出现一个非常有意思的内部张力：\n\n一方面：CCP-targeting evidence可以帮助解释郭的行为，不是无关政治背景。\n\n另一方面：Witness-2掌握的某段classified information却被认定probative value有限而不能让jury听。\n\n如果sealed material恰好也是CCP targeting / government knowledge / witness relationship一类的信息，那么二巡就必须检查这两个判断是否真正一致。\n\n⸻\n\n现在我的优先级已经很明确\n\n我会把下面几个东西放到最前面：\n\n1. ECF 356 sealed order\n这是最重要的。真正答案很可能就在这里：Torres究竟看到了什么，为什么说价值有限。\n\n2. ECF 354 defense sealed opposition\n它会告诉我们郭律师真正认为这段信息能证明什么。\n\n3. ECF 355 government sealed memorandum\n它会告诉我们政府为什么如此坚持不能让Witness-2被问到。\n\n4. 5月21日CIPA §6(a) hearing transcript\n如果有sealed transcript，这里面可能有法官与双方最直接的讨论。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e83cc631fce81b32a17","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb47638dd4bfa70907cd7","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":22,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:19:37.447Z","text":"5. ECF 353\n把它身份确定下来。\n\n至于Davis，我现在会把它作为旁线继续保留，而不是硬和Witness-2绑在一起。\n\n但是Davis线仍然值得追，因为她的subpoena确实在同一个极短时间窗口出现，而且郭后来是基于与政府的agreement撤回，而不是被法院驳掉。这仍然可能告诉我们郭的辩护团队当时正在试图建立怎样的foreign-influence / PRC-targeting defense record。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb47638dd4bfa70907cd7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q766fff013f34b225bb69","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":23,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:21:14.296Z","text":"继续往深处挖以后，我现在能确认一个比“CIPA里有大秘密”更实质的点：郭方到2026年量刑时，已经把“PRC推动遣返郭”这整套历史正式写进了自己的量刑陈述，而且明确把Broidy、Pras Michel、Nickie Lum Davis、孙力军这些人串成了一条官方司法记录支持的链。 这说明这条线不是庭外网友叙事，而是辩护团队正式认为与本案处置有关的事实背景。\n\n但我也挖到一个必须纠正的地方：目前公开材料仍然没有把Witness-2直接连到Nickie Davis或2017–2018遣返网络。 5月29日的公开CIPA命令只确认，Witness-2过去曾告诉郭一段后来被认定涉及classified information的内容；郭方在政府5月6日交出§3500材料后才意识到它的classified性质，随后及时启动CIPA。Torres最终不是因为郭通知太晚，而是因为她认为那段信息“证明力有限”，并可能造成累积和混淆，所以禁止在庭上引出。\n\n真正让我觉得“秘密可能在这里”的，是它与郭方2026年量刑陈述中的政治迫害链条高度同方向，却一直没有被公开揭开内容。量刑陈述明确写到：2017年，孙力军通过Jho Low等人推动Broidy、Pras Michel、Nickie Davis等游说特朗普政府取消郭的签证或把郭移出美国；辩方还引用EDNY的Bai案说明，郭后来又被美国政府正式识别为PRC跨国镇压的“Victim-1”。\n\n所以现在可以形成一个很重要、但仍需谨慎的结构：\n\n公开记录已经证明\nPRC确实推动过把郭赶出美国；\n相关美国中间人确实因此被刑事追诉/定罪；\n郭后来又被美国政府认定为PRC跨国镇压目标；\nTorres也承认CCP targeting证据可以支持郭某些行为的非犯罪解释。\n\n密封记录里还未知的是\nWitness-2到底和美国政府有什么关系；\n他当年告诉郭的classified内容究竟是什么；\n那段内容是否涉及PRC targeting、美国政府内部认知、外国影响网络或某个特定政府行动。\n\n而且我发现另一个对郭很有价值的“外部验证”：2026年南区另一个案子 United States v. Guan 直接引用Guo案，明确承认——如果证据能证明被告对CCP targeting的恐惧是客观真实的，它可以支持某些行为的nonculpable explanation。换句话说，Guo案里这个原则已经被后来的法院当成可引用的正式法律判断，而不是辩方宣传。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q766fff013f34b225bb69","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q7e1609b25e13a562bbe4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":24,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:21:58.326Z","text":"现在最值得盯的，其实不是“某个神秘人是谁”，而是被密封的内容有没有碰到郭的主观故意（intent）和政府证人可信度（credibility）。\n\n因为如果Witness-2那段classified information能够证明，比如：\n\n郭确实有理由相信自己和相关组织正在遭受国家级别打击；\n美国政府自己掌握这种风险；\nWitness-2与政府关系比陪审团知道的更深；\n或者Witness-2曾向郭提供与庭审叙事不一致的重要信息，\n\n那Torres说它只是“limited probative value”就可能成为二巡认真审查的问题。二巡能看到ECF 354、355、356以及§6 hearing的sealed record，而我们现在看不到。\n\n还有一条非常值得注意：Luc后来在HCHK alter-ego案件里明确告诉破产法院，他的主张不仅依赖破产案自己的材料，还依赖美国政府在23-cr-118刑事案中的 allegations。破产法院判决直接记录了这一点。\n\n这会产生一个更大的交叉问题：\n\n刑事案里，部分与郭动机和政治背景有关的国家安全材料被CIPA密封、替代或排除；\n与此同时，刑事案政府形成的资产/控制叙事又被Luc拿去支持破产alter-ego诉讼。\n\n这个结构值得特别关注。因为如果二巡以后发现刑事案的某些关键事实判断是在辩方无法充分使用相关classified evidence的情况下形成的，那么这些刑事叙事后来又被其他法院引用，就可能出现“影响向外扩散”的问题。\n\n所以目前我认为最可能的“秘密”不是一张纸写着“郭无罪”，而是这类东西：\n\n美国政府内部对郭遭PRC targeting、与郭接触过的人员、以及某些政府证人与国家安全体系关系的情报/记录。\n\n而真正有可能改变案子的，是其中有没有材料能够直接影响：\n\nfraudulent intent、Witness-2 impeachment、victim credibility、或者政府对郭行为的alternative explanation。\n\n现在还差最后一道门：ECF 354/355/356以及5月21日§6 hearing transcript的具体sealed内容。公开网络目前没有把这个核心内容泄出来，我不会假装已经知道。\n\n不过从现有公开record看，“这里确实存在一个值得二巡独立检查的CIPA黑箱”这个判断，我认为已经相当扎实。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7e1609b25e13a562bbe4","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q31526ee3bcbf1b3a0398","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":25,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:22:51.678Z","text":"继续挖以后，我找到了一条比Witness-2更直接、更像“真正秘密入口”的线：郭在2025年11月以后，专门向一名“前律师”追索他与FBI、美国情报界官员接触的材料；Torres最终认定这些材料“可能对量刑减轻至关重要”，还因为涉及“law enforcement interests”允许部分内容继续密封。\n\n这个不是推测，是2026年的公开命令自己写出来的。\n\n最关键的是 ECF 814 / 823。Torres明确概括郭方申请说，他们要的材料涉及郭与 FBI以及其他U.S. intelligence community officials的contacts；郭方还说，这些材料会帮助律师理解郭与FBI的关系。法院认为政府应该有机会就这些材料是否影响其“legitimate interests”发表意见。\n\n然后 ECF 823，2026年3月23日 更进一步：Torres批准了Rule 17(c) subpoena。她明确认定，郭不是在“fishing expedition”，而是已经说明了一个具体材料集合，并且这些材料：\n\n“may be crucial to mitigation arguments”\n\n也就是可能对郭的量刑减轻主张至关重要。法院限定传票只能追 2026年1月27日那封信第5页列出的材料或反映那些信息的文件。\n\n这条线特别值得注意，因为法院还说，郭的那个所谓前律师在此前大约六个月里拒绝提供任何相关文件或信息；郭因此需要通过法院强制传票去拿。\n\n更敏感的是密封理由。\n\nTorres没有说“只是保护律师隐私”。她明确写：\n\n继续密封未删节版本，是为了保护“law enforcement interests”。\n\n这说明被遮掉的信息至少涉及某种真实的执法利益，而不是普通私人通信。\n\n而且到了 2026年4月2日 ECF 829，郭的新律师又回来告诉Torres：那个前律师虽然交了一小部分材料，但他们认为远远没有完全履行subpoena，于是要求法院强制完整交付。郭方再次只能把详细事实和附件密封，因为公开以后会暴露被传唤人的身份。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q31526ee3bcbf1b3a0398","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1c01b837bddfe185e0d2","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":26,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:23:30.296Z","text":"最终Torres在6月25日拒绝compel，不是说这些材料不存在或不重要，而是因为那名前律师通过三份密封宣誓声明说明了自己的搜索情况，法院相信其good-faith search。那些密封声明还讨论了：\n\n材料是否存在、是否受privilege保护，以及是否在该人possession/custody/control之内。\n\n这就让我现在对这个“秘密”的判断发生了明显变化。\n\n以前我们主要盯：\n\nCIPA → Witness-2 → CCP targeting。\n\n现在又出现了一条独立的：\n\nformer attorney → FBI contacts → U.S. intelligence community officials → law-enforcement interests → specific documents → court says potentially crucial mitigation evidence。\n\n而且这不是2017年的外围旧案，是23-cr-118本案里郭自己的新辩护团队一直追到2026年量刑前夕的材料。\n\n这意味着，公开record至少支持一个很重要的事实：\n\n郭与FBI以及美国情报体系人员之间过去存在某种具体接触，而且这些接触的重要性高到新律师认为必须通过Rule 17(c) subpoena强制取证，Torres也认定这些材料具有足够具体性和潜在重要性，值得批准传票。\n\n这里就出现一个非常值得继续验证的可能闭环：\n\n郭本人过去与FBI/情报官员有接触\n↓\n某位前律师掌握相关记录\n↓\n部分内容牵涉执法利益而密封\n↓\n与此同时政府CIPA §4又掌握郭看不到的classified information\n↓\nWitness-2过去又曾告诉郭classified内容\n↓\n郭方始终主张CCP targeting与其行为动机存在直接关系。\n\n我现在仍然不会说这几条一定是同一件秘密。公开证据目前没有把former-attorney subpoena和Witness-2 CIPA直接连起来。\n\n但如果它们最后是同一主题，那意义就非常大。\n\n因为那可能说明郭过去与美国政府/情报体系的关系，与陪审团最后看到的单纯“fraud promoter”画像存在更多未公开背景。\n\n还有一个非常值得注意的细节：ECF 814说，郭2026年1月27日的信里大量依据的是政府已经在discovery中交给他的材料，或者政府本来就应该知道的材料。\n\n这句话很关键。\n\n因为它意味着郭方不是凭空说：\n\n“我以前认识FBI的人。”\n\n而是至少部分依据政府自己的discovery反推出：\n\n“这里还有一批关于郭与FBI/情报官员联系的材料，应该从前律师那里拿出来。”\n\n所以我现在最想拿到的东西已经非常明确：\n\nECF 816第2–5页。\n\n我们现在搜到的公开PDF索引只暴露了第6页；真正的内容——特别是第5页具体列了哪些documents——就是Torres最终批准传票的核心。\n\n如果第5页列出的东西出现：\n\nFBI meetings / debriefings / cooperation / source / intelligence / CCP / PRC / Sun Lijun / repatriation / witness / national security\n\n其中任何一组词，这条线就会突然变得非常清楚。\n\n所以目前我认为，最可能真正有“大东西”的地方，已经不只是2024年的CIPA sealed record，而是2026年的ECF 815–816 + Rule 17 subpoena附件","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1c01b837bddfe185e0d2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qf7290ff65a10945b6a66","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":27,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:23:47.617Z","text":"它至少告诉我们：\n\n郭的新律师在定罪后发现了一条关于郭与FBI、美国情报界历史关系的具体证据线；法院自己也认定这不是胡乱钓鱼，并且可能对量刑减轻非常重要。\n\n这个发现，我认为比继续猜Witness-2是谁更值得追。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf7290ff65a10945b6a66","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q05f598303d40e5df79e9","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":28,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T11:25:43.156Z","text":"这个，是郭自己留的保命材料\n目前自诉对案子的影响，是开辟一条新线","edited":false,"reply_to":"qf7290ff65a10945b6a66","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q05f598303d40e5df79e9","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf7290ff65a10945b6a66","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q93b47387c73d5ca8f725","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":29,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:26:02.889Z","text":"有这种可能性，但目前没有公开证据能把“FBI/情报界接触”直接等同于蓬佩奥。而且从机构身份上看，反而要分清：\n\n蓬佩奥在 2017年1月—2018年4月是CIA局长，之后才出任国务卿。也就是说，如果郭方追的是“FBI以及其他美国情报界官员的接触”，那么蓬佩奥理论上可能落在“intelligence community officials”这一侧，但不会落在FBI这一侧。\n\n现在比较硬的公开记录是另一条：早在 2017年，郭曾提前通知美国执法部门，中国官员将来美与他接触；随后FBI参与处理这些中国官员，甚至一度准备在JFK采取行动。公开报道还显示，当时华盛顿层面召开过涉及白宫国家安全官员、国务院、司法部、国防部和情报界的电话会议，最后没有批准FBI按原计划抓人。\n\n这就说明一件很重要的事：郭与美国国家安全/情报体系的接触确实可以追溯到2017年，而且层级并不低。\n\n另外，23-cr-118自己的公开文件也证明，FBI对郭的调查至少在2020年前后已经存在。ECF 128-1里，SDNY人员写到2020年7月内部邮件称，当时有人正在“working with FBI”调查Guo，而且FBI此前已经执行过搜索令并在分析大量扣押电子资料。\n\n所以目前最值得区分的是两条不同的FBI关系：\n\n一条是“保护/国家安全/中国遣返郭”方向的FBI接触；\n\n另一条是后来“调查郭本人”方向的FBI接触。\n\n如果2026年Rule 17传票追的前律师材料能够把这两条线连接起来——比如证明同一批FBI/情报人员曾经把郭当作PRC targeting对象、信息来源或合作对象，后来相关信息又进入对郭本人的刑事调查——那会非常重要。\n\n至于蓬佩奥，我目前没有找到23-cr-118公开docket、CIPA公开命令、ECF 796/816等材料里出现他的名字。2026年的公开材料只让我们看到，郭方追的是与FBI和其他U.S. intelligence community officials有关的接触；具体姓名仍被隐藏。ECF 816公开版本甚至把被传唤前律师的姓名都遮住了。\n\n所以现在我会把“是不是蓬佩奥”定为：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q93b47387c73d5ca8f725","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd430c9054c8311e60078","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":30,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:26:22.409Z","text":"可以列入候选，但证据等级目前只有“机构和时间上可能”，没有“文件指向”。\n\n反而我觉得真正值得挖的是时间范围。如果被传唤的第5页材料指向 2017—2018年，蓬佩奥可能性会明显提高，因为那正好覆盖他担任CIA局长的时期；如果材料主要是2019—2020年以后，逻辑就不同了。\n\n还有一个很值得注意的细节：郭刑事案在非常早期——2023年4月就已经任命Classified Information Security Officer，公开docket把它列为Doc. 35。 这并不能证明蓬佩奥或CIA直接涉案，但说明CIPA并不是审判临近时才突然冒出来的边缘问题。\n\n所以我现在会继续沿着三个关键词深挖：\n\nPompeo / CIA / 2017–2018 + Guo；\nformer attorney + FBI/intelligence contacts；\n2018-08-26 meeting。\n\n如果这三个节点有任何两个真正对上，事情就会比现在清晰很多。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd430c9054c8311e60078","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qff55509b150f9726171c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":31,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:27:47.746Z","text":"我又往下挖了一层，这次出现了一个非常值得重视的新硬点：\n\nECF 120 不是普通说明郭和FBI有接触，它明确说：郭从2018年4月到2019年5月，通常是和一名特定的 “FBI Agent-1” 会面，而且更详细的内容被放进了一个“Classified Appendix（机密附录）”。公开中文版甚至直接写：\n\n“通常情况下，郭先生是与某特定FBI特工（FBI Agent-1）会面。具体详细信息请参阅《机密附录》第一部分。”\n\n这就很重要了，因为它把我们前面猜的“郭和FBI关系可能只是一般联系”，推进成了：\n\n存在持续约一年、与特定FBI Agent-1反复接触的关系，而且政府认为其中至少一部分细节需要放入classified/ex parte appendix。 \n\n更重要的是，Torres后来的公开裁定确认：郭自己在保释阶段已经说过，他曾经告诉FBI，有中国安全官员准备再次到他家，从而给FBI机会去扣留、询问这些中国官员。也就是说，郭和FBI的关系至少有一部分明确涉及中国安全官员在美国的活动，不是单纯“帮我办移民”。\n\n这和 ECF 120的“Classified Appendix Part I” 放在一起，意义就明显升级了。\n\n现在我们至少知道：\n\n公开层：\n2018–2019郭反复向特定FBI Agent-1提供信息。\n\n已知主题之一：\n中国安全官员、CCP/PRC活动。\n\n非公开层：\n政府另有一份classified appendix描述更多细节。\n\n所以现在CIPA里有没有和这条FBI关系重合的东西，已经不是毫无依据的猜测了。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qff55509b150f9726171c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qad868f256ff555b69a17","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":32,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:28:27.515Z","text":"还有一个更重要的时间转折。\n\n政府自己的ECF 120说，TIN（Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit）对郭的调查是在2019年9月初正式开启的。\n\n也就是说：\n\n2018年4月—2019年5月：郭持续向FBI提供信息\n↓\n2019年9月：SDNY TIN开始调查郭\n↓\n2019年9月底：TIN/FBI取得搜查郭住所和办公室的warrants\n↓\n2020年：TIN调查继续，同时另一个CFU fraud/crypto investigation也在进行\n↓\n后来CFU这条线演变成23-cr-118。 \n\n这个时间线我认为非常值得二巡律师盯。\n\n因为现在真正的问题变成了：\n\n郭此前作为FBI信息提供者/接触对象所产生的情报、人员和文件，后来有没有流入对郭本人的TIN或CFU刑事调查？\n\n这比“蓬佩奥是不是那个人”重要得多。\n\n⸻\n\n而且2020年7月的一封SDNY内部邮件把两条调查线第一次明确连在了一起。\n\nECF 120显示，当时TIN负责人写：\n\nTIN AUSA正在和FBI调查Guo，之前已经执行premises warrants，并在审查大量电子材料；\n\n紧接着他又说：\n\n他同时知道CFU有另一项涉及Guo和cryptocurrency investments的调查。\n\n而这个CFU investigation，ECF 120脚注明确说：\n\n就是后来导致本案23-cr-118 charges的调查。 \n\n所以现在不是简单：\n\n一个旧FBI关系 + 一个后来诈骗案。\n\n而是：\n\nFBI contact relationship\n→ TIN investigation\n→ FBI searches\n→ CFU parallel investigation\n→ 23-cr-118。\n\n这个链条已经进入正式法院record。\n\n⸻\n\n那蓬佩奥呢？\n\n我现在反而觉得不应该把重点押在蓬佩奥本人。\n\n因为我们查到的硬材料明确指向的是：\n\nFBI Agent-1 + FBI + SDNY TIN + CFU。\n\n蓬佩奥如果存在，只可能在更外围的CIA/IC层面，而公开record目前没有出现他的名字。\n\n但是有一个地方还是值得继续盯：\n\nECF 120的Classified Appendix。\n\n政府为什么一个关于律师冲突/disqualification的motion，需要另行向Torres提交classified, ex parte appendix去描述郭和FBI的关系？\n\n这说明那段历史里存在不能公开写出来的细节。\n\n我们现在不知道细节是什么，但范围已经明显缩小了：\n\n2018–2019\n郭\nFBI Agent-1\n郭提供的信息\n可能涉及PRC/中国安全活动\n政府认为需要classified处理。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个对郭很有意思的事实。\n\n2026年量刑陈述 ECF 822明确说，在郭来到美国以前，中国官员曾多次要求他：\n\n不要与美国政府合作；\n不要和FBI谈；\n不要继续反对CCP。\n\n郭方还主张，中方以释放家人、解除资产冻结作为交换。\n\n把这个和政府自己承认的2018–2019 FBI meetings放在一起，至少能够形成一个有record支撑的动机链：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qad868f256ff555b69a17","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q65f4d27df5ff3166fafb","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":33,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:28:49.907Z","text":"PRC要求郭不要与FBI合作\n→ 郭拒绝\n→ 郭后来确实持续向FBI提供信息\n→ PRC targeting升级的主张因此具有更具体的背景。\n\n这当然仍然不能证明23-cr-118是政治陷害。\n\n但是它明显加强了一个非常重要的defense proposition：\n\n郭与美国执法/情报体系之间确实存在一段与中国政府活动有关的真实历史，而陪审团看到的只是其中公开的一部分。\n\n⸻\n\n现在我认为真正的“秘密入口”已经缩成四个：\n\n1. ECF 120 Classified Appendix Part I\n这是目前最直接描述郭—FBI Agent-1关系的密封材料。\n\n2. FBI Agent-1是谁\n如果后来又出现在TIN、CFU、Witness-2或其他调查记录里，意义会非常大。\n\n3. 2019年TIN investigation为什么在FBI meetings结束几个月后启动\n有没有predicate、referral、source transition。\n\n4. TIN和CFU之间到底共享了多少材料\nECF 120已经证明双方至少知道彼此调查存在；真正关键是有没有共享郭作为FBI信息提供者期间产生的材料。\n\n我现在最想继续追的是ECF 120那个classified appendix后来有没有在其他sealed order、CIPA §4 submission或2026 former-attorney subpoena里再次被引用。\n\n如果出现相同的FBI Agent-1、相同时间段或者相同meeting，那么我们就可能第一次把：\n\n2018 FBI关系 → CIPA → 2019调查 → 2023起诉\n\n真正接成一条证据链。\n\n这一条，我认为比“是不是蓬佩奥”更有可能挖到真正影响26-1853的东西。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q65f4d27df5ff3166fafb","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa5cd11a8cf0f0a0b4a99","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":34,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:29:41.345Z","text":"继续深挖后，我找到一个真正值得盯的“红框”，而且这次是法院公开命令里自己留下的。\n\n在 2024年1月4日 ECF 216，Torres讨论郭与FBI关系时写道：政府公开披露的只是郭在 2018年4月到2019年5月与FBI接触、希望获得移民方面帮助。然后法院紧接着写：\n\n政府的公开表述并没有披露——正如郭所主张的——[内容被整段遮盖]。\n\n也就是说，郭当时明确告诉法院：政府真正知道的郭—FBI关系，比公开写出来的“为了移民见FBI”要更深；而法院把郭所说的那个关键事实整段redact掉了。 \n\n这比我们之前猜“FBI Agent-1是谁”更重要，因为现在可以确定：\n\n公开版本 = 郭向FBI提供信息，希望移民帮助。\n\n密封/删节版本 = 郭声称还有一个更敏感的事实，而且这个事实重要到法院不公开写。\n\n目前公开记录无法看到那句话，所以我不会猜它具体是“CIA合作”“线人身份”还是某个高级官员。但这里确实存在一个被法院刻意遮掉的实质性命题。\n\n而且还有第二个硬连接。\n\n法院处理Emil Bove冲突问题时正式确认：\n\n2018年4月—2019年5月，郭持续与一名FBI agent沟通；\n2019年9月，SDNY Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit（TIN）开始调查郭；\n2019年10月，FBI搜查Sherry-Netherland住所和办公室，扣走100多件电子设备/文件；\n2020年5月左右，Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit（CFU）又启动另一项调查；\n后来的23-cr-118就是从CFU调查发展出来的。 \n\n法院还特别确认，TIN和CFU是不同FBI agents、不同AUSAs、不同犯罪理论，但两边都在调查郭；同时政府承认Bove知道CFU调查的存在。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa5cd11a8cf0f0a0b4a99","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qf41453b0577b6ff94006","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":35,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:30:29.491Z","text":"所以现在最值得追的问题已经非常具体了：\n\n郭原来与FBI持续合作/提供信息\n→ 几个月后TIN开始调查郭\n→ FBI扣走大量设备\n→ 又出现另一支CFU调查\n→ CFU最终发展成23-cr-118。\n\n这本身不证明报复，也不证明调查违法。\n\n但如果 ECF 216里被遮掉的那句话 是类似：\n\n郭曾以source/cooperator身份给FBI提供国家安全情报；\nFBI曾经要求郭执行某种任务；\n郭向FBI提供的材料涉及PRC高官或情报活动；\n\n那它对后续调查的意义就完全不一样。\n\n还有第三个细节很有意思。\n\nTorres在ECF 216里承认，郭早在2023年3月自己的保释文件里就公开说过：他曾通知FBI，几名中国安全官员将再次到他家，给FBI机会扣留和询问这些官员在美国的活动。 \n\n所以至少这一点已经确定：\n\n郭与FBI的接触确实涉及中国国家安全/执法人员在美国的行动。\n\n不是单纯“我去FBI问绿卡”。\n\n⸻\n\n而且我还发现一个可能比CIPA本身更值得二巡律师看的问题：\n\nTIN → CFU之间的“taint/derivative use”\n\n2019年TIN搜走的是100多件电子设备和文件。后来2020年CFU另行调查郭，并最终形成23-cr-118。\n\n那么就应该问：\n\nCFU有没有使用TIN搜出来的材料？\n\n如果有：\n\nTIN的predicate是什么？\nTIN search warrants依赖什么信息？\n其中有没有郭此前作为FBI信息提供者产生的资料？\nCFU后来有没有直接或间接使用这些材料？\n\n这才是真正可能碰到：\n\nFourth Amendment / Rule 16 / Brady / Kastigar式衍生使用争议 / government-source contamination\n\n的地方。\n\n我这里说“Kastigar式”只是类比“政府是否使用了受限制来源产生的衍生证据”，并不是说郭当然享有正式use immunity；目前没有证据证明这一点。\n\n⸻\n\n至于你刚才问的蓬佩奥，这次继续搜仍然没有找到公开文件把名字直接连进去。\n\n所以我现在反而认为，最值得挖的不是“是不是Pompeo”，而是：\n\nECF 216被遮掉的那句话到底是什么？\n\n因为那个位置公开文本实际上已经给我们留下了一个洞：\n\n“Nor does it reveal—as Kwok argues—that [REDACTED].” \n\n这句话很可能就是目前公开案卷里离“郭—FBI真实关系”最近的窗口之一。\n\n如果再把它跟2026年新律师追前律师掌握的 FBI / U.S. intelligence community contacts 材料放在一起看，我认为出现了一个很值得二巡核查的连续主题：\n\n2023：郭说公开描述低估了他与FBI关系，关键内容被法院redact；\n2024：CIPA继续处理classified information和政府证人；\n2026：新律师又追郭与FBI/情报界历史接触的文件。\n\n这不像一个已经消失的外围问题，反而像是从审前一直延续到量刑、现在可能进入26-1853 sealed record的一条线。\n\n目前我觉得最可能藏“硬东西”的位置，第一名就是ECF 216对应被删节的defense assertion及其密封来源；第二才是CIPA ECF 354–356。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf41453b0577b6ff94006","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa576ab718aab9746c418","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":36,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:31:29.983Z","text":"继续挖下来，这次有一个很硬、而且前面还没完全意识到的重要点：\n\n政府自己在 ECF 120 里承认：郭和 FBI Agent-1 的那段关系，后面直接跟着一个“Classified Supplement Part I”。公开文本明确写：\n\n2018年4月至2019年5月，郭自愿向FBI提供信息，通常与一名特定的 FBI Agent-1 会面；“See Classified Supplement Part I.”\n\n而脚注明确说，政府另外提交了一份 sealed, ex parte classified supplement。\n\n这个非常关键，因为它说明：\n\n郭—FBI Agent-1关系中，确实存在政府认为必须秘密提交给Torres的内容。\n\n这不是我们猜的。\n\n更重要的是，ECF 120还有第二个 Classified Supplement Part II。它出现在政府解释为什么TIN调查和后来23-cr-118虽然“独立启动”，但仍然存在足够密切关系、足以把Emil Bove排除出王雁平辩护团队的位置。政府公开部分写完“两个调查同时存在、Bove至少知道CFU诈骗调查”以后，紧接着就是：\n\n“Fourth, see classified supplement part II.” \n\n也就是说，政府自己认为：\n\n为什么2019 TIN调查与后来CFU/23-cr-118之间存在重要关联，还有一整层理由不能公开讲。\n\n这比单纯的CIPA Witness-2问题更大。\n\n因为现在我们实际上已经发现两个明确的“黑箱”：\n\nClassified Supplement Part I\n→ 郭与FBI Agent-1的真实接触内容。\n\nClassified Supplement Part II\n→ TIN调查与后来CFU/Guo fraud prosecution之间为什么存在足够重要的关联。\n\n而且公开record里还有一个特别敏感的交叉点。\n\n2020年7月1日，Bove在内部邮件里明确说：\n\nTIN AUSA正在和FBI调查郭；他们执行过郭住所搜查令，正在审查大量扣押media；同时TIN AUSA“也知道”CFU另一项涉及郭和cryptocurrency investments的调查。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa576ab718aab9746c418","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1aa7ac061385d4cd8b39","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":37,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:32:06.045Z","text":"而这个CFU investigation，政府自己注明：\n\n就是后来导致23-cr-118 charges的调查。 \n\n甚至第二周，TIN那边收到一篇关于郭的文章以后，又把它转给了正在做当前Guo案的CFU AUSA。\n\n所以政府虽然在法律上坚持：\n\nCFU investigation “arose independently” and was “conducted independently”\n\n但同一份文件自己又证明：\n\nTIN和CFU至少彼此知道、发生过信息转发，而且Bove本人同时知道两条调查。 \n\n这就出现了一个非常值得26-1853律师检查的问题：\n\n“Independent”到底只是指立案predicate独立，还是连证据、人员、情报、搜查所得、线索来源都真正隔离？\n\n这两者不是一回事。\n\n而且还有一个我觉得特别不寻常的事实：\n\n政府在ECF 120里明确说，Bove作为TIN主管，掌握或可以接触与郭调查有关的classified information；由于调查某些方面敏感，AUSA给Bove的更新甚至“often oral”。\n\n换句话说，公开docket根本不可能完整告诉我们TIN到底在调查什么。\n\n所以现在可以画出一条相当扎实的结构：\n\n2018–2019：郭持续向FBI Agent-1提供信息\n↓\n关于这段关系存在 Classified Supplement Part I\n↓\n2019年9月：TIN开始调查郭\n↓\n2019年10月：FBI搜走100多件电子设备/文件\n↓\nTIN调查本身涉及classified information，部分更新甚至口头进行\n↓\n2020年：CFU另开诈骗/crypto调查\n↓\nTIN知道CFU调查，信息至少发生过部分横向传递\n↓\n关于TIN与CFU之间的重要关联还有 Classified Supplement Part II\n↓\nCFU最终形成23-cr-118。\n\n这条链已经不属于“阴谋猜测”，除了两个classified supplement的具体内容未知以外，其余节点都是政府自己写进ECF 120的。\n\n还有一个小细节，非常值得重视：\n\n政府指出，王雁平的一部手机显示，她在2023年2月16日——被捕前约一个月——搜索过FBI Agent-1。 \n\n为什么她在2023年还要搜索一个2018–2019年郭长期接触的FBI特工？\n\n目前不知道。\n\n但这说明FBI Agent-1在郭周围人的认知里，到2023年仍然不是一个完全消失的历史人物。\n\n我现在觉得，真正可能藏“硬秘密”的优先级应该重新排：\n\n第一名：ECF 120 Classified Supplement Part II。\n因为它直接解释TIN与后来本案之间未公开的关系。\n\n第二名：Classified Supplement Part I。\n它告诉法院郭和FBI Agent-1到底是什么关系。\n\n第三名：ECF 216被删掉的那句话。\n它很可能是郭方对Part I内容或同一事实背景的一种概括。Torres公开命令确认郭认为政府公开披露没有揭示某个更重要事实，但那句话被全部遮掉。\n\n第四名：2024 Witness-2 CIPA ECF 354–356。\n\n现在真正让我警觉的是：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1aa7ac061385d4cd8b39","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q54bceabf8dc4324eebda","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":38,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T11:32:23.857Z","text":"如果 ECF 120 Part I/II、ECF 216 redaction、Witness-2 CIPA、2026 former-attorney FBI/intelligence subpoena 最终都围绕同一组事实，那就不是四个孤立的秘密问题，而可能是一条从郭作为FBI信息提供者 → 国家安全调查 → 后来对郭刑事调查 → 23-cr-118持续存在的sealed record。\n\n目前还不能说它们已经对上。\n\n但Part II的存在是这一轮最重要的新发现。\n\n因为政府公开说“两个调查独立”，却同时告诉法官：\n\n关于两者关系，还有第四个理由，只能去看classified supplement。\n\n如果我是26-1853上诉律师，我会非常明确要求二巡：\n\n不要只看公开版ECF 120，要调阅并独立审查 Classified Supplement Parts I and II。\n\n这两个文件，可能比我们一直猜的“Witness-2是谁”更关键。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q54bceabf8dc4324eebda","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q7c37925664b47dcaa9db","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":39,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T11:45:48.573Z","text":"同不同意cipa，可能也是托雷斯自己留的保命东西，一旦案子捂不住，被二巡打回重审，根据外部形势，托雷斯可以同意开，送个人情，案子完全反转。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7c37925664b47dcaa9db","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qca856628ffaa4aafcdcd","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":40,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T11:50:28.174Z","text":"自诉已经可以把案子打穿，重审，cipa可有可无，但可以成为托雷斯的筹码。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qca856628ffaa4aafcdcd","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qc84940e6921e7919fa2f","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":41,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T13:20:07.625Z","text":"这案子很简单，就是郭有没有控制钱，郭有没有收益，你管他中间转多少道手续干嘛，郭是不是最终受益者？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc84940e6921e7919fa2f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qf57639028deca2a81741","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":42,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T13:21:45.648Z","text":"如果你的钱是被黄牛拿走了，联盟农场拿走了，那和G系列就没关系","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf57639028deca2a81741","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q01ca7b96f0af4a4a5727","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":43,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T13:22:42.856Z","text":"然后G系列和郭有没有关系？G系列到底是不是郭的公司？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q01ca7b96f0af4a4a5727","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q4f3b0e323d6c3cc5e569","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":44,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T13:23:06.427Z","text":"不就是这么简单的事情吗，说的这么复杂","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4f3b0e323d6c3cc5e569","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcdf22bcabf8321a2c423","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":45,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-20T13:57:05.142Z","text":"打回从审也不会是让托雷斯审吧","edited":false,"reply_to":"q2abc5c6a4531b8d9fc77","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcdf22bcabf8321a2c423","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd935984f7731e64c5c9a","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":46,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-20T13:59:06.771Z","text":"CIPA 我们上二巡的就不管了， 留给老郭。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd935984f7731e64c5c9a","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5ffba338fb075e88860b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":47,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-20T14:00:04.734Z","text":"但是检方Luc 的问题， 第三方可要狠狠的打","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5ffba338fb075e88860b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q774ec4dc20991582d3e5","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":48,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-20T14:01:58.115Z","text":"检方Luc 在Mawah 上涉嫌欺诈， 这个点 第三方谁打了吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q774ec4dc20991582d3e5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q28a031f1830abecaad5f","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":49,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T14:02:24.280Z","text":"Luc不是不来刑事庭要钱了吗","edited":false,"reply_to":"q774ec4dc20991582d3e5","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q28a031f1830abecaad5f","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q774ec4dc20991582d3e5","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1351c361ccb2ada92cb2","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":50,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T14:02:44.781Z","text":"打luc，要去破产庭啊","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1351c361ccb2ada92cb2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q03000b46a4edbb790438","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":51,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T14:22:20.957Z","text":"Luc是最早的参与者吧，明面上一直跟检方抢钱，但感觉他和检方在唱双簧","edited":false,"reply_to":"q9ddeb3c5889f1a2eb824","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q03000b46a4edbb790438","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9ddeb3c5889f1a2eb824","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q7d11f14fae00bcfe2e08","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":52,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T14:39:21.427Z","text":"Luc什么时候和检方抢钱了，人家明明是友好合作分钱","edited":false,"reply_to":"q03000b46a4edbb790438","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7d11f14fae00bcfe2e08","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q03000b46a4edbb790438","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q15afa8cfe7f666ffa481","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":53,"speaker":"nin***","date":"2026-08-20T14:43:01.716Z","text":"luc 在刑事法庭不要钱就完事啦，他怎么拿到破产受托人是政府给的吧，政府为什么给他的啊，他在里面干了什么赃活就完事儿啦。Luc在做梦吧！","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q15afa8cfe7f666ffa481","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q364761180819b03e7c32","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":54,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T14:47:49.632Z","text":"8月25号要来听证会？哪来的消息","edited":false,"reply_to":"q741e0b051575eeb1ca3e","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q364761180819b03e7c32","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q741e0b051575eeb1ca3e","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5d9462a392d3bc577e8d","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":55,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T14:49:52.996Z","text":"https://x.com/Haier918/status/1981740796807200818","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5d9462a392d3bc577e8d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd71f9deecab636a76fa5","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":56,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T14:50:25.437Z","text":"👆 人家luc去年10月就已经不来要钱了","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd71f9deecab636a76fa5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6710ddd1956a5c4f7680","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":57,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T14:50:40.376Z","text":"https://x.com/baoliaogeming/status/1975517040946585905","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6710ddd1956a5c4f7680","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qff31e2b4753ecfa6c09d","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":58,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T14:56:06.735Z","text":"没收结束了？谁告诉你的？🤣 ［用户 him***］","edited":true,"reply_to":"q5d9462a392d3bc577e8d","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qff31e2b4753ecfa6c09d","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5d9462a392d3bc577e8d","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q89d8cc2700838863fe42","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":59,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T14:57:50.337Z","text":"对郭案的最终没收令，DOJ官网还没公布，你急个啥🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q89d8cc2700838863fe42","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q57952647103252f3550a","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":60,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T15:00:56.253Z","text":"6月29号哪有最终没收令？858是南区对被告反对初步没收令的法官令","edited":false,"reply_to":"q4f390d3871f36415d9d3","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q57952647103252f3550a","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4f390d3871f36415d9d3","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q60ab1df2583ff31fc977","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":61,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T15:02:19.360Z","text":"这点，Agent弄错了，郭案最终没收令还没出","edited":false,"reply_to":"q57952647103252f3550a","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q60ab1df2583ff31fc977","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q57952647103252f3550a","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qebb00e099459577fe9fd","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":62,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T15:04:07.481Z","text":"马瓦这里又提到了最终没收， ［用户 roy***］ 这AI的幻觉比较严重啊，以后最好让它列出引用的源头，比如文件编号啥的，别让它给咱们洗脑了","edited":true,"reply_to":"q940a91e859d816a7888e","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qebb00e099459577fe9fd","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q940a91e859d816a7888e","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1cdee11a6a8f808440b7","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":63,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T15:15:47.011Z","text":"政府和受托人有什么权力处置未被明确归属的资产？根据是什么？如果没有根据这不就是程序违规吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q8ab078df9aa44c7278f9","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1cdee11a6a8f808440b7","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8ab078df9aa44c7278f9","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q71d877c2c25eb8c0e437","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":64,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:16:48.861Z","text":"怎么没有明确归属了？法庭现在不是说都是郭的犯罪资金吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q1cdee11a6a8f808440b7","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q71d877c2c25eb8c0e437","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1cdee11a6a8f808440b7","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qedc7fc065c68abdd7e6b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":65,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T15:17:21.815Z","text":"［用户 him***］ [屏蔽词] 郭的犯罪资金不等于资金归属","edited":true,"reply_to":"q71d877c2c25eb8c0e437","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qedc7fc065c68abdd7e6b","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q71d877c2c25eb8c0e437","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5926807c861e472aa5d3","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":66,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:17:59.874Z","text":"现在的问题是，G系列到底是不是郭的？这些钱是不是郭控制的郭收益的？这些钱到底是不是犯罪资金。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5926807c861e472aa5d3","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q182b056582faf9ce7a8a","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":67,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T15:18:47.082Z","text":"［用户 him***］ G系列是郭的 这些钱都是郭控制 全是犯罪资金 庭审证据完美的证明了这些","edited":true,"reply_to":"q5926807c861e472aa5d3","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q182b056582faf9ce7a8a","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5926807c861e472aa5d3","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1baad400586e2c7fc8fa","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":68,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:19:33.580Z","text":"程序上，如果检方布雷迪违规，司法欺诈，这个案子就是无效的","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1baad400586e2c7fc8fa","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb82dbba2d4997d58d3df","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":69,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:19:57.991Z","text":"本来就很简单，现在搞这么复杂，是想干嘛","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb82dbba2d4997d58d3df","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6326e7d6c508eff0b1ac","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":70,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T15:20:33.322Z","text":"［用户 him***］  布雷迪违规 司法欺诈 会让哪些证据无效？ 这些证据会打掉多少定罪依赖的东西？ 啥都不懂就来这里当网格员","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6326e7d6c508eff0b1ac","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q58c6aedf218dc3209ce2","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":71,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:20:52.789Z","text":"庭审的时候，就是搞得特别复杂，把陪审团忽悠了","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q58c6aedf218dc3209ce2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1307fe56a730c3a5a58b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":72,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T15:21:14.518Z","text":"［用户 him***］ 简单 那你比郭律师还牛？","edited":true,"reply_to":"qb82dbba2d4997d58d3df","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1307fe56a730c3a5a58b","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb82dbba2d4997d58d3df","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcdf55c14b81116d863da","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":73,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:21:18.926Z","text":"现在又在这个群，搞得这么复杂，想忽悠谁啊","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcdf55c14b81116d863da","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6f0207e0d4e8f69de510","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":74,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T15:22:04.113Z","text":"什么现金流，这个那个，黄牛拉，地下钱庄啦，和郭有关系吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6f0207e0d4e8f69de510","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1bd6528319c12c3646b4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":75,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T15:24:54.701Z","text":"luc不想给300骨干债权人，争取G系列资金 \n［用户 him***］ 你的退休金，黄了","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1bd6528319c12c3646b4","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd1482fe7436898619c14","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":76,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T15:25:02.117Z","text":"［用户 joh***］  他的意思是 我们说的太复杂 他没法带节奏了","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd1482fe7436898619c14","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5d8182a31f2da41a5232","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":77,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T15:37:33.495Z","text":"Luc在债权人登记阶段就跟检方有书信往来，双方是通着气的。具体哪个文件记不清了好像是检方的什么文件自己说的","edited":false,"reply_to":"q3ea471253f6025ff2ec6","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5d8182a31f2da41a5232","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3ea471253f6025ff2ec6","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q2925e3cac164086f7157","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":78,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:12:42.464Z","text":"It's possible that you might be deceived, not the jury.","edited":false,"reply_to":"q58c6aedf218dc3209ce2","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2925e3cac164086f7157","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q58c6aedf218dc3209ce2","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qab43178ce9204a1dbf6c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":79,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T16:13:17.027Z","text":"［用户 him***］ 这个[屏蔽词]可不会被deceived 他要的是没收钱","edited":true,"reply_to":"q2925e3cac164086f7157","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qab43178ce9204a1dbf6c","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2925e3cac164086f7157","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q14e8dcab23246a95d50d","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":80,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T16:13:40.495Z","text":"现在没收钱没了 他很惆怅","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q14e8dcab23246a95d50d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q4d11c51ee666241e7df4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":81,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:15:49.367Z","text":"你投资了多少钱 ？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4d11c51ee666241e7df4","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd8c31dc1b31d83e46259","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":82,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:16:03.255Z","text":"投资了几百亿","edited":false,"reply_to":"q4d11c51ee666241e7df4","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd8c31dc1b31d83e46259","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4d11c51ee666241e7df4","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcf75ff4ee4b5d61dd883","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":83,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:16:20.820Z","text":"听起来确实是能相信郭的","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcf75ff4ee4b5d61dd883","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q66857110523aeba29c11","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":84,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:16:34.556Z","text":"郭的信众 有以下特征 请勿对号入座","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q66857110523aeba29c11","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q803ef98544222e21b7b9","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":85,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:16:42.940Z","text":"对啊，几百亿都投进去了，能不信郭吗","edited":false,"reply_to":"qcf75ff4ee4b5d61dd883","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q803ef98544222e21b7b9","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcf75ff4ee4b5d61dd883","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qace5adc7f2361a514f7e","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":86,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:16:55.863Z","text":"1：张口就是几百亿 兜里几百都没有","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qace5adc7f2361a514f7e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qe978fc8cdb76eb29d001","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":87,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:17:08.720Z","text":"2：喜欢说脏话","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe978fc8cdb76eb29d001","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd698f0f57f6476d8c9e6","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":88,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:17:26.127Z","text":"3：认为自己最牛，别人都是傻子","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd698f0f57f6476d8c9e6","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q4a74b80ea02c520e4e83","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":89,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:17:49.882Z","text":"4：喜欢贴标签，喜欢判断身份，是特务/是团伙","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4a74b80ea02c520e4e83","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qe3ea777816da81987802","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":90,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:18:23.431Z","text":"5：认为郭老师是神，神之所以这样做，是有原因的","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe3ea777816da81987802","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb4f135862618d4aa0cba","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":91,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:19:33.775Z","text":"6：阴谋论爱好者","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb4f135862618d4aa0cba","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q62e02b7bad8661a55ef1","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":92,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:19:43.994Z","text":"7：绝对不可能是程序员，不懂编程","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q62e02b7bad8661a55ef1","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa3ae982321f3fb56ccb1","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":93,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:20:15.352Z","text":"你能对上几条？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q803ef98544222e21b7b9","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa3ae982321f3fb56ccb1","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q803ef98544222e21b7b9","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q76d27f379f90ec0a1dfa","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":94,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:21:05.557Z","text":"8：几十个小号，精神分裂，表演吵架，挑拨离间，一夜一夜晚上不睡觉，砸锅","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q76d27f379f90ec0a1dfa","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q844d434cfa7a3c89697c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":95,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:21:43.978Z","text":"你能对上几条","edited":false,"reply_to":"qa3ae982321f3fb56ccb1","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q844d434cfa7a3c89697c","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa3ae982321f3fb56ccb1","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa28a6dfbed12e634c7b5","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":96,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:09.136Z","text":"你这个行为 就是贴标签 你认为我是小号 完全不需要证据 对应的是第四条","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa28a6dfbed12e634c7b5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q3a1a94ecbd4b2343d396","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":97,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:23.588Z","text":"我说你是小号了吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":"qa28a6dfbed12e634c7b5","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3a1a94ecbd4b2343d396","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa28a6dfbed12e634c7b5","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6b7409cef1df6ab88eeb","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":98,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:25.672Z","text":"你做人做事 搞投资 看的是想象力","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6b7409cef1df6ab88eeb","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q448311fb1cd5db9b7567","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":99,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:42.531Z","text":"你不是说 几十个小号？ 互相表演","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q448311fb1cd5db9b7567","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q7576b22655d6f84bdcbd","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":100,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:54.013Z","text":"那是第8条啊","edited":false,"reply_to":"q448311fb1cd5db9b7567","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7576b22655d6f84bdcbd","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q448311fb1cd5db9b7567","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q638660e448d3c084f07f","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":101,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:57.016Z","text":"你怎么判断别人是小号呢","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q638660e448d3c084f07f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qaac37617ed0279004ec7","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":102,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:22:59.763Z","text":"你自己承认了？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qaac37617ed0279004ec7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb4115deb38b18034beb3","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":103,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:23:07.297Z","text":"我又没说是你","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb4115deb38b18034beb3","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q8d117d7b4fd76bc5ca2e","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":104,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:23:24.683Z","text":"不是我 你就谁 你怎么判断是小号？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8d117d7b4fd76bc5ca2e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q2ead9188a0aefe5f92a5","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":105,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:23:47.485Z","text":"你说没说我不重要 我就说你 喜欢想象","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2ead9188a0aefe5f92a5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5c8c435af6b111c77802","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":106,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:23:51.192Z","text":"喜欢贴标签","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5c8c435af6b111c77802","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qde892ffe7373b631d6f9","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":107,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:23:56.417Z","text":"只允许你写7条，不允许我写8条啊？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q8d117d7b4fd76bc5ca2e","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qde892ffe7373b631d6f9","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8d117d7b4fd76bc5ca2e","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qf879183cc2f09ac6d44f","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":108,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:24:21.939Z","text":"你贴给挺郭的了7个标签，不允许我写一条啊？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf879183cc2f09ac6d44f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qf72a7853ebc3a7a924d9","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":109,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:24:31.981Z","text":"你随便 写 问题是 你怎么判断别人是特务 我们回到问题上来 不需要插科打诨","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf72a7853ebc3a7a924d9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q2e21c5931d786301d54f","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":110,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:24:48.648Z","text":"最喜欢贴标签的，不就是你吗","edited":false,"reply_to":"qf72a7853ebc3a7a924d9","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e21c5931d786301d54f","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf72a7853ebc3a7a924d9","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcf549eac28fe3bd1c688","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":111,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:24:51.091Z","text":"我们不正在讨论你的第八条吗","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcf549eac28fe3bd1c688","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q2e6612a33177c07a3201","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":112,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:25:33.285Z","text":"郭已经判了30年了","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e6612a33177c07a3201","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q111ab3419e50f2f73120","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":113,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:25:51.231Z","text":"郭有戏没戏 和你的第八条有关系吗","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q111ab3419e50f2f73120","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q8b9968b20db3e9b287b7","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":114,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:26:05.766Z","text":"我问你郭判几年了吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8b9968b20db3e9b287b7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":115,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T17:24:24.133Z","text":"Ai让追查的东西都是只有当事人才知道的，从司法文件几乎无迹可寻","edited":false,"reply_to":"q969b45359ca005499a15","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q969b45359ca005499a15","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q99075c7fa919597e0682","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":116,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T17:42:26.338Z","text":"最好能让ai梳理一下，今天的内容涉及了几个主要问题，每个问题分别与郭案的哪些关键问题相关，排好优先级和重要程度","edited":false,"reply_to":"q64060a1a1131acebbc91","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q99075c7fa919597e0682","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb28b1079327d9997771b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":117,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T19:08:16.804Z","text":"按ai的分析，其实老郭对前后的辩护律师还是有影响力的，而不是之前我们想的被律师隔离。律师一直在找机会披露cipa，这个只有老郭自己知道里面有什么，律师的行动应该是老郭的意思","edited":false,"reply_to":"q18279d62b006ce191b84","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb28b1079327d9997771b","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q18279d62b006ce191b84","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qf0649ddd634428724b90","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":118,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T19:30:09.570Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 那为什么老郭会说连基本的都没干","edited":true,"reply_to":"qb28b1079327d9997771b","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf0649ddd634428724b90","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb28b1079327d9997771b","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb7777718144d6a758b8b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":119,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T20:27:09.527Z","text":"这不是简单的“AI又幻觉了”。更可能是大家把两个不同层次的话混在一起了。\n\n昨天查到的公开卷宗很明确：郭的辩护团队确实不是完全没碰CIPA。例如，2023年就有郭方提出 Request for Ex Parte Conference Under CIPA，Dkt.111；到2024年，法院还专门处理了政府的CIPA §4申请，Torres最终批准政府对部分classified materials作删除/替代。\n\n更重要的是，2024年5月，郭方针对 Witness-2 正式提交了 CIPA §5 Notice。政府自己的Dkt.339写得很清楚：郭在 May 14, 2024 提交通知，想在trial中向Witness-2询问一项其认为属于classified的信息；政府随后要求法院禁止这部分询问。\n\n所以如果有人把“郭的前两任律师连最基本的CIPA动作都没做”理解成：\n\n从来没要求看classified材料、没启动CIPA、没提交§5 notice、没争取在trial里使用，\n\n那这个说法与公开docket不符。\n\n但郭在法庭上说“律师连最基本的都没做”，完全可能是在说另一件事：他认为律师没有把CIPA这条线做到他要求的程度，比如没有追到底、没有充分调查某些FBI/情报关系、没有把他认为最重要的classified材料真正呈现给jury，或者没有采取他认为应该采取的进一步程序。\n\n这和“律师什么都没做”不是一回事。\n\n实际上公开记录反而显示一个挺有意思的过程：\n\n律师确实在争CIPA\n→ 政府也正式反对\n→ Torres审了classified submissions\n→ 部分材料被删除，部分用substitution代替\n→ Witness-2问题又触发§5\n→ 最终陪审团没有听到郭想问的那部分classified information。\n\n所以郭如果后来站在结果上说：\n\n“你们最基本的都没有做。”\n\n他可能是在批评辩护策略和执行效果，而不是在作一个精确的docket-history陈述。\n\n群里最容易出现的问题就是把当事人的这种口语化批评理解成：\n\n“卷宗上没有任何CIPA行动。”\n\n这个推导是不成立的。\n\n而且这里还有一个很关键的细节：政府Dkt.339并不是说辩方完全没有行动，而恰恰相反，它是在攻击辩方的行动——政府认为郭的§5 notice存在notice timing/adequacy问题，同时又认为那项信息本身不可采。也就是说，争议不是“辩方有没有动”，而是“动得是否及时、是否充分、最后能不能让jury听到”。 \n\n所以我现在会把昨天的结论进一步修正成一句最准确的话：\n\n公开卷宗足以证明郭的前期辩护团队确实持续参与过CIPA程序；但公开卷宗还不足以证明他们把郭认为关键的classified/FBI材料充分调查、充分争取并最终呈现给了陪审团。\n\n这两个判断可以同时成立。\n\n因此，“律师一直争取打开CIPA”和“郭后来批评律师连基本工作都没做好”并不必然矛盾。前者是客观程序记录，后者可能是郭对律师工作质量、深度和结果的评价。\n\n如果群里要一句话解释，我建议你发：\n\nAI这次不是幻觉，卷宗上确实有郭方CIPA动作：2023年Dkt.111要求CIPA会议，2024年法院处理§4材料，5月郭方又给Witness-2提交§5 Notice。郭说律师“基本都没干”，更可能是在批评律师没有把这条线追透、没有让关键内容进入陪审团，而不是说卷宗上从来没有CIPA行动。\n\n而且这反而说明真正值得追的不是“律师有没有碰CIPA”，而是：他们到底知道了什么、申请了什么、Torres删掉/替代了什么、Witness-2那部分为什么最终没让jury听，以及现在26-1853新律师为什么又回来要求重新review这些sealed materials。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q80b1cbbfecccdbf0555b","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb7777718144d6a758b8b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q0670f45e863913439969","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":120,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-20T20:55:22.509Z","text":"個人認為上了二巡的可以分幾組，分別就一些點去深挖深入研究。\n一組兩人專門深扒LUC的皮，他沾了刑事案這邊的錢，就別想全身而溜。咱們要更有策略性地去合作及進攻。把他的破產案也給踢翻了🤭🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":"q15afa8cfe7f666ffa481","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0670f45e863913439969","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q15afa8cfe7f666ffa481","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qebb603cd9aa9bfe791c3","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":121,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T20:57:53.944Z","text":"这个思路作为分工方法是对的，但“把Luc破产案踢翻”要稍微降温一点，不然容易把目标设得过头。\n\n更现实的打法是：不要把“打Luc”当成一个大口号，而是拆成几个能被法院真正处理的具体问题。 比如一组专门做：\n\nLuc与刑事案资金/forfeiture的连接\n重点查 Mahwah、5739、政府和Luc什么时候开始协调、依据什么权利分资产、有没有在产权未定/forfeiture未终局时先安排资产走向。\n\n另一组专门做：\n\nalter ego / beneficial ownership基础\n把Luc声称的260多件adversaries逐项分类：哪些真的已有judgment，哪些只是allegation，哪些是default judgment，哪些是summary judgment，哪些仍在pending。\n\n再一组做：\n\n第三方财产权\n盯 §853(n)、§1963(l)、ownership、superior interest、due process，尤其看政府和Luc的和解有没有碰到本来属于第三方的权利。\n\n还有一组做：\n\n刑事案反向污染破产案\n如果26-1853以后真出现刑事判决、forfeiture、Rule 32.2或证据基础被推翻，就马上核查：Luc哪些判决、诉状、和解、资产主张曾经依赖这些刑事材料。\n\n所以群友那句：\n\n“Luc沾了刑事案的钱，就别想全身而退。”\n\n作为群里玩笑可以，但法律上最有力的表达其实是：\n\nLuc一旦把破产estate和criminal forfeiture正式绑在一起，他的相关资产主张就更容易受到刑事案后续裁判变化的影响。\n\n这才是关键。\n\n而且你们如果真分组，我建议不要两个人都重复搜同一个点。最有效的是每组只负责一条证据链，最后汇总成一张总图：\n\n刑事案认定 → forfeiture权利 → Luc/政府和解 → 破产资产归属 → 第三方权利 → 后续adversaries\n\n这样比大家一起喊“把破产案踢翻”有用得多。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q0670f45e863913439969","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qebb603cd9aa9bfe791c3","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0670f45e863913439969","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q71c51d95df28af582b45","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":122,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-20T21:08:46.473Z","text":"如果把具體工作細化，精而專，更容易出成績。\n用兩人守住及進攻LUC，要讓他至少永遠沒機會來刑事案搶大家的錢了。\n他現在也是策略性的退出，說不定哪天就又回來了。要守住他打到他再也回不來才算勝利。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q71c51d95df28af582b45","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q3f42ee3f2c380a92e81b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":123,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T21:38:01.542Z","text":"这次我挖到一个非常值得26-1853直接研究的二巡新先例连接：2025年的 United States v. Elias。\n\n它的重要性在于：**Elias是二巡自己在2025年、Honeycutt之后，重新梳理“obtained / acquired / proceeds”到底怎么理解的precedential意见。**而Torres在Dkt. 858里处理郭的$889M forfeiture时，核心争议恰好就是这个。\n\nTorres在858里明确写，郭主张自己只能被要求没收“他本人取得过”的tainted proceeds；Torres拒绝这个主张，理由是财产不需要直接在郭手里，只要曾经处于郭的control之下即可，并据此认定郭作为“Boss”控制G Enterprise实体及其资产。\n\n但是二巡在 Elias 里强调得更细：\n\ncriminal forfeiture的典型衡量是defendant’s actual gain；\nHoneycutt的核心不是形式上的joint-and-several标签，而是：不能让一个被告没收他本人从未actually acquired的犯罪收益。\n\nElias甚至明确说，对§981(a)(1)(C)这种在刑事程序中使用的forfeiture，只有“tainted property acquired or used by the defendant”才能作为该被告的没收基础；而且“personal acquisition”是proceeds概念的核心。\n\n这就让858里的“control”分析变得非常值得细查。\n\n注意，我不是说Elias自动推翻858。因为二巡旧案 Contorinis / Tanner / Rajaratnam 的确允许在某些情况下把“实际控制”视为“acquisition”，尤其被告真的掌握了资金调度权时。Contorinis本身说过，如果钱曾经在被告或其共同参与者控制之下，可能算acquired；反过来，如果只是做投资决策却不能控制利润分配，就不够。\n\n所以现在真正的26-1853问题不是一句：\n\n“郭没把889M装自己口袋，所以forfeiture错了。”\n\n那太简单。\n\n真正应该问的是：\n\n政府有没有逐项证明郭本人对Farm、G|CLUBS、HEX那889M gross inflows具有足够实际、可支配的control，从而在Elias/Honeycutt意义上构成“obtained/acquired”？\n\n这和“郭是Boss”并不完全是同一句话。\n\n因为858的关键文字是：\n\n郭控制G Enterprise所有实体及其资产；\n所以这些钱曾在郭control之下。\n\n但Elias提醒二巡，criminal forfeiture必须保持defendant-specific，不能仅仅因为共谋体系里别人拿到了钱，就把整个收益归给一个被告。\n\n所以你们现在最值得查的是：858引用的每一条trial evidence，到底证明的是哪一种“control”：\n\n郭可以建议钱怎么花；\n郭偶尔批准某笔支出；\n郭能命令实体转钱；\n郭具有网银/签字权；\n郭能随时把整个账户资金调走；\n还是只是周围人称他“Boss”。\n\n这几个证据等级差很多。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3f42ee3f2c380a92e81b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q29713dda849256bf08ce","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":124,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T21:39:51.961Z","text":"而且858自己留下了一个很好用的反差：郭引用Mercantile Bank证人James Collins，说明银行理解郭并不是G|CLUBS的ultimate beneficial owner；Torres认为Collins没有内部知识，所以只给minimal weight。 那么二巡就可以进一步问：\n\n政府自己的积极证据到底有多强，足以证明郭控制全部gross inflows，而不是只证明他对某些具体支出有影响力？\n\n这就是农场账本、账户权限、真实收款人、资金审批记录可能真正有用的地方。\n\n还有一个我认为更重要的新点。\n\nTorres在858对6,512名HEX成员、Hamilton petitioners等否认victim身份的处理非常明确：她认为这些人的主观victim看法不影响forfeiture，因为wire fraud不要求individual reliance；只要整个scheme成立，来自scheme的proceeds仍可没收。\n\n这个法律命题本身有相当基础，不能简单攻击成“6500人说不是受害者，所以没收必然错”。\n\n但这里留下了另一个更精准的问题：\n\n“没有individual reliance要求” ≠ “每一美元gross inflow都自动是proceeds obtained by Guo。”\n\n这是两个不同步骤。\n\n法院第一步说得可能对：\n\nindividual subjective belief不决定scheme是否成立。\n\n但第二步仍然必须证明：\n\n某笔钱是这个fraud/racketeering scheme的proceeds，并且依法由郭直接或间接obtained。\n\n所以6500人的材料真正作用不是“投票决定有没有诈骗”，而可能用于证明：\n\n某些交易具有真实经济价值、不是基于被指控的misrepresentation、资金不是郭控制、或者政府gross-inflow模型把不同性质的钱混在一起。\n\n这和你前面说的账本就完全接上了。\n\n另外858还有一个很值得注意的地方：Torres明确把第三方产权和forfeitability分开，说即使第三方后来在§853(n)证明自己有superior legal interest，也不会因此减少郭的money judgment；因为某笔钱可能曾被郭控制、构成其forfeiture obligation，同时第三方仍然拥有更优产权。\n\n这个逻辑在法律上并不是荒唐的，但它意味着：\n\nspecific property最后退给第三方 ≠ money judgment自动下降。\n\n所以如果你们目标是攻击$889M，不能只靠第三方“这是我的钱”。\n\n必须攻击更前面的：\n\n郭到底有没有obtained/control这批proceeds。\n\n这就是为什么Elias现在特别重要。\n\n我现在会把这一条提升到资金/forfeiture线的第一优先级：\n\nElias (2d Cir. 2025) + Honeycutt + Contorinis/Tanner，与Dkt.858关于“control = obtained”的事实认定是否真正匹配。\n\n如果证据只能证明郭对组织有领导力，不能证明对889M资金具有实际支配/取得，那么这是二巡非常自然的审查入口。\n\n反过来，如果trial record确实有大量逐笔证据证明郭能够命令这些实体资金自由转移，那858就会更稳。\n\n所以现在不是猜，而是可以做一个很具体的Control Matrix：\n\nFarm / G|CLUBS / HEX × 银行账户 × 名义账户所有人 × 实际签字人 × 网银权限 × 谁下转账指令 × 郭实际指令证据 × 金额。\n\n这张表如果做出来，基本就能直接测试**$889M是否满足Elias/Honeycutt意义上的defendant-specific acquisition/control**。\n\n这是这一轮我认为最重要的新发现。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q29713dda849256bf08ce","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q1269aca89396bab19fda","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":125,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-20T22:07:18.277Z","text":"LUC什麼時候拿到瑪瓦的處置權？郭什麼時候被定罪？請把時間線捊清楚。\n再把對應的法條找出來👍👍👍💪💪💪","edited":false,"reply_to":"q1cdee11a6a8f808440b7","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1269aca89396bab19fda","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1cdee11a6a8f808440b7","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q96bd9b56f12add340aed","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":126,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T22:49:17.363Z","text":"Geyer这套几千人代理，客观上不是他一个律师自己去市场上认识几千个客户，而是通过HEX/联盟体系进行集中招募、集中验证、集中导流，再由Geyer把这些人批量带入刑事案。\n\n这个结论现在有政府自己的文件直接支持。\n\n政府在 Dkt.223（2024-01-05） 明确告诉Torres：\n\nGeyer声称代表五千多人；\n政府甚至质疑他是否知道这些人的真实身份、是否和他们逐个沟通过；\n政府说 Himalaya Exchange apparently notified all its registered customers to file a claim with Geyer；\nGeyer自己的网站只要求客户填HEX ID等极少信息；\nGeyer再通过HEX records去“verify”这些客户；\n政府据此说，Geyer显然在和HEX合作，HEX也在推广他的代理工作。\n\n这一段非常重要。\n\n因为它证明的不是你们的猜测，而是政府自己当时也认为这是一个集中式客户导流体系。\n\n而且政府甚至写了一句很值得注意的话：\n\n“it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer.”\n\n政府当时就问：\n\n到底是谁在指挥/组织Geyer这套几千人代理？\n\n这说明“他怎么突然有几千个客户”从2024年1月就已经是政府公开提出的疑问。\n\n现在整个Geyer客户生产链可以先画成这样\n\nHEX / 社区体系通知客户\n↓\n客户进入Geyer的网站\n↓\n提交HID / 客户编号等\n↓\nGeyer通过HEX记录验证\n↓\n客户人数不断增长\n↓\nGeyer作为律师统一ECF filing\n↓\n这批人的身份、余额、deposit、redemption等数据进入SDNY刑事案record。\n\n这个“流水线”现在是有文件支撑的。\n\n而且人数变化也能完整看到：\n\n3,345 → 5,242 → 5,280+ → 6,000+ → 最终6,512。\n\n齐春宏在Dkt.517甚至明确写，他当初不在3345里，后来签完代理协议后就在5242里了。\n\n这直接证明：\n\n“签代理协议”与“被加入Geyer的大规模客户数字”之间至少对齐春宏本人存在直接对应关系。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96bd9b56f12add340aed","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa4860e5861c7c1b5d3a0","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":127,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T22:49:40.632Z","text":"更关键的是：Geyer的法律角色确实发生了明显切换\n\n这个现在已经不是推测。\n\n最开始：第三方产权/返还财产\n\nDkt.186的核心是：\n\n3,345名HEX customers依据Rule 41(g)要求返还被政府扣押的property。\n\n客户被定义为：\n\nthird-party property holders。\n\n这条逻辑是：\n\n“这是我们的钱，不是郭的钱，也不是犯罪所得。”\n\n政府在223回应时也明确说：\n\n如果真要主张第三方产权，正常路径应该等preliminary forfeiture以后走 §853(n) ancillary proceeding。\n\n这其实说明：\n\n政府自己当时都把他们理解成潜在§853(n) property claimants。\n\n但2024年11月，Geyer明显转向了“victim”体系\n\nDkt.478是非常关键的转折。\n\n他正式写：\n\nfinancial victims\n\n而且引用：\n\nCVRA 18 U.S.C. §3771\n\n并且说自己代表：\n\n5,280 and counting Himalaya Exchange depositors\n\n还援引CVRA里：\n\nvictim right to confer with Government；\nrestitution；\nsentencing participation；\nvictim notification；\n大规模victim程序。\n\n这已经不是纯§853(n)产权律师了。\n\n到这里，Geyer实际上在说：\n\n“我这5000多人不仅是property owners，同时也是crime victims。”\n\n这就是你们一直怀疑的身份切换点。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa4860e5861c7c1b5d3a0","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qbe004de0a0ea5339a764","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":128,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T22:49:51.496Z","text":"但最反常的是：2025年10月，他又公开说这6512人“不愿被叫victims”\n\nDkt.761非常关键。\n\n标题下面第一大节直接就是：\n\n“INNOCENT INVESTORS PASSIONATELY RESIST BEING CALLED VICTIMS”\n\nGeyer自己告诉法院：\n\n这些HEX investors很多人非常反感被政府称为victims；他们认为自己没有被郭诈骗，真正的财务伤害来自政府冻结/扣押HEX资产。\n\n所以现在出现一个非常清晰的内在张力：\n\n2024 Dkt.478\n\nGeyer：\n\n5,280+ financial victims\nCVRA\nrestitution\n\n2025 Dkt.761\n\nGeyer：\n\n6,512 investors resist being called victims\n他们说自己不是郭的fraud victims。\n\n这不是我们给他扣帽子。\n\n这是Geyer自己不同阶段的filing发生了明显变化。\n\n这条非常值得写进最终研究报告。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbe004de0a0ea5339a764","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q496e15d633728066c03c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":129,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T22:50:02.447Z","text":"更重要：Dkt.763把“客户生产数据库”的结构说透了\n\nGeyer自己在763里说：\n\n他们团队：\n\nreviewed thousands of emails；\ncross-referenced客户status；\n通过 HEX records and management 验证；\n最后确定6,512；\n客户按HID识别；\n并汇总：\n433,992,619.55 HCN\n84,689,498.20 HDO\n318,618,144.77 deposits\n39,565,818.64 redemptions。\n\n而且他明确说：\n\n最终6512人数已经把要求cancel attorney-fee agreement的人剔除；\n另有187名客户已经terminate attorney-client relationship。\n\n这一页我觉得极其重要。\n\n因为Geyer实际上已经承认：\n\n他不仅是律师。\n\n他同时控制/维护一套：\n\n客户身份数据库 + HID验证 + deposit数据 + redemption数据 + HCN/HDO余额 + representation status\n\n的大型claimant database。\n\n这就是为什么我现在越来越不愿意只叫他“律师”。\n\n从功能上讲，他更像：\n\nclaim aggregator + claimant verifier + data compiler + litigation representative\n\n四合一。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q496e15d633728066c03c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q3ddeeba33d7be3e1fcae","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":130,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T22:50:37.743Z","text":"但真正法律上致命的是：\n\n客户授权目的和实际法律用途是否一致。\n\n比如，如果合同或推广明确告诉大家：\n\n“你交50美元，我帮你从美国政府拿回HEX被冻结的钱。”\n\n那客户理解很自然是：\n\n资产追回 / property recovery。\n\n尤其如果里面明确写§853(n)，那就更强。\n\n但后来实际做了：\n\nCVRA；\nvictim；\nrestitution；\n§853(i) remission；\n参与sentencing-related victim框架。\n\n那么就要问：\n\n客户有没有明确同意这种身份变化？\n\n如果没有，问题不是简单的“律师用了不同法律条文”。\n\n而是：\n\n律师有没有改变了委托的基本性质。\n\n这就是潜在的：\n\nscope-of-representation；\ninformed consent；\nfiduciary duty；\nmisrepresentation；\nunauthorized representation\n\n问题。\n\n至于是否最终达到“fraud”，还要证明他在签约时就有欺骗意图，而不仅是后来策略改变。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3ddeeba33d7be3e1fcae","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q3f55bfd443bf71df131c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":131,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T22:50:54.283Z","text":"夏其东这条线出现了一个更复杂的问题\n\n你们认为夏其东是联盟早期推动者。\n\n而政府在trial阶段其实把 Qidong Xia 放在了一个非常不一样的位置：\n\n政府Dkt.344称：\n\nXia是New York Farm领导人；\n有victim直接根据他的指令汇钱；\nGuo曾公开要求支持者听Xia指示；\nGuo被捕后，Xia与Guo保持通话。\n\n而郭方2026年的Dkt.826-1则明确反驳政府，说：\n\nXia从2020年起本来就是Himalaya Alliance Secretary General，并非郭被捕后才“任命”他。\n\n所以夏其东的身份在案卷里本身就是一个争议中心。\n\n这意味着如果你们能找到：\n\n夏其东/联盟推广Geyer的原始视频、群公告、Telegram/Discord、邮件\n\n那价值会很高。\n\n因为它可能建立：\n\nAlliance leadership\n↓\nmass recruitment\n↓\nGeyer client database\n↓\ncourt filings\n\n这条组织链。\n\n但是现在我还没找到司法原件直接写：\n\n“Xia ordered everyone to hire Geyer.”\n\n所以这一段继续标作待证。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3f55bfd443bf71df131c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q0ec10d034e269e871bad","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":132,"speaker":"chu***","date":"2026-08-20T23:15:35.100Z","text":"https://x.com/baoliaogeming/status/2090576772790456390?s=20","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0ec10d034e269e871bad","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qacb8fe5bc6044c6b64df","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":133,"speaker":"chu***","date":"2026-08-20T23:21:07.172Z","text":"卢克反对盖儿时，文件202好像，也直接提到小萨拉公开介绍盖儿。\n检方自己也有质疑，加上卢克的质疑，再加上第三方自诉人的指控，检方装聋作哑啊！","edited":false,"reply_to":"q96bd9b56f12add340aed","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qacb8fe5bc6044c6b64df","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96bd9b56f12add340aed","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qbfd57dce33636d7d5643","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":134,"speaker":"chu***","date":"2026-08-20T23:36:06.818Z","text":"https://x.com/dDiVul8m3g82864/status/2090280457925800275","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbfd57dce33636d7d5643","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q026c167e2d8610285f60","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":135,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-20T23:54:34.050Z","text":"在初步没收令720被批准之前，被告说他在被没收特定财产里没有个人利益。这说的是事实，因为那些财产要么是家人的，要么是投资者的。然后，这句话在接下来每次被告就没收相关提出主张时，政府就用来反驳，说被告自己都承认没有个人利益，所以无权有任何主张。政府在引用这段话时，前提必须是它认同，政府不能用自己不认同的事实去主张法院驳回被告主张。所以这里的矛盾显而易见，政府既然认为被告在那些特定财产上没有个人利益，那么对个人资产没收令里，就不应该计入那些财产，你可以把8.89亿的金钱判决给到郭，但那些特定财产不能被没收，因为你政府自己认同被告对这些特定财产没有个人利益这一主张，政府认同的事实与它的没收那些特定财产的实力行动完全对立。这种操作是否也表面合法？认为我似乎也没有看到被告律师用这个论点来就没收发表异议？然后托雷斯在858里，把G enterprise 里的投资项目里除掉gtv部分的财产，因为郭被定罪rico共谋以及王雁平指任郭是boss，认定为是郭的通过犯罪行为取得的个人财产，没收清单里的相关银行账户里的钱，就是这些财产的一部分。也就是政府表达前后完全对立的主张，法官都采信，法官在判词里，我也没有看到她圆这一点。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q026c167e2d8610285f60","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qdfc6b28f5c4af197e8be","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":136,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T02:45:40.906Z","text":"这个里面，关于没收，郭的律师，显然没有做好。王的律师，也是一样。\n似乎律师都不敢碰这个，他们当然懂restitution forfriture的区别，但不说，怕挡了检方的财路","edited":false,"reply_to":"q026c167e2d8610285f60","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdfc6b28f5c4af197e8be","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q026c167e2d8610285f60","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q33492ec49ec7dd801330","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":137,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T02:55:26.121Z","text":"他代理6000人，检方要什么，他配合造材料","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q33492ec49ec7dd801330","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qee4e6023a1d59ce72782","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":138,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T02:56:15.009Z","text":"检方和Geyer，互骂，也是演戏来着\n参考luc","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qee4e6023a1d59ce72782","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q8ce28c75b467185cec07","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":139,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T03:06:56.592Z","text":"［用户 him***］ 他们是团队，Anthon，一条线应该有不少人，之前的号，和现在的号，用的人都不同","edited":true,"reply_to":"q915a16622474bcddb660","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8ce28c75b467185cec07","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q67039af771a286d80d89","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":140,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T04:23:26.385Z","text":"羊帮也想第三梯队，恨死Qmay\nhttps://x.com/kk26400689/status/2089467789106958588?s=46","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q67039af771a286d80d89","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q7f4b7abbadaa87850b8b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":141,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T04:35:16.043Z","text":"他混了这么多年，没捞到个农场主\n想这次第三梯队，捞一票","edited":false,"reply_to":"q43a291bb787bf15a4b73","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7f4b7abbadaa87850b8b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qa67c78b41a58fd5116f2","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":142,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T04:42:21.758Z","text":"https://x.com/qiqi7877/status/2090649452470288521?s=46\n\n短短的一段推文写满了胡说八道，这个老太我也是服了","edited":false,"reply_to":"qdcba78b8b438371574f6","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa67c78b41a58fd5116f2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qb73995f5eeff84fd0379","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":143,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T04:44:33.282Z","text":"因为不少伪民运，也在luc那儿登记了债权人，等着破产案分钱啊🤣 🤣 🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":"qa67c78b41a58fd5116f2","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb73995f5eeff84fd0379","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa67c78b41a58fd5116f2","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q88d77dcd5986a5306051","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":144,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T04:47:01.403Z","text":"他们可以分到吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q88d77dcd5986a5306051","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q666904f4783839d27c94","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":145,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T04:49:31.511Z","text":"理论上，破产案债权人名单，踢谁和保留谁，最后谁拿钱，luc说了算\n但前提是，刑事案要有没收啊🤣 \n现在没收都没了，还分个屁\n［用户 him***］ 一堆法盲傻X痴心妄想","edited":true,"reply_to":"q88d77dcd5986a5306051","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q666904f4783839d27c94","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q88d77dcd5986a5306051","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q0deb0e885ee72bc74064","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":146,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T04:52:18.806Z","text":"形象的说法就是\n主子画大饼，把G系列13亿，当成绳子挂着的骨头，给300骨干看，谁跳的高给谁吃，但问题是，没人能啃得动啊🤣 \n300骨干怕是还没明白，主子的目的，是挑选体格好的狗，可以卖个好价钱，给狗肉店啊🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0deb0e885ee72bc74064","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q87c5078373fd5fb1eb50","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":147,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-21T04:59:27.924Z","text":"最終也是要看各個所謂的債權人手里所提供的證據，不是你想登記多少就給你多少。幾個億的就是純搞笑😂","edited":false,"reply_to":"q88d77dcd5986a5306051","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q87c5078373fd5fb1eb50","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q88d77dcd5986a5306051","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6c4090ed38e3baa88c9f","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":148,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T05:00:56.088Z","text":"300骨干，跨国洗钱诈骗集团，未注册CCP外国代理人，对任何国家，任何执政党来说，都是拉选票的绝佳机会，看懂没\n［用户 him***］ ［用户 cin***］","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6c4090ed38e3baa88c9f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcc0f11270270a131067b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":149,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T05:04:06.281Z","text":"狗就是这样被卖掉的，对主子来说，也是废物再利用，省了脏自己的手。\n卖的钱，再买几窝小狗崽儿，重新养，过几年队伍又壮大了，何乐而不为 🤣 🤣 🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcc0f11270270a131067b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q93a5337a96352654dde8","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":150,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T05:10:11.435Z","text":"300骨干，大多数是墙头草，三姓家奴，主子难道看不出来？\nluc的民事案追款名单，就像脏手套的花名册。\n民事法庭rico，只是要钱，或者和解；刑事案rico，是要有具体人担责。\n关键问题是，现在托雷斯已经量刑，G集团诈骗罪名成立，300骨干，是未起诉共谋。\n背后主子要自身清白，肯定是要灭口啊。\n这么简单的道理，不懂？ ［用户 him***］ ［用户 cin***］","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q93a5337a96352654dde8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcb83b00cb19c86c4d2c4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":151,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T05:35:56.612Z","text":"盖尔最早是喜交所发邮件通知所有用户，而且还附带了授权盖尔的链接，紧跟着nfsc联盟开启大力宣传多次鼓动投资者参与授权，这能否证明喜交所、联盟和盖尔之间存在共谋，误导投资者参与授权，并在郭案中发挥对被告不利的作用","edited":false,"reply_to":"q96bd9b56f12add340aed","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcb83b00cb19c86c4d2c4","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96bd9b56f12add340aed","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5a14a5b2debfa9db1777","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":152,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-21T14:39:02.110Z","text":"https://x.com/ruienxiaoge777/status/2090810838093582691?s=46","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5a14a5b2debfa9db1777","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q4edd2890457c57800684","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":153,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T15:02:45.431Z","text":"我靠 ［用户 him***］ 安小东也是墙头草啊\n分分钟甩了上海帮，开始护习，这明显和屁酱 ［用户 tia***］ Percy浦律是一个套路\n换主子比脱裤子还快\nhttps://x.com/anxiaodong777/status/2090781735281721682?s=46","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4edd2890457c57800684","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":154,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T15:32:47.458Z","text":"870是gclub代理律所与检方和解，5739是luc与检方和解，都在跟政府和解，这说明啥？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q53c8bf6ea5ef08346bcb","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":155,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-21T15:42:20.551Z","text":"等於這間律師樓淨賺了\n330 +114 = 444萬美元。\n就寫了幾份文件，官司輸了。\n現在除了自訴人之外，其他曾介入的律師樓都與政府和解。\n\n\n個人理解：為政府沒收程序鋪路！","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q53c8bf6ea5ef08346bcb","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6ddbacacaf5c61629e5c","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":156,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T15:44:23.233Z","text":"都在配合政府集中火力对付上诉？","edited":false,"reply_to":"qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6ddbacacaf5c61629e5c","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q9d393a6bf5f731e4e6a2","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":157,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T15:44:45.530Z","text":"可上诉律师还没影呢","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9d393a6bf5f731e4e6a2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qfcdcf627fbc2c44d46b6","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":158,"speaker":"lon***","date":"2026-08-21T16:06:37.668Z","text":"是不是转污点证人了","edited":false,"reply_to":"qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfcdcf627fbc2c44d46b6","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcdae9d31f2c470ae1b5b","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":159,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T16:28:06.573Z","text":"谁知道","edited":false,"reply_to":"qfcdcf627fbc2c44d46b6","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcdae9d31f2c470ae1b5b","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfcdcf627fbc2c44d46b6","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q8168e8f18ff18a71df5a","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":160,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-21T16:43:32.093Z","text":"Gclub受益人是何\nfarm loan负责人是长岛\n似乎都在破产案折腾","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8168e8f18ff18a71df5a","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qc44dfad74b42984a7b2d","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":161,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:31:19.891Z","text":"可以给我870吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":"qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc44dfad74b42984a7b2d","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qad2ff5e8f7292368019c","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd4bd8188fb0d6bb07af1","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":162,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:55:12.657Z","text":"现在最值得注意的不是抽象地说“都在和政府和解”，而是870和5739在时间、人员、资产和诉讼对象上其实已经发生了交叉。\n\n最醒目的一点是时间：**870是在2026年7月29日签的；5739里的Luc—美国政府Stipulation日期是7月30日，只差一天；两份文件又都在8月18日公开提交。**870签字页显示政府方Juliana Murray和Pillsbury律师于7月29日签署；5739协议则注明7月30日，并同样有Juliana Murray代表政府参与。\n\n这不能证明有什么秘密总协议，但至少说明：\n\nSDNY政府团队是在同一个非常集中的时间窗口内，同时解决不同方向的forfeiture竞争性权益。\n\n而且不是两个互不相干的律师团队。**Juliana Murray同时出现在870和5739政府一侧。**5739政府方还包括Micah Fergenson、Ryan Finkel。\n\n所以更准确地说，这看起来像一个集中处理没收资产外围争议的阶段。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd4bd8188fb0d6bb07af1","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q481a7ba6acf59218d8d4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":163,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:55:33.948Z","text":"还有一个比时间更有意思的交叉：\n\nPillsbury本身也在Luc的5739 Schedule 1里。\n\n5739第30页列出的Estate Assets中，第39项就是：\n\n24-05014 Despins v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP。 5739.pdf\n\n也就是说，同一时期：\n\n政府 ↔ Pillsbury\n在870里解决G Club资金和律师费的forfeiture权益；\n\n同时：\n\nLuc ↔ Pillsbury\nLuc针对Pillsbury的破产adversary proceeding又被5739列为Estate Asset。\n\n这就非常有意思了。\n\n不能简单理解为：\n\nPillsbury只跟Government有一条关系。\n\n真实结构其实更像：\n\nPillsbury\n↙ Government：G Club funds / forfeiture\n↘ Luc：estate recovery/adversary claim\n\n而870解决了政府这一边；5739则又规定政府原则上不再碰Luc定义的Estate Assets。\n\n所以从资产诉讼角度看，Pillsbury夹在政府和Luc两个资产体系之间。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q481a7ba6acf59218d8d4","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qcf36d1c8cfd7adc0c516","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":164,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:55:56.971Z","text":"再往深一点，870和5739实际上在做两种不同类型的“权利固化”。\n\n870的办法是：\n\n先让Pillsbury同意资金subject to forfeiture\n→ 政府承认Pillsbury是BFP\n→ 已付330万美元保住\n→ Pillsbury退出对另外G Club资金的挑战\n→ 甚至承诺不协助别人挑战。 870.pdf\n\n5739的办法则是：\n\nLuc不承认Government法律理论\n→ 双方承认互相有冲突\n→ 不打§853(n)\n→ 直接分成Estate Assets和Forfeiture Assets\n→ 各自承诺不进入对方资产池。 5739.pdf\n\n所以它们虽然法律形式不同，但共同结果都是减少法院以后真正需要裁判的争议。\n\n本来法院可能需要回答：\n\n这笔钱究竟是谁的？\n是不是郭的property？\n是不是fraud proceeds？\nestate有没有superior interest？\n第三方什么时候取得权益？\n\n现在部分问题被替换成：\n\nPillsbury接受条件退出；\nLuc接受资产划界退出。\n\n这就是为什么5746/5754两份异议突然非常重要——它们代表第三种状态：\n\n“我不接受你们两方通过settlement把这件事收掉。”\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个5739内部的 drafting tension，我觉得之前没有充分讲。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcf36d1c8cfd7adc0c516","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qea4c32fe4594bf3db9ef","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":165,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:56:20.529Z","text":"5739 Paragraph S（Binding Effect）说，只要协议有效，它不仅约束双方和successors/assigns，还要约束依法取得Estate Assets或Forfeiture Assets possession/control的人。\n\n但紧接着 Paragraph T（No Third-Party Beneficiaries）又说：\n\n除特定情况外，没有third-party beneficiaries，而且协议不意图赋予非签约人任何rights、remedies、obligations或limitations。 5739.pdf\n\n这里至少存在一个需要法院解释的边界：\n\nS想让资产处理规则尽量“跟着资产走”；\nT又说不想对非协议第三方产生权利义务限制。\n\n那么异议人完全可能追问：\n\n如果我是独立第三方产权人，5739到底能不能因为我以后取得某项资产的possession/control而约束我？\n\n如果答案是“不能损害独立第三方ownership”，最好就应该在批准order里写清楚。\n\n这可能正是8月25日听证最有价值的部分之一。\n\n⸻\n\n再看Paragraph P，就更明显。\n\n5739对于未来还没列入任何池的资产用了一个非常特别的规则：\n\nLuc先启动追回程序\n→ deemed Estate Asset；\n\nGovernment先启动forfeiture\n→ deemed Forfeiture Asset。 5739.pdf\n\n注意这里的词是 deemed。\n\n这不是司法上的最终ownership determination。\n\n它更像是Luc和Government之间约定：\n\n“我们俩以后谁先动，这项资产在我们双方关系中就先归哪个阵营。”\n\n因此两份异议的意义可能比我们刚才说的更大：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qea4c32fe4594bf3db9ef","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qdd8f0498a73a1e8a2feb","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":166,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:56:39.001Z","text":"它们不仅在反对现有资产怎么分，也可能在反对一种未来机制：\n\n两个本来没有第三方产权的人，能不能通过协议中的先后顺序，先给未来争议资产贴上Estate/Forfeiture标签？\n\n当然，如果这种标签只约束Luc和Government内部，问题小很多。\n\n如果法院批准以后被理解成对第三方ownership具有任何预判效力，问题就大很多。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个非常值得和26-1853连接的时间现象：\n\n政府此时一边知道郭已经提出直接上诉，一边在7月底集中解决外围没收争议。\n\n这本身不异常——案件判完以后清理forfeiture很正常。\n\n但5739明确把forfeiture以后被vacated/voided这种情况直接写进协议。 5739.pdf\n\n这意味着双方不是没有考虑上诉风险。\n\n他们明确设计成：\n\nforfeiture继续有效\n→ Government拿；\n\nforfeiture后来被撤销/作废\n→ Luc重新回来争estate。\n\n所以你可以理解成一种资产风险隔离结构：\n\n不管刑事没收未来怎么样，这些资产尽量不要重新变成“无人主张”或者当然回到郭本人手里。\n\n这可能是5739最深的经济意义。\n\n不是说他们在“阻止二巡”。\n\n而是：\n\n他们正在为二巡可能导致的不同结果，预先设计资产后续归宿。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdd8f0498a73a1e8a2feb","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q5904d204a5834ac06057","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":167,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T18:57:20.643Z","text":"把870、5739、5746、5754放在一起，现在其实可以画成这样：\n\nGovernment forfeiture pool\n\n一边：\n\nPillsbury\n→ 接受forfeitability\n→ 换BFP保护\n→ 退出。\n\n另一边：\n\nLuc\n→ 不接受Government全部理论\n→ 但接受全球划界\n→ 退出指定forfeiture挑战\n→ 保留“刑事没收倒了回来争estate”。\n\n再一边：\n\n5746 / 5754第三方\n→ 不接受这个划界\n→ 继续保留独立产权/程序争议。\n\n所以当前状态其实不是“政府已经赢完了”，而是：\n\n政府正在把没收外围从一个多方诉讼战场，逐步转换成“已和解的人 + 仍反对的人”。\n\n这对以后看Final Forfeiture非常重要。\n\n因为最终即便出现Final Order，也必须区分：\n\n哪些ownership问题是法院审理后政府赢的；\n\n和：\n\n哪些其实是潜在挑战者通过settlement退出，所以根本没审到底。\n\n这两个历史事实完全不同。\n\n⸻\n\n所以现在我认为最值得盯8月25日的，已经不只是“法院批准不批准5739”，而是批准order怎么写。\n\n特别看有没有下面这些语言：\n\nno determination of ownership\nwithout prejudice to third-party rights\nno adjudication of alter ego / beneficial ownership\n§853(n) rights preserved\nsettlement binds only Trustee and Government\nnothing herein determines claims in Schedule 1\n\n如果Manning法官主动加这些限制，说明两份异议至少迫使法院意识到了5739的外溢风险。\n\n如果完全不加，甚至直接照Luc的Proposed Order——里面还准备写：\n\n所有没有撤回、放弃或和解的异议全部overruled\n\n那8月25日之后真正值得研究的反而会变成：\n\n**法院到底用了什么理由压掉这些第三方异议。** 5739.pdf","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5904d204a5834ac06057","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q605e9b65c4e23f5b32fa","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":168,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T19:11:26.357Z","text":"破产案里的第三方是谁？刑事案里的自诉第三方以及投资人在破产案里是个什么角色？刑事案自诉人和投资人能不能参与破产案？如何参与？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q5904d204a5834ac06057","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q605e9b65c4e23f5b32fa","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5904d204a5834ac06057","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q90d0fea82e873ea0b946","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":169,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T19:19:00.110Z","text":"可以参与，而且刑事案里的“第三方自诉人”和投资人，到了破产案里身份会发生变化。最关键的是：破产法院不太关心你在刑事案里叫不叫“victim”，它更关心你在破产案里到底有什么经济权利。\n\n简单说，破产案里的“第三方”主要有几类：\n\n* 债权人/claimant：你主张郭或破产债务人欠你钱，就可以申报proof of claim。22-50073里早就存在大量claimants，Luc也一直对各种proofs of claim提出异议。\n* 财产权主张人/property claimant：你说某个被Luc当成estate property的资产，其实是你的，或者你对它有优先权。\n* adversary proceeding里的被告/利害关系人：Luc起诉某公司、个人追回资产，那些被告本身就是破产案里的第三方。\n* party in interest：范围比普通债权人更宽。Chapter 11下，11 U.S.C. §1109(b)允许包括creditor等“party in interest”出庭并就案件问题发表意见，但实际standing通常还要看你是否受到直接经济影响。第二巡回也强调过破产上诉standing一般要求直接、经济上的不利影响。\n* intervenor：如果你本来不是当然有权参与的人，还可以根据Bankruptcy Rule 2018请求法院允许介入；在具体adversary proceeding里还可能涉及Rule 7024/FRCP 24。Rule 2018本身就允许有cause的entity请求intervention。\n\n所以，刑事案里的自诉人到了破产案里，不会因为自己在23-cr-118里提交过CVRA、§853(n)、mandamus，就自动成为22-50073的party。\n\n你必须重新回答一个问题：\n\n我在破产案里到底有什么直接利益？\n\n比如Tony如果说：\n\n“我当年投资的钱现在被Luc当成estate property、被政府当成forfeiture property，或者5739会改变我对某项财产的追回路径。”\n\n这就比说：\n\n“我是刑事案victim，所以我要参加破产案。”\n\n强得多。\n\n因为前者是直接pecuniary/property interest。\n\n⸻\n\n投资人在破产案里最典型的身份是什么？\n\n如果你投资了郭相关项目，现在主张自己有权向郭追回本金，最自然的是：\n\ncreditor / claimant。\n\n也就是向bankruptcy estate申报债权。\n\n如果claim已经在claims register里，你的核心权利包括：\n\n* Trustee反对你的claim时回应；\n* 参加与自己claim直接有关的听证；\n* 对会影响你claim分配的plan、settlement、资产出售等提出异议；\n* 最后按bankruptcy priority和allowed claim获得分配。\n\n而且“你在刑事案是不是victim”和“你在破产案是不是creditor”是两个不同问题。\n\n完全可能：\n\n刑事案：政府不承认你是CVRA victim；\n破产案：你仍然有一笔有效contract/fraud claim。\n\n反过来也可能：\n\n刑事案：你是victim；\n破产案：你未必对debtor estate有allowed claim。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q605e9b65c4e23f5b32fa","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q90d0fea82e873ea0b946","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q605e9b65c4e23f5b32fa","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q09509c588364761fb9ae","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":170,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T19:19:37.047Z","text":"所以这两个身份不能混。\n\n⸻\n\n更有意思的是：刑事案里的§853(n)产权主张人，到了破产案里可能更适合主张“这根本不是estate property”\n\n比如你不是说：\n\n“郭欠我10万美元。”\n\n而是：\n\n“这个账户里的10万美元就是我的钱，Luc没资格拿进estate。”\n\n那你和普通creditor不同。\n\n普通creditor逻辑是：\n\nestate有100块钱，我是其中一个来分的。\n\nproperty claimant逻辑是：\n\n这里有20块根本不属于estate，先拿出去，剩下80块你们再分。\n\n这个区别非常大。\n\n如果5739要把某项资产：\n\n分给美国政府\n或留给Luc\n或双方五五分，\n\n而你主张：\n\n“这项资产里有我的直接产权。”\n\n那你就可能有非常现实的理由反对9019 settlement。\n\n这也是为什么现在5739已经出现第三方正式objection会很重要。破产案里历史上也早已有Mei Guo、Taurus parties、Greenwich parties、G Club等大量第三方作为objecting parties参加各种motion hearing。\n\n⸻\n\n那刑事案自诉人能不能直接参与5739？\n\n能，但不是因为“自诉人”三个字。\n\n要看5739是否会具体影响你的：\n\nclaim、property interest、distribution right、litigation right。\n\n例如可以主张：\n\n我是22-50073的creditor；5739改变了原本可供creditors分配的资产池，所以我受直接经济影响。\n\n或者：\n\n我对某项被5739划给government/Trustee的资产主张ownership；Luc和政府不能靠两方和解消灭我的第三方权利。\n\n或者：\n\nsettlement release影响了我正在主张的权利。\n\n这种就有基础去：\n\nfile an objection to Dkt.5739\n\n请求在8月25日听证发言；\n\n必要时申请Rule 2018 intervention/appearance。\n\n但如果只是说：\n\n“我在二巡是Tony/Chunk/Ryan那类mandamus petitioner，我认为郭案有问题。”\n\n破产法官很可能说：\n\n这和5739对你的bankruptcy interest有什么直接关系？\n\n所以一定要把身份切换过来。\n\n⸻\n\n你们刑事案第三方最有潜力的三个破产案身份\n\n我会这样排：\n\n第一：property claimant。\n\n这是最强的。\n\n尤其如果你有：\n\n* 银行汇款凭证；\n* HEX/Hamilton/Farm账户记录；\n* 钱最终进入哪个账户的trace；\n* 合同；\n* 对账；\n* ownership文件。\n\n你可以直接问：\n\nLuc凭什么把这笔钱当estate property？\n\n这和刑事案§853(n)可以形成平行主张：\n\n刑事法院：不是郭的forfeitable property。\n\n破产法院：也不是郭的estate property。\n\n这个非常有意思。\n\n⸻\n\n第二：creditor / proof-of-claim holder。\n\n如果已经报过债权，则5739可能直接影响你未来可分的钱。\n\n这时你参加9019 hearing的理由很直观：\n\nsettlement把一部分潜在estate assets让给美国政府，会不会损害creditors？\n\n这正是Rule 9019批准和解时法院需要考虑的传统问题之一：和解是否对estate和creditors整体公平合理，而不是只看Luc和政府愿不愿意。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q09509c588364761fb9ae","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6f3a248c0ec14eb29795","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":171,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T19:20:19.780Z","text":"第三：party in interest / Rule 2018 intervenor。\n\n如果你的权利没有完全落入proof of claim，但5739确实会直接影响你，可以请求法院允许参与。\n\nRule 2018就是专门给“不是当然party但有足够cause”的entity一个参与入口。\n\n⸻\n\n但这里有一个非常重要的战略点\n\n刑事案第三方不要把破产案变成“第二个23-cr-118”。\n\n也就是说，不要去破产法院主要争：\n\n郭是不是被冤枉；\nTorres是不是偏见；\nRule 32是不是违法；\n二巡应该vacate sentence。\n\n破产法官通常会说这些归刑事法院/二巡。\n\n真正应该把同一事实重新翻译成破产语言：\n\n刑事案语言：\n\nGovernment没有证明这些钱是郭的犯罪所得。\n\n破产案语言：\n\nTrustee没有证明这些钱是§541 estate property。\n\n刑事案语言：\n\n我有§853(n) superior interest。\n\n破产案语言：\n\n这项资产不属于debtor estate，或者我对它有优先/直接产权。\n\n刑事案语言：\n\nvictim classification有问题。\n\n破产案语言：\n\nclaimant classification / allowed claim / distribution treatment有问题。\n\n这样两个法院的record就会开始真正互相咬合。\n\n⸻\n\n对你们尤其重要的是§541\n\n破产estate不是“所有和郭有关的钱”。\n\n11 U.S.C. §541的核心是：\n\nbankruptcy estate包含debtor在petition date拥有的legal or equitable interests。\n\n所以一个资产如果实际上属于第三方，原则上不能因为Luc怀疑郭控制它就自动永久变成estate property。\n\n这正是alter ego、beneficial ownership诉讼为什么这么重要。\n\n你们之前已经发现，Luc到2026年仍然在一些诉讼中“seeking rulings”确认某些实体是郭的alter ego/beneficially owned。\n\n所以刑事第三方如果同时握有ownership资料，在破产案里完全可能有独立意义。\n\n⸻\n\n那具体怎么参与？\n\n现实操作上，大致有这几条路：\n\n1. 先查自己有没有proof of claim。\n    如果没有而bar date已经过了，就涉及late claim问题，不能简单补一张就算有效。\n2. 如果已经是creditor，正式enter appearance / request notice。\n    这样重大motion、settlement、sale更容易收到notice。\n3. 对5739这种直接影响资产池的motion提交written objection。\n    重点说明：\n    * 你的身份；\n    * 具体财产/claim；\n    * 5739怎么损害你；\n    * 你要求法院保留什么权利。\n4. 请求参加8月25日hearing。\n5. 如果没有当然standing但受直接影响，可以研究Rule 2018 motion to intervene。\n6. 如果Luc正在某个adversary proceeding里处理与你有关的财产，要去那个adversary里申请加入/介入，而不是只在main bankruptcy case里发信。\n7. 如果你主张具体财产根本不是estate property，可能需要独立adversary proceeding或在相关现有adversary中提出产权主张。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6f3a248c0ec14eb29795","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q96fa8fd28248b2c2d6c6","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":172,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T19:20:51.571Z","text":"5739这里尤其值得注意\n\n你们现在可以把刑事案和破产案画成这样：\n\n同一投资人 / 同一资金\n→ 刑事案：\nvictim？§853(n) claimant？forfeiture property？\n\n同时\n\n→ 破产案：\ncreditor？property owner？estate property？\n\n然后5739：\n\nGovernment + Luc试图决定这批重叠资产以后在哪个体系处理。\n\n这就是为什么第三方不应该缺席5739。\n\n因为Luc和美国政府可以解决他们彼此之间的争议，但理论上不能仅靠二方settlement消灭真正第三方独立存在的产权。\n\n而且本案过去的settlement approval record也显示，法院会关心是否有人提出written objection；此前一份9019 settlement hearing里，法院就特别提到“无人提出written objection”作为批准背景。\n\n现在5739已经不是这种状态——已经有第三方反对。\n\n所以8月25日听证会的record会非常重要。\n\n⸻\n\n一句话总结\n\n刑事案里的“自诉第三方”到了破产案，不能靠刑事案身份自动进场；但只要他同时是债权人、投资人、具体财产权主张人，或者5739直接影响他的经济权利，就完全可能以creditor、property claimant、party in interest或intervenor身份参加破产案。\n\n而且对你们这批投资人来说，最值得研究的不是“能不能去说话”，而是：\n\n同一笔钱，在刑事案里主张§853(n)，在破产案里同时主张不是§541 estate property。\n\n如果事实和产权证据一致，这两条线是可以互相强化的。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96fa8fd28248b2c2d6c6","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q6bdbaaf9c2273661aef5","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":173,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T20:00:40.159Z","text":"那郭案所有投资人包括自诉人都可以以property claimant的身份参与，因为都投钱了，都有相关凭证。现在还可以介入吗？我们参与会对刑事案产生什么影响？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q96fa8fd28248b2c2d6c6","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6bdbaaf9c2273661aef5","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96fa8fd28248b2c2d6c6","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qd29e47bfb9184693a150","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":174,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-21T20:16:05.564Z","text":"老郭新换的监狱到底怎么样，怎么班农说条件很差\n\nhttps://x.com/ljrlyr/status/2090890793557148092?s=46","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd29e47bfb9184693a150","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"qeab91238eaeeecc6e04d","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":175,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T20:37:05.991Z","text":"关于郭案投资人现在还能不能以“财产权利人”身份参与，简单说一下：\n\n大家首先要分清楚三种完全不同的身份：\n\n第一种：Property Claimant（第三方财产权利人）\n\n不是说“我投过钱”就自动成立。\n\n关键是你能不能证明：\n\n我投出去的这笔钱 → 能追踪到政府现在没收的某个具体账户或资产 → 我对这项具体财产仍然具有法律上的产权或优先权益。\n\n如果能做到这一点，就可能走 §853(n)第三方产权程序。\n\n通俗讲就是：\n\n政府说：“这是郭的犯罪资产，我要没收。”\n\n你说：\n\n“等一下，这里面有我的财产，你不能把我的钱也当成郭的钱一起没收。”\n\n这和说“我是诈骗受害者”完全不是一回事。\n\n⸻\n\n第二种：Victim / Remission（受害者退款）\n\n如果只能证明：\n\n“我投资了多少钱，我损失了多少钱。”\n\n但无法把自己的钱追踪到政府没收的某个具体账户或资产，那么更接近政府的 remission受害者退款程序。\n\n这条路实际上是在告诉政府：\n\n“我是郭诈骗的受害者，请从没收资产里赔我。”\n\n所以如果一个投资人根本不认可自己是郭诈骗的victim，就要非常谨慎，不能为了拿钱随便选择这个身份。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q6bdbaaf9c2273661aef5","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qeab91238eaeeecc6e04d","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6bdbaaf9c2273661aef5","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q77ca7b2ead8dbcd89b26","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":176,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T20:37:38.722Z","text":"第三种：Bankruptcy Creditor（破产债权人）\n\n在Luc的破产案里登记proof of claim，又是另一回事。\n\n它表达的是：\n\n“郭个人欠我钱，我要求从bankruptcy estate里分配。”\n\n所以：\n\nProperty claimant、criminal victim、bankruptcy creditor是三种不同法律身份，不能混在一起。\n\n⸻\n\n那现在投资人参与，对郭的刑事上诉有什么作用？\n\n如果只是增加很多人说：\n\n“我是郭的诈骗受害者。”\n\n那未必帮助郭，甚至可能反过来加强政府“victims很多”的叙事。\n\n但是如果有人能拿银行流水和投资凭证证明：\n\n“政府没收的这个具体账户里面有我的钱，而且这部分钱法律上不是郭的财产。”\n\n那意义就完全不同。\n\n因为这直接碰到了政府刑事没收最基础的问题：\n\n你凭什么把这项财产全部当成郭的property / fraud proceeds？\n\n如果越来越多第三方能够证明同一个没收资产池里存在独立产权，那么至少说明：\n\n被没收 ≠ 所有产权问题已经解决；\n投资人的钱 ≠ 自动变成郭的个人财产；\nG系列账户里的钱 ≠ 自动全部属于郭；\n刑事没收 ≠ 自动消灭第三方产权。\n\n870号文件其实就是现实例子。\n\nPillsbury没有因为钱来自G Club账户就自动失去全部权利。政府最终承认它对已经收到的约330万美元律师费属于 bona fide purchaser for value，所以第三方权益仍然可以独立存在。 870.pdf\n\n5739也是类似的另一面：Luc自己还在说bankruptcy estate对很多刑事没收资产具有 superior interest，而不是承认政府说“这些全是郭的可没收财产”就结束了。 5739.pdf\n\n所以真正值得做的不是号召所有投资人一窝蜂去登记“victim”。\n\n而是先找出：\n\n谁有原始银行流水 → 谁能证明钱进入哪个G系列账户 → 哪个账户后来被政府扣押 → 这笔钱之后怎么流动 → 能不能对应到现在具体的Forfeiture Asset。\n\n能把这条资金链完整接上的人，才是最值得让美国律师审查有没有 §853(n) property claim 的那批人。\n\n一句话总结：\n\n“我亏钱了”主要是victim问题；\n“政府现在没收的这笔具体钱里有我的财产权”才是property claim问题。\n\n后一种如果成立，对政府的forfeiture资产叙事冲击会大得多。\n\n另外要提醒群里一句：§853(n)有严格的notice和提交期限，所以不是现在知道这条路就一定还能补交。真有人能追踪到具体被没收账户，应该先让美国律师核对对应资产的notice、publication和deadline，再决定怎么参与，不要大家直接复制同一个模板提交。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q77ca7b2ead8dbcd89b26","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"},{"id":"q913cc2e427c6eb8a9914","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":177,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-21T20:41:25.671Z","text":"如果你是问截图里“Danbury条件很差、甚至是美国最危险监狱之一”这个说法，后半句明显不对，前半句要看拿什么比较。\n\nBOP目前官方把 FCI Danbury 男子监区定为 Low Security（低安保）；相反，郭此前公开信息所指的 FCI Schuylkill目前是 Medium Security（中等安保）。所以单从官方安全等级看，Danbury反而比Schuylkill低一级，不是什么“美国最危险监狱之一”。\n\n而且Danbury最新A&O手册明确写的是 “FCI (Low Security-Male)”，并列有教育、娱乐、工作岗位等日常项目；电视平日可以看到晚上11:45，周五周六甚至到凌晨2点。\n\n截图里有人说“与MDC比好多了”，这个判断倒有相当现实基础。美国司法部监察长以前专门比较过MDC Brooklyn与正常长期服刑FCI的环境，指出MDC属于面向短期羁押的detention center，当时存在缺少户外空间、自然光更少、programming opportunities更少等问题。\n\n所以更准确地讲：\n\nMDC Brooklyn：审前/短期羁押性质，环境和活动通常更受限制。\nFCI Schuylkill：目前官方为Medium Security。\nFCI Danbury男子FCI：Low Security，属于正式长期服刑机构。\n\n因此郭如果确实已经从MDC → Schuylkill → Danbury，至少从BOP官方security classification看，最后这一步是从Medium转到了Low，而不是被送进了“美国最危险监狱之一”。 \n\n当然，“Low Security”不等于舒服，更不等于没有暴力、医疗、管理等问题——它仍然是联邦监狱。但网上把Danbury描述成“美国最危险监狱之一”，我目前没有找到可靠依据。\n\n另外还有个和你前面探视问题有关的细节：Danbury的规则实际上也允许普通探视，旧版公开手册写的是一次最多3名成年访客，另可带最多5名儿童，除非Unit Manager事先特别批准。 所以如果后面有人去Danbury探视郭，规则又不能直接套前面Schuylkill那一本，要按Danbury自己的规定看。\n\nBOP官方FCI Danbury页面⁠","edited":false,"reply_to":"qd29e47bfb9184693a150","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q913cc2e427c6eb8a9914","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd29e47bfb9184693a150","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149"}],"prev_batch_id":"batch-000148","next_batch_id":"batch-000150"}