{"id":"q0ae8d36074a3d1e2654e","batch_id":"batch-000081","seq":308,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-02-21T16:03:52.349Z","text":"好玩 那岂不是说 PAX先告郭 然后郭去告吴争 随后吴也进到了PAX案子债权人里 入局了","edited":false,"reply_to":"qb24feb9dd6492b6ece94","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0ae8d36074a3d1e2654e","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb24feb9dd6492b6ece94","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000081","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000081","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_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0ae8d36074a3d1e2654e","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0ae8d36074a3d1e2654e/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q0ae8d36074a3d1e2654e","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q7307ee075fcc204f558a","speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-02-21T15:56:10.452Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7307ee075fcc204f558a"},{"id":"qb24feb9dd6492b6ece94","speaker":"ton***","date":"2026-02-21T16:00:50.645Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb24feb9dd6492b6ece94"},{"id":"qb004d999c47153850b7d","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-02-21T16:03:37.048Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb004d999c47153850b7d"},{"id":"q247da7737650d30b70e4","speaker":"ton***","date":"2026-02-21T16:04:01.827Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q247da7737650d30b70e4"},{"id":"qec2b35c9e4b8db3491e0","speaker":"ton***","date":"2026-02-21T16:04:12.114Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qec2b35c9e4b8db3491e0"},{"id":"q7ff18805c536abf73f8a","speaker":"ton***","date":"2026-02-21T16:04:25.862Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7ff18805c536abf73f8a"}],"parent_message":{"id":"qb24feb9dd6492b6ece94","speaker":"ton***","date":"2026-02-21T16:00:50.645Z","text":"这个判断我给你结论是：“部分有迹象，但核心时序不成立”。\n\n“故意怼他、激怒他”\n这属于主观动机，目前我没看到能直接证明“故意激怒”的硬证据（比如当事人明确表述、邮件、录音）。\n\n“然后他用PAG告郭”\n这里有两点要修正：\n\n实际原告是 PAX（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund），不是 PAG 本体。PAG是管理方。\n更关键：这案号是 652077/2017，说明诉讼在2017年就已启动，不是在你说的那一票（162069/2018）之后才“随后去告”。\n可核对：\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2022/2022-ny-slip-op-30460-u.html\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv10060/590100/45/ （文中也写了 PAG/PAX 关系与2017案）\n“债权人登记，吴就上钩了”\n“吴方进入债权人程序”这一点有文档支撑：\n\nDoc_312_gov.uscourts.nysd.596371.312.2.md (line 13) 显示 “For Bruno Wu ... Creditors”。\n但“上钩了”是你的解释，不是法院事实认定。\n补一句：你这个叙事可改成更严谨版本：\n“郭的动作可能有策略性施压成分（推断），但PAX诉讼早于162069案，不能说是被这案‘激怒后才起诉’；吴方后续确实出现在债权人端（事实）。”","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb24feb9dd6492b6ece94"}}