{"id":"q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f","batch_id":"batch-000065","seq":255,"speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:45.058Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 你问问这个说明什么","text_en":null,"edited":true,"reply_to":"q84a33592e2b3119f0119","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000065/pages/2","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000065/pages/2","notice":"这里汇集爆料革命参与者围绕郭文贵案的持续讨论，包括长期深度参与者及自述投入真金白银的投资者。他们分享亲历过程、资金投入与后续遭遇，并结合案卷展开追问、核对和观点交锋。这些来自事件内部的经验与细节，为理解事件经过和投资者处境提供了外部报道之外的重要视角。请结合具体发言判断其经历与依据，引用时保留发言者、时间和上下文。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q83f112ab4d18ce9a77bf","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:05.066Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q83f112ab4d18ce9a77bf"},{"id":"q4f016e0fbed26722084e","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:20.716Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4f016e0fbed26722084e"},{"id":"q84a33592e2b3119f0119","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:22.645Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119"},{"id":"q3d23801ef7c89dcdedd5","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:47.182Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3d23801ef7c89dcdedd5"},{"id":"q6407e5f159e64abe36e2","speaker":"chu***","date":"2025-12-22T20:35:41.642Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6407e5f159e64abe36e2"},{"id":"q28906f7b50c9bcfbd74d","speaker":"chu***","date":"2025-12-22T20:36:06.438Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q28906f7b50c9bcfbd74d"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q84a33592e2b3119f0119","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:22.645Z","text":"2. Appearance of Judicial Impropriety Under Liteky / Caperton\nThe Court has previously recognized that the public disclosure of personal\naddresses constitutes a serious threat to the judicial process. For example,\nin Dkt. 7, the prosecution alleged that supporters of the defendant posted\nthe private home addresses of the Chapter 11 Trustee, the Trustee’s\nfamily, and other related parties, calling for protests at these locations. In\nDkt. 51, Judge Torres cited such postings as evidence of obstruction of\njustice and intimidation of officers of the Court, and used this as a factor in\nthe defendant’s bail denial. Yet, in direct contradiction to this precedent,\nthe Court itself has publicly posted the private addresses of a victim—\nmyself—and other self-represented petitioners in Dkts. 732 and 765. By\ntreating my filings in a manner that the Court has explicitly condemned in\nothers, the Court demonstrates a clear pattern of bias against pro se\npetitioners and victims, applying double standards in the administration of\nCase: 25-2726, 12/22/2025, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 28 of 34\njustice and disregarding the privacy protections mandated by Rule 49.1 /\n5.2.\nFurthermore, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009),\nestablishes that the probability of bias requiring recusal is heightened\nwhen a party is subjected to systemic disadvantage that could influence\nthe outcome. By publicly disclosing my personally identifiable information\nwhile previously criticizing similar disclosures by other parties (Dkt. 51), the\nCourt applied a double standard, fostering the appearance of impropriety\nand undermini","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119"}}