{"id":"q667eb65abcdb83ae833e","batch_id":"batch-000147","seq":125,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-19T19:31:20.868Z","text":"tony明明是主权 身份冲突 托雷斯怎么搞的？ 不上传","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":"q9219d8aaa4a4f66f6752","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q667eb65abcdb83ae833e","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9219d8aaa4a4f66f6752","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000147","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000147","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/q667eb65abcdb83ae833e","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q667eb65abcdb83ae833e/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q667eb65abcdb83ae833e","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"qc80faa67b4abb4fe9cce","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-19T19:22:44.769Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc80faa67b4abb4fe9cce"},{"id":"q3055a44c69bbcfa60791","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-19T19:26:11.868Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3055a44c69bbcfa60791"},{"id":"q9219d8aaa4a4f66f6752","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-19T19:27:04.484Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9219d8aaa4a4f66f6752"},{"id":"q30e2c575f903de4edd39","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-19T19:31:32.489Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q30e2c575f903de4edd39"},{"id":"qf18b60cc46ffbb4d0c3a","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-19T19:31:43.009Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf18b60cc46ffbb4d0c3a"},{"id":"q5fc2186b5d6b0ac324b5","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-19T19:32:25.692Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5fc2186b5d6b0ac324b5"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q9219d8aaa4a4f66f6752","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-19T19:27:04.484Z","text":"这里 Preacely 最值得你们仔细看。\n\n因为它跟你们想搭的结构非常像：\n\nPreacely：\n法院可能不知道自己拥有某项 sentencing discretion\n→ 无法确认它真正 exercise 了该 discretion\n→ 二巡 remand。\n\nTony 想主张的：\n资金性质、产权、victim / forfeiture、跨主权法律身份存在 material conflict\n→ 如果这些属于量刑前依法需要判断的事项\n→ Torres 没有真正判断，却直接进入 sentencing\n→ 可以往 failure to exercise required judicial discretion / procedural error 这个方向论证。\n\n但这里有一个非常重要的区别，我建议你发给夜月神时也说清楚：\n\nPreacely 不能直接证明“Tony一定赢”。\n\n它能证明的是一个二巡已经接受的法律方法：\n\n当地区法院的记录不能证明它真正理解并行使了法律赋予/要求的裁量权时，二巡可以要求重新处理，而不会简单说“这是地区法院自由裁量，所以不管”。\n\n另外，United States v. Moyhernandez, 5 F.4th 195 (2d Cir. 2021) 从反方向也很有价值。那个案子被告也说地区法院误解自己的减刑权力，但二巡看完记录后认为法院其实理解自己的 authority，所以维持判决。\n\n这个反例反而告诉你们一件很关键的事：\n\n最终胜负会落在 record 上。\n\n不是只写一句：\n\n“Torres failed to exercise discretion。”\n\n而是要让二巡能够从 docket / transcript / orders 看到：\n\n问题确实被提出 → 法院依法需要面对 → 记录里没有判断 → 却继续量刑。\n\n如果这四步能钉牢，夜月神现在找的这条 Second Circuit precedent chain 就有东西可以接了。\n\n你可以直接把这句发给夜月神：\n\n找到了。二巡最接近的是 United States v. Preacely, 628 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2010)：地区法院如果可能误解自己拥有的量刑裁量权，导致没有真正行使该裁量，二巡会 remand。Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018) 也说明，如果法院没有完成法律要求的前置判断、记录不能证明它真正进行了该判断，二巡也会 remand。所以关键不是单纯喊 abuse of discretion，而是证明 Torres 对依法需要处理的 material threshold issue 没有真正 exercise judicial judgment，却直接推进 sentencing。 \n\n这几个案子里，Preacely + Brooks 我认为最值得你们现在往 Tony / 26-1853 的论证里研究。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9219d8aaa4a4f66f6752"}}