Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 021

pz0*** said sentencing was delayed to Jan. 20, 2026. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** posted an entry linked to Dkt. 719 noting a main-order action to set or reset deadlines and hearings. Community statements, not court findings.

wen*** claimed it was good news that sentencing moved to Jan. 20, 2026 after the defense sought at least a Dec. date, the government objected, and the judge granted only one more month. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** summarized the 718 opposition, arguing the defendant already had more than enough time, citing a long delay history and filings such as Dkt. 648, Dkt. 511, Dkt. 715, Dkt. 466, Dkt. 475, Dkt. 472, and Dkt. 483 to urge rejection of another postponement. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** added that record size and prior rule 16/§3500 access were not valid grounds for delay, and that re-arguing prior rulings (including Dkt. 294) and related language or forfeiture points did not justify another continuance. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** asked for clarification, asking what the filing was. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** asked why prosecutors were not targeting Gail. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** questioned why prosecutors did not rebut Gail’s claim that the talent-act framework favored assets on Jixiao exchange. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** argued that the Luo filing was different enough that the judge would need to reject it directly. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** asked whether someone already acquitted on Vog-related charges could still appear in court proceedings. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** replied that investors in Vog also held Xibi. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** said Vog funds appeared not to be included in current forfeiture proceeds. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** challenged whether they were being blocked, insisted the 311 screenshots were not fabricated, and said the evidence was verifiable directly. Community statements, not court findings.

gun*** said family-member spending links to case funds might be irrelevant and argued that even if factual, procedural unfairness alone could justify challenge. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** disputed the relevance objection, calling the evidence argument a distraction from the case and a waste of time. Community statements, not court findings.

gun*** asked whether adding more third parties is automatically better for the case. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** observed that people on X were sharing the document related to Luo’s 505 intervention. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** replied that the statute referenced in the 505-intervention filing was wrong. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** expressed the core question of why prosecutors had not raised the intimacy matter. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** argued that prosecutors had already seemed fully confident in conviction and therefore did not need that issue. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** added that prosecutors later chose not to pursue the intimacy issue. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** suggested he partly understood why Guo encouraged creditor registration. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** argued that creditor filing could be seen as obstructing justice through false claim practices. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** doubted that broad statements like ‘Guo is definitely guilty and did it for his children’ would be ones the group would endorse. Community statements, not court findings.

joy*** proposed using daily posts and media channels with a short line claiming Luc Despin framed Miles Guo by tying irrelevant assets, arguing that campaign posting is much more efficient than group chat. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** said the person discussed was “making presence” and acting in tandem with the prosecution. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** asserted that one participant was generating attention and effectively playing accomplice to prosecutors. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** said he had just called the Southern District court. Community statements, not court findings.

hon*** asked a clarifying question about whose filing or message was being referred to. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** warned that surface-level rhetoric made it hard to verify whether the group’s top examiner intended genuine assistance or possible covert influence. Community statements, not court findings.