Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 023

rui*** gives a brief affirmative response before the credibility dispute around creditor identity. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** says that if all creditors are from the so-called extinguishing group, the procedural argument structure changes substantially. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** adds that under that assumption, there may be no practical opportunity to raise procedural injustice later. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** reports a Weilan post saying Luc’s creditor motion ended up in the Southern District Court. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** asks participants to stop continuing the thread, suggesting the exchange had become unproductive. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** notes that if the creditor motion is not filed, a forfeiture order may not be issued. Community statements, not court findings.

pz0*** cites District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), and argues that after conviction the prosecution generally has no Brady duty. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** claims that if the defense omits procedural-injustice objections, the right can be deemed waived. Community statements, not court findings.

pz0*** states that a Brady attack would require finding favorable evidence and showing prosecutors had it before Guo’s conviction but withheld it. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** says lack of response can be seen as leaving evidence of a Brady violation planted in the case. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** argues the prosecution was already effectively discredited from early on. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** adds that additional allegations may no longer materially change the situation. Community statements, not court findings.

gun*** summarizes Order 719 in case 1:23-cr-00118-AT (United States v. Miles Guo), noting filing history, the postponement from Sept 8, 2025 to Jan 20, 2026, PSR objection and victim-list deadlines, and references to ECF No. 715, 718, and 719. Community statements, not court findings.

gun*** contends that clear findings of substantive prejudice under Brady or unlawful evidence theories could support dismissal or retrial, with the delay to Jan 20, 2026 potentially improving motion odds. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** remarks that defense counsel fees are extremely high, framing cost as a separate burden. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** says supporters may have all their funds consumed, with no money recoverable in practice. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** says participants in this ecosystem are expected to pay a real price. Community statements, not court findings.

she*** argues the monetary scale is not the core issue because eliminating the CCP is treated as the higher priority. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** agrees that exiting too early was wrong and says waiting for clearer success would have been safer. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** adds that early exit may also serve the alliance’s interests. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** counters that some critics are financially much more privileged than others, calling out perceived inequity in loss framing. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** argues that no one was promised instant wealth and that risk was always part of the message. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** says the alliance repeatedly uses the same talking points. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** contends the token was sold as Xi coin rather than a fraud token and shifts blame to factional alliance narratives while mocking compliance-based criticism. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** says they do not know where participants’ bottom lines actually are. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** says if conviction occurs, expecting a win afterward would be irrational. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** notes that if there is no further delay on Jan 20, 2026, an appeal would be the likely next stage. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** replies humorously with a supportive remark, treating the development as potentially helpful rather than as a tactical filing decision. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** asks when a specific video is removed, implying timing clues matter more than legal detail at that moment. Community statements, not court findings.

hon*** asks what happened, signaling uncertainty about the strategy’s next procedural step. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** says if the defense side is also an opponent, there may be no practical route forward. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** agrees with the concern about counsel conflict. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** immediately tempers it by saying the situation is not entirely without solutions. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** says the fraudulent asset has not yet collapsed and remains resilient. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** says stripping away fantasy narratives raises doubt about whether the card can truly rise, based on observed investor psychology. Community statements, not court findings.

xin*** argues that by age thirty there should be enough to live decently by sixty, challenging the framing of permanent ruin. Community statements, not court findings.