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

rui*** affirms the ongoing discussion point regarding case proceedings.

rui*** posits a scenario where the creditors consist entirely of the opposition strike team.

rui*** argues that under such circumstances there might not even be an opportunity to challenge procedural injustice.

rui*** notes a post stating that Luc's creditor motion tagged the Southern District of New York court.

rui*** tells another participant to stop rambling about tangential matters.

rui*** contends that consequences depend on whether motions are submitted and forfeiture orders are issued.

pz0*** cites District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) to argue that prosecutors no longer bear Brady obligations post-conviction.

ntp*** contends that if the defense fails to raise procedural injustice, it is deemed to have forfeited its rights.

pz0*** argues that challenging prosecutors under Brady requires proving they suppressed favorable evidence known prior to conviction.

ntp*** argues that ignoring filings plants the seeds of prosecutorial Brady violations.

him*** asserts that the prosecution's position has already been heavily riddled with weaknesses.

him*** contends that facing a few additional legal challenges will make no difference to the prosecution.

gun*** summarizes SDNY Order 719 in case 1:23-cr-00118-AT granting a sentencing extension to Jan 20, 2026, and setting objection and victim filing schedules.

gun*** argues that proven procedural unfairness or Brady violations could support a motion to dismiss or cause retrial delays.

chu*** describes hourly attorney fees at Paul Hastings as greatly exceeding a monthly salary.

xin*** argues mockingly that by the time Guo is released, managers will have spent all the money.

xin*** contends that movement followers must inevitably pay a personal price.

she*** asserts that monetary losses do not matter as long as the Chinese Communist Party is eliminated.

ntp*** argues that investments should only have been liquidated after eventual success to protect stability.

xin*** disputes this assertion by contending that delaying liquidation merely benefited alliance leaders' lavish spending.

chu*** describes the investment sums discussed by others as rivaling a lifetime of working wages.

ntp*** contends that leaders never promised instant wealth and frequently warned that investments carried risks.

zci*** disputes this claim by arguing that such rhetoric represents typical alliance spin.

ntp*** argues that labeling tokens as scams stems from listening to the alliance rather than assessing individual sales.

zci*** states uncertainty regarding the community's true bottom line or expectations.

xin*** contends that expecting victory after an adverse conviction would be foolish.

zci*** notes that an appeal remains scheduled after Jan 20, 2026, assuming no further delays occur.

rui*** remarks humorously that commentator Huang Hebian provided timely assistance.

xin*** contends that an online critic deleting videos would be the true indicator of Guo's release.

hon*** asks the group what recent event occurred.

xin*** argues that if the defense team is also an adversary, the situation becomes insoluble.

rui*** agrees with the premise of the concern.

rui*** contends that the dilemma is not entirely without a solution.

xin*** remarks sarcastically that fraudulent assets have remained surprisingly resilient without breaking issue prices.

zci*** questions whether membership cards could ever realistically appreciate given the mindset of true believers.

xin*** recounts being in their early thirties and cynically hopes to attain a decent life by age sixty.