Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 039

him*** reported that the prosecutors’ motion had been filed. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed the motion was filed in opposition to Guo. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** challenged where the prosecution was getting the confidence to continue with its position. Community statements, not court findings.

goh*** asked whether the strategy was under 853 or CVRA. Community statements, not court findings.

tut*** advised filing separate documents for a Petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and a Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, each cross-referencing the other as fallback. Community statements, not court findings.

goh*** argued for clarifying what qualifies as Brady material, asking whether it must be decisive evidence or can be broader than key items like those in 733. Community statements, not court findings.

an7*** claimed Geyer’s role is properly limited to third-party or seizure-related victims, and that this is acceptable if he does not stray from that scope. Community statements, not court findings.

an7*** contended that Geyer represents good-faith third parties treated as financial victims because of government and trustee seizure actions, and argues on their behalf against Luc and prosecutors. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** claimed Geyer was only pretending to oppose Luc. Community statements, not court findings.

an7*** contended that Luc was the critical point to challenge, arguing against random, unfocused attacks. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** claimed Luc was the instigator and Geyer only worsened the situation. Community statements, not court findings.

goh*** disputed the process as potentially collusive, suggesting Luc spending and prosecutorial reluctance to accept money could imply shared misappropriation of victims’ money. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** claimed form filings would make investors into witnesses aiding prosecutors and harming Guo, and disputed that they would realistically secure money. Community statements, not court findings.

ntp*** argued that the last month of filings had already been translated and that reading them was necessary to understand the case. Community statements, not court findings.

zci*** claimed another participant was using conditional, rhetorically dramatic tactics and echoed Guo’s style, suggesting claimed certainty about outcomes was not reliable. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** argued that participants should first determine why third parties were not being allowed to speak. Community statements, not court findings.

ath*** asked whether any additional motions had been filed. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** claimed it had become too risky to discuss the case openly. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** suggested the deputy prosecutor was likely tied to Trump by asking that directly. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** claimed the assistant prosecutors were the same individuals. Community statements, not court findings.

chu*** argued that drafts that can be sent are not necessarily correct, so he also sent them to all four assistant prosecutors. Community statements, not court findings.

hah*** contested why prosecutors and DOJ could continue operations despite perceived procedural flaws. Community statements, not court findings.

wen*** described close monitoring but admitted limited expertise, limiting participation to silent support. Community statements, not court findings.

rui*** stated the activities were undertaken for that stated purpose. Community statements, not court findings.