Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 063

beg*** contends that third-party pro se filers boldly challenge the presiding judge regarding alleged stonewalling and suppression in ways formal attorneys would avoid.

beg*** argues that Judge Torres is frustrated by the persistence and honesty of pro se filers.

beg*** recalls defense counsel receiving tens of thousands of pages of late evidence and contends that the judge showed partiality by failing to exclude those prosecution materials.

xin*** argues that Trump's strategic posture directly pressures the Chinese Communist Party and questions what actual results the NFSC leadership delivered.

him*** asserts that only a specific redacted participant is genuinely dedicated to opposing the CCP.

xin*** asks what practical contributions have been made by those who continually chant anti-CCP slogans.

him*** shares an external post from X concerning case-related evidence.

him*** posts a second social media link from X regarding the ongoing discussion.

chu*** distributes another external link from X referencing background materials.

roy*** contends that applying the premise of filing 511 to the mandamus petition exposes a procedural paradox where the government claims to represent victims while blocking their CVRA and §853(n) filings from the docket.

roy*** argues that filing 511 implicitly admits the existence of excluded investors and shows prosecutors stigmatizing them instead of permitting formal §853(n) hearings.

roy*** emphasizes that prevailing under the rule of law depends on creating an official court record rather than expressing outrage.

ntp*** summarizes document 773, detailing the Department of Justice's Dec 11, 2025 letter opposing the defense's fifth sentencing postponement request.

ntp*** contends that prosecutors will not dismiss the case and questions whether Judge Torres will protect their position.

him*** argues that the parties are maneuvering discreetly rather than stating their intentions openly.

ntp*** asks whether these specific substantive grievances can be presented to the Second Circuit in a writ of mandamus.

him*** expresses skepticism that such claims are permissible in that mandamus petition.

ntp*** notes that their petition specifically asks the Southern District to upload pending motions and questions the scope of the peer's filing.

him*** argues that while the Second Circuit allows Rule 60(d)(3) claims after sentencing, district courts lack authority to ignore or refuse to docket colorable fraud upon the court claims prior to sentencing.

him*** contends that alleging fraud upon the court carries the same legal weight whether raised under §853(n) or the CVRA.

zha*** argues that fraud upon the court can be raised at any point and that pre-sentencing submissions directly affecting proceedings require a formal judicial response.

rui*** asserts that a named individual is working in coordination with the prosecution.

reb*** recalls that document 511 defined investors as either victims acknowledging fraud or co-conspirators who claim government asset seizures caused their losses.

him*** contends that the prosecution reiterated this two-category framework in filing 773.

beg*** inquires about the identities of Mr. A and Haoran He mentioned in the case materials.

chu*** describes Haoran He from the court filings as a classmate of Qiang Guo and a core co-conspirator.

rui*** recounts hearing that Haoran He had originally arranged to host a broadcast with a redacted participant on sentencing day.

rui*** recounts having been defrauded by Guo but disputes that another named individual could deceive them.

him*** contends that the assertion lacks evidentiary proof.

rui*** argues that their conclusion is not derived from evidentiary proof.

chu*** describes setting designated speaking permissions for the criminal case room and invites members to migrate substantive content there.

zha*** asks whether prosecutors intend to expedite sentencing and questions whether an earlier or later sentence is preferable.

sar*** expresses difficulty understanding the reasoning behind the procedural discussion.