Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 064

Participant beg*** asks whether the group should establish a discussion forum to advise family members on their bankruptcy cases, questioning whether participants possess the capability.

Participant ntp*** contends that the criminal case must be fully resolved before turning attention elsewhere.

Participant ntp*** questions whether matters from criminal proceedings can properly be raised in bankruptcy court.

Participant rui*** questions how many decisions across the bankruptcy court and the criminal case would have to be overturned.

Participant rui*** questions how she was able to make an appearance.

Participant rui*** contends that the development already represents a strategic victory.

Participant rui*** argues that having one's investment designated as forfeited property by trustee Luc qualifies them for standing.

Participant ntp*** contends that such a qualification does not conform to proper procedural standards.

Participant rui*** contends that those seeking recovery are presumably the individuals demanding their money back.

Participant him*** describes a letter filed on Dec 17, 2025 via ECF requesting a three-month sentencing adjournment from Jan 20, 2026, citing 64 TB of discovery, translation needs, CJA funding suspensions, and Rule 32.2(b)(3).

Participant ntp*** contends that addressing third-party motions would expose underlying problems for counsel to challenge, though they doubt Judge Torres would permit it.

Participant sar*** analyzes ECF 776, outlining the defense's second request to delay the Jan 20, 2026 sentencing based on 64 TB of discovery, CJA fee interruptions, and classified material motions, while refuting prosecution allegations in ECF 773.

Participant rui*** contends that victims do not need to wait for sentencing before forfeiture processes can commence.

Participant him*** argues that legal arguments establish that third-party motions can be handled prior to sentencing.

Participant beg*** recounts counsel stating that the court issued a preliminary forfeiture order on Aug 11, 2025, but notes that searches on government websites found no published notice.

Participant beg*** asks whether the claim is based on the prosecution withholding favorable witness statements in violation of Brady.

Participant yyy*** contends that German-language remittance slips were provided as part of the evidence challenged by the defense under ECF 1344.

Participant him*** describes ECF 780, summarizing defense counsel's response to the prosecution regarding the 64 TB discovery burden, Rule 17(c) subpoenas, defendant's language limitations, and CIPA filings following the Aug 11, 2025 order.

Participant roy*** argues that bankruptcy courts function as courts of equity where alleged victims are entitled to participate as creditors, claimants, or parties in interest.

Participant rui*** contends that the presiding judges associated with the case have remained silent and failed to speak out.

Participant ntp*** asks what legal concept defines disparate treatment by a presiding judge.

Participant him*** contends that Guo was never the chief executive officer.

Participant him*** argues that Guo acted merely as an advisor and brand spokesperson.

Participant reb*** questions whether the alleged victim was misled by the defendant or third parties, and whether they participated in G-series investments or purchased HCN on the open market.

Participant him*** asks whether the yacht Lady May is currently held in the possession of trustee Luc.

Participant ntp*** questions why current defense counsel has not moved to subpoena trustee Luc despite the defendant prioritizing it.

Participant rui*** contends that at least the prosecution or trustee Luc should be charged with dereliction of duty.

Participant ntp*** contends that the prosecution has stripped away the credibility of the American legal system, questioning who will take blame if authorities attempt to save face.

Participant hah*** contributes a message that contains no text.

Participant rui*** contends that they now understand why defense counsel did not raise the Second Circuit.