Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 069

him*** questions whether all G Club funds have actually been taken over by the bankruptcy trustee Luc Despins.

him*** asserts that only the Mahwah property falls under trustee Luc Despins's domain.

him*** details court filings to argue that while trustee Luc Despins asserts strong alter ego claims over G Club, corporate separateness still prevents absolute unilateral control.

him*** describes recent alliance orders prohibiting farm leaders from participating in or promoting claims processes.

him*** asks what specific funds are currently held in the custody of the prosecution.

him*** inquires whether G Club accounts appeared on the prosecution's initial forfeiture list and asks if anyone possesses that schedule.

him*** details the significant overlap between criminal forfeiture in Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT and bankruptcy estate recovery by trustee Luc Despins in Case 22-50073 (JAM) across properties like Mahwah, the Lady May yacht, and a Bombardier aircraft.

him*** contends that even if G Club obtains funds through criminal court proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), trustee Luc Despins will likely still pursue and claim those assets for the bankruptcy estate.

him*** argues that ongoing alter ego litigation in Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249 creates severe legal obstacles for G Club to independently retain counsel and petition the criminal court.

him*** explains that while victims can assert the right to be heard under the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771), non-victims must rely on attending public hearings, pro se letters, or amicus briefs rather than § 853(n) petitions.

him*** notes that the court scheduled discussions on § 853(n) remission and special master appointments ahead of a Jan 20, 2026 conference, advising non-victims to frame input around public interest.

xio*** asks another participant whether they admit to being an investment victim.

kir*** argues that being an acknowledged victim provides statutory CVRA rights to challenge the prosecution and the trial judge up to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court.

him*** contends that citing the CVRA is merely a unilateral assertion of rights, whereas formal victim status requires court determination and would disappear if convictions are overturned.

sar*** argues that copies served on the prosecution and other parties can be sent by regular mail and do not need to include appendices if the main petition and cover letter are attached.

sar*** emphasizes that the certificate of service in the filing must include a sworn statement of service to all parties, making formal postal receipts unnecessary.

beg*** recounts sending only a five-page writ without exhibits to the district judge and prosecution because the six-page in forma pauperis form did not require serving all parties.

ntp*** asks whether participants should file a motion in the Southern District protesting Judge Torres's ECF 786 order.

chu*** announces that document ECF 788 has appeared on the docket.

kir*** observes that the Southern District court proceeded to upload the filing.

roy*** argues that the Second Circuit refused supplemental filings to prevent mandamus from expanding into a premature appeal, while preserving the main petition for potential Supreme Court consideration.

roy*** contends that the appellate court is following standard judicial pacing by awaiting sentencing, asset hearings, and clustered petitions to avoid conflict with the district court.

roy*** argues that timing is not yet ripe and additional Second Circuit proceedings are needed.

sar*** recounts reluctantly serving standard Supreme Court in forma pauperis forms on the prosecution and defense to expedite mailing without prior court consultation.

beg*** clarifies that the page estimate encompasses all submitted materials combined.

beg*** recounts that the total filing package reached nearly 300 pages even with certain attachments omitted from service copies.

roy*** asks the group what a newly noted case development signifies.

roy*** notes that appellate case numbers 25-2627 and 26-0077 correspond to individual filers.

kir*** contends that based on existing evidence, any overturn of the verdict will almost certainly occur only after sentencing.

kir*** argues that if sentencing proceeds in January, the opportunity for a mandamus petition will be lost.

kir*** contends that the court is more likely to carry out sentencing first.

kir*** argues that if sentencing is not postponed, filing these two mandamus petitions afterward will severely diminish their effectiveness.

sar*** questions whether statements in the latter portion of a circulating video are genuine or generated by artificial intelligence.

chu*** circulates an external social media link referencing ongoing case commentary.

beg*** shares a link to a YouTube video relevant to the ongoing discussion.

kir*** contends that the prosecution constitutes the largest judicial scandal in United States history.

sar*** recounts private messages describing intense community reactions, direct third-party communication with the judge, and warnings about safety and surveillance targeting a participant.

jie*** expresses concern that a severe sentence will be handed down.