Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 076

joh*** contends that Guo's personal bankruptcy case never addressed Mahwah's ownership and argues that seizing it upon criminal indictment before conviction was improper.

kir*** notes that this observation had already been raised previously by another commentator.

beg*** asserts that Guo has not endorsed Zhang Yongbing.

kir*** argues that Guo's legal team and the Alliance have already reached an agreement.

him*** asserts that a victim list is required for the sentencing report.

him*** argues that sentencing can proceed even without an identified list of victims.

him*** points out that the jury has already convicted the defendant.

him*** contends that procedural justice was violated.

kir*** contends that dismissing the case remains a possibility.

kir*** strongly disputes the notion that the prosecution would ever drop the charges.

roy*** questions whether a speaker even understands the distinction between 853 and 835, describing him as uninformed and directed by others.

roy*** asks whether the individual is advocating for petitions under Section 853.

joh*** rejects the idea, contending that the forfeiture timeframe has already expired.

joh*** describes the total 1.3B asset pool as comprising GTV, Farm, Gclub, and HEX, each having ultimate beneficiaries.

mia*** asks whether individual funds held in Himalaya Exchange accounts are exempt from forfeiture.

reb*** argues that indirect proceeds in this case fall outside forfeitable scope under established Supreme Court precedents.

joh*** argues that unlike Lady May which was auctioned after conviction, Mahwah was sold before conviction contrary to proper judicial procedure.

kir*** contends that current strategies used by both old and new counsel and alliances mimic past deception schemes.

joh*** contends that Guo requested Luc to appear in court but the defense avoided calling him to prevent confronting the prior judge.

joh*** argues that the Farm Alliance and Himalaya Exchange are entirely separate entities and contends that external announcements undermine their credibility.

him*** observes that the Alliance farms would welcome the latest motion filed by Guo's attorney.

him*** points out that Alliance farms have explicitly appeared in court filings.

him*** questions how Gail could represent clients without obtaining their signed authorization.

him*** notes that several pro se motions have raised questions regarding Gail's authority to act as counsel.

rod*** questions what Gail is secretly preparing in his upcoming Section 853(i) filing.

him*** questions how many years of litigation would be required to achieve the proposed legal outcome.

xia*** speculates that pardon rumors serve as preemptive labeling while prosecutors might be considering dismissal amid external smear campaigns.

kir*** disputes that either a dismissal of charges or a presidential pardon is possible.

reb*** inquires whether filing 800 can be downloaded from PACER.

ntp*** notes that the document has just been released.

sar*** shares a reference to the CourtListener docket entry for United States v. Guo.

kir*** posts a video reference relevant to public commentary surrounding the case.

kir*** declares that the Alliance is finished.

kir*** remarks that statements from an observer of the Guo case consistently deliver explosive revelations.