Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 084

him*** summarizes ECF 807, outlining the defense's request to postpone the sentencing originally set for Apr 13, 2026, by approximately thirty days to obtain Rule 17(c) subpoena materials and review investor communications under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and § 3661.

joh*** contends that the proceeding will not conclude until it is dragged out to the midterm elections.

kir*** expresses frustration over having already waited four months.

beg*** contends that compulsory summons became necessary because desired witnesses failed to appear.

beg*** argues that specific organizational members should also fall within the scope of the subpoena.

him*** asserts that the compulsory process is aimed at retrieving documents and evidence rather than detaining witnesses.

beg*** cites an excerpt describing an anonymous petitioner who sent a petition under § 853(n) to the clerk of court in early April 2025 that was forwarded to the government but not docketed.

him*** asks whether the prosecution has an obligation to submit a § 853(n) petition to the court after receiving it.

reb*** contends that the government previously claimed it would submit petitions to the court but subsequently decided against doing so.

reb*** argues that investors must not forfeit their § 853(n) rights, asserting that third-party standing is confirmed through hearings rather than established beforehand.

him*** contends that opposition focuses not on claims purely seeking money, but rather on § 853(n) petitions raising procedural challenges.

reb*** contends that § 853(n) petitions address bankruptcy procedural defects and clarify that relevant G-series entities do not belong to the defendant, necessitating a Southern District hearing.

kir*** argues that the framework excludes § 853 provisions.

kir*** contends that the legal classification recognizes only victims.

him*** affirms agreement that this reasoning represents the actual legal logic.

reb*** argues that the prosecution lacks statutory or case law authority to forfeit GTV under conspiracy theories where the specific project itself was not fraudulent.

kir*** contends that the court would only approve the sale of vehicles.

joh*** argues that the prosecution has no basis to forfeit GTV given the jury verdict and the prior SEC settlement.

joh*** notes the emergence of specific named individuals in the disclosures who had not been mentioned previously.

him*** claims that a letter of support written for Sean Combs was drafted by the defendant himself.

him*** argues that focusing solely on monetary figures is futile because everyone remains legally categorized as a victim unless the conviction is overturned.

kir*** suspects that a figure might be intentionally trying to project independence from Alliance control.

him*** asks whether the trial witnesses utilized by the former defense team were recommended by the Alliance.

him*** observes that a particular name looks Russian.

him*** contends that the prosecution selectively presents only evidence advantageous to its case.

him*** argues that it is the defense's responsibility to compel the prosecution to disclose Brady material.

him*** questions the defense strategy, stating that no decisive moves have yet become apparent.

kir*** speculates that materials under the Classified Information Procedures Act might hold the key to reversing the case.

kir*** wonders what will happen once a specific participant's compulsory order motion is submitted.

kir*** contends that Judge Torres will only approve motions that are directly relevant to sentencing.

ton*** analyzes Document 809 in Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT (SDNY) filed on Feb 27, 2026, detailing the prosecution's opposition to Dkt. 807 and its counterarguments regarding Rule 17(c) subpoenas, supporter testimony, and ineffective assistance claims.

beg*** alerts participants that Document 808 and Document 809 have been released on the docket.

beg*** advises that documents submitted to the Second Circuit must strictly adhere to procedural formats and references prior filings 361 and 364.

mia*** recalls that the jury appeared to acquit on projects where investors were refunded while convicting on those without refunds or fulfilled promises.

wei*** argues that a $1.3 billion money judgment would maximize the sentencing calculation and could lead the judge to impose thirty offense levels.

him*** contends that independent petitions are legitimate whereas orchestrated or manipulated filings create problems.