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

him*** claimed Dkt. 807 requested a 30-day extension to Apr 13, 2026, relying on unresolved Rule 17(c) evidence, investor communications, and claims that without extra review sentencing would be ineffective. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** argued that delay should not be stretched toward the midterm election window. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed they had already waited four months, signaling frustration with the length of delay requests. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** claimed the needed witness did not appear, so a forced subpoena became unavoidable. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** claimed membership identity should also be within the subpoena reach. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed the team was seeking files and evidence, not broader witness detention. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** claimed an anonymous petitioner filed a §853(n) petition with the clerk, had it sent to the government, and said the petition still had not been docketed. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed the government has a duty to submit the §853(n) petition to the court after receiving it. Community statements, not court findings.

reb*** claimed the opposing side initially invoked court submission as a posture, then later declined to proceed, treating it as a tactical shift. Community statements, not court findings.

reb*** claimed alleged contamination of 853n made stronger evidence necessary and argued a skipped hearing cannot be justified by investor passivity. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed the suspected contamination risk targets future procedural 853n arguments rather than straightforward money requests. Community statements, not court findings.

reb*** claimed 853n is about whether G entities are truly tied to the defendant, noting ownership findings were contested and that a hearing is required to test that link. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed there was no viable 853 route in that context. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed that only victims should be treated as such. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed that distinction was the central logic behind the victim-position argument. Community statements, not court findings.

reb*** claimed government seizure of GTV lacks statutory and precedent support, arguing GTV should be limited to proven fraudulent projects to qualify. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed the scope was limited to one practical type of asset category, which he described as vehicle-related resale activity. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** claimed the prosecution’s insistence on seizing GTV was unfounded, citing a jury finding and SEC settlement context where GTV was found not liable. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** claimed naming additional figures at this stage looked selective and unreliable, hinting at an echo-chamber narrative. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed a support letter for a prominent figure was written by Guo himself, challenging its evidentiary weight. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed that focusing only on money was insufficient and that, absent reversal, all impacted parties would still be treated as victims. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed Guo appeared to be trying to appear outside Alliance control. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed prior trial witnesses used by senior counsel had likely been recommended through Alliance channels. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed some names looked Russian, implying possible foreign-network linkage in the witness profile. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed the prosecution only accepted evidence that favored its case. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed it was the defense’s responsibility to force Brady disclosure through persistent motions and pressure. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed he could not see meaningful new defense tactics emerging at that point. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed there may be a reversal key embedded in the CIPA context. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed uncertainty remained about what impact an order from Tony might have after being issued. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed Judge Torres would accept only sentencing-related motions and not broader collateral arguments. Community statements, not court findings.

ton*** claimed Doc 809 (Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT, SDNY, filed Feb 27, 2026) was a 4-page government brief opposing the sixth sentencing continuance and pairing with Doc 808. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** claimed Documents 808 and 809 had just been issued, setting a new procedural marker for the batch. Community statements, not court findings.

beg*** claimed second-review filings should follow strict court format and pointed to 361/364 as reference points for addressing them. Community statements, not court findings.

mia*** claimed jurors saw refunds as a key divider, treating refunded projects differently from unrecovered or unfulfilled promises. Community statements, not court findings.

wei*** claimed a 1.3 billion amount could push punishment toward the maximum and that some actors use this fear to pressure against filing 853n. Community statements, not court findings.

him*** claimed independent filings are legitimate, but he contended manipulated petitioning becomes problematic. Community statements, not court findings.