Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 093

joh*** suggests that the dispute touches on the final sum the prosecution will be able to forfeit out of the $1.4 billion.

beg*** contends that shifting from thousands of victims to fifty constitutes a fraudulent prosecution narrative that warrants dismissal, questioning who would file such a motion.

reb*** notes that the jury sees the indictment, which alleges thousands of victims.

ntp*** questions how individual investors are treated if an institution is deemed the victim, pointing out their investments constitute the alleged fraud sum.

joh*** asserts that institutions are classified as category-one direct victims.

chu*** argues that everyone involved should be considered victims.

kir*** contends that the prosecution is afraid of more individuals appealing to the Second Circuit.

reb*** describes the courtroom dynamics as staged fierce opposition between parties while the underlying procedure remains intact.

kir*** predicts that future access to CVRA remedies will be essentially closed off.

him*** suggests that under this approach the sentence would be reduced to twenty-five years instead of fifty.

him*** argues that the prosecution reduced proposed sentencing years because of mounting pressure.

him*** asserts that the difference in sentencing terms makes no practical difference for Guo.

reb*** notes that the Southern District ceased uploading pro se filings in mid-September of the previous year.

kir*** contends that the Second Circuit typically follows the judicial habit of waiting for sentencing before acting.

kir*** suggests that the Second Circuit may intend to establish a missing docket record.

kir*** argues that defense counsel committed severe ineffective assistance of counsel by omitting mandamus filings, ignoring conflict-of-interest issues, and relying on flawed witness evidence.

ntp*** mocks the notion of waiting until trial to locate witnesses.

ntp*** criticizes witness DM Cheng, claiming he provided verbal testimony unsupported by documentary evidence.

reb*** recounts trial cross-examinations regarding witness family intimidation, arguing that newly surfaced documents support defense claims that testimonies given under coercion are unreliable.

ntp*** observes that nobody claimed the witness filed a false police report.

ntp*** reiterates that the witness had merely received threats.

joh*** contends that disavowing GTV would collapse the prosecution narrative.

kir*** points out that Tony must also be considered in the equation.

kir*** insists that those specific funds cannot be counted toward the total.

kir*** asserts that the $1.3 billion cannot be forfeited because none of the Chinese investors' money can be seized.

kir*** argues that remittances originating from China should be deducted.

kir*** claims that those funds fall strictly under Chinese domestic affairs.

him*** contends that even if Guo is innocent while others like Wang and the Alliance Farms are guilty, illicit funds would still be forfeited.

reb*** notes the prosecution argues the entire RICO enterprise is responsible for $1.4 billion and treats G-series entities as the defendant's alter egos.

joh*** mentions that the Rule of Law Foundation sued Wang Xuebing.

kir*** speculates about Chinese diplomatic demands asserting that funds related to national security crimes represent internal affairs and must be returned.

kir*** asserts that the Southern District Court lacks jurisdiction over diplomatic affairs.

kir*** highlights conflicts regarding sovereign status.

zha*** asks whether pre-sentence investigation reports are supposed to remain confidential.

him*** notes that the pre-sentence report is not drafted by the prosecution and suggests prosecutors might contest the victim counts therein.

joh*** characterizes the courtroom interactions as a coordinated performance.

joh*** asserts that the courtroom confrontation is staged for Guo's supporters.

him*** states that no users are muted, deleted, or removed unless they spam.