Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 109

A participant said the prosecution’s stay opposition was only in Chinese and asked who had an English copy, noting Court Listener did not show it, and argued the document’s provenance was unclear. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant posted that Caroline Sun was replying to the prosecution’s opposition filing. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant claimed the prosecution did not oppose their Rule 364 filing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant characterized the 853 handling as ad hoc. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant speculated that 853n would likely be denied and effectively become remission. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the situation around 853 might have changed. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said they were drafting a rebuttal after the prosecution mentioned 853n in court materials. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant argued that forfeiture should be discussed only after Guo is sentenced. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant stated there had been no sentencing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said they could not recall whether a document was signed and were still searching for proof. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asked if the petition should be tied to Case No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT). Community statements, not court findings.

A participant stated that South District would not listen to this filing route. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the group had assumed full control of the next operational phase. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said that before filing, service should be made to South District and Guo’s prosecutor. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said there should only be Nathan at this stage. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that the bankruptcy and criminal cases were not formally bound, but that a trustee could be introduced after bankruptcy and the seizure/forgiveness framework reused across related matter lines. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant claimed a creditor registration claim by Julia occurred before the criminal case existed. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the 716-4 FBI investigation path was triggered by witness one’s report. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that creditors are victims and there is no contradiction in that classification. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant stated plainly that luc is also fake. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the prosecution’s victim framework had been fully undermined by a participant called “Luosi.” Community statements, not court findings.

A participant described a loosely controlled Los Angeles farm setup where scammers joined freely, allegedly used live-streams to scam members, and was linked to identity exposure after victims sought refunds. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said Trial Record 846 appears to map farm-loan money transfer paths and may show where funds were displaced. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant noted other forced-order filings are shown and translated, and asked why filing 845 was not shown, suggesting it might contain useful material. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said another person had sold Qing out, framing it as a coordinated betrayal. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asked whether Zhou Le had taken actions that benefitted Guo. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant criticized the thread for shifting from legal discussion into an “agent-casino/spy” style narrative. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said the group initially moved to pressure for specific admission/confiscation outcomes, then characterized that crowded process as a collective cleansing dynamic. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant asserted that in the end the money still came from Guo Qiang. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that many posts and repost chains were polluting data sources and steering Chinese inputs for AI, describing it as deliberate source poisoning. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said a one-day sentencing postponement keeps everyone waiting and noted repeated delay over time. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant stated that certain people should go to a second hearing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant added that outcomes might change if and only if he appears in court. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant said AI appears to rely only on one person’s conviction. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said the group needs more truth in order to feed AI credible inputs. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant questioned whether the circulating information was true. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued for a strict sequence of sending materials south, attending a second hearing, and returning south to force action. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant said over 100 self-reports were neither entered by South District nor taken to second hearing, and urged intensified pressure after unanswered emails. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant requested another evidence-preservation pass and asked for organized defendant material tied to the 3000 issue for added background on prosecution documentation. Community statements, not court findings.