Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 112

A participant asks whether any post-sentencing path can still proceed after sentencing. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant contends that sentencing does not make a pending motion disappear. Community statements, not court findings.

A further speaker says that after sentencing, procedural problems become fixed in a practical sense. Community statements, not court findings.

A posting states that a supplemental filing supporting a compulsory-order motion was granted and that the court has considered those materials. Community statements, not court findings.

Another note points to an entry marked "849," implying another docket or filing step linked to procedural movement. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant adds that many people invested over years and still back the defendant, while acknowledging some may have been misled, affecting how party status is argued. Community statements, not court findings.

One speaker argues normal criminal matters should not require victim or third-party intervention, and says prosecutors can represent victims while claiming most investors did not formally register as victims. Community statements, not court findings.

Another participant says it is irrational for victims to seek defense counsel and says counsel should not accept such outreach. Community statements, not court findings.

A third participant says the case was moved by third parties because they do not trust prosecutors. Community statements, not court findings.

One user identifies a five-person group as the people tied to the second-round stay context. Community statements, not court findings.

Another asserts there are victims, but says the number is very small. Community statements, not court findings.

A further participant mocks the idea that only five prosecution-accepted victims were involved, arguing those five were supporters rather than a representative victim base. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant alleges deep governmental interference, saying there are no willing victims and implying prosecutors manufactured victims through allied networks. Community statements, not court findings.

Another claims that if the goal is political suppression, participants will not accept being labeled as Guo’s victims and instead frame themselves as harmed by DOJ misclassification. Community statements, not court findings.

A further speaker reads this as evidence that prosecutors intentionally separated cooperators from non-cooperators. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant says CIPA was wrongly decided and that removed or replaced classified materials may actually be Brady/Giglio impeachment evidence, making CIPA the serious issue. Community statements, not court findings.

Another says unsubmitted materials are likely to include many Brady and Giglio impeachment items. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant adds that if everything were disclosed, this would involve more than one "Tony" and would significantly strengthen a CIPA challenge. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant insists transferred funds were investment capital through the farm structure, citing gains and arguing the prosecution reframed them as fraud money to secure conviction. Community statements, not court findings.

Another says possible victims could include Yu Jianming and other alleged co-conspirators. Community statements, not court findings.

A counterpoint says this victim argument alone cannot overturn a jury verdict because project participants reportedly testified to Guo’s motive to defraud. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant asks why RICO enforcement would only involve Guo. Community statements, not court findings.

Another asks whether the reference to "Gail 6000" implies a broad win for other actors. Community statements, not court findings.

A further message urges prosecutors to pursue a scapegoat, naming 'Niao Qing Luc.' Community statements, not court findings.

One participant predicts conviction, immediate deportation without U.S. sentence service, and a likely return in July. Community statements, not court findings.

Another repeats the expectation that sentencing will be followed by deportation. Community statements, not court findings.

A later participant states bluntly that the process is finished. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant says statements attributed to Guo cannot be cross-checked and should be treated as unreliable rhetoric. Community statements, not court findings.

Another argues the key challenge is proving specific actors were intelligence operatives to break RICO ties, and questions whether fraud-only proof can be enough. Community statements, not court findings.

One participant reports being kicked from the group. Community statements, not court findings.

Another post contains a redacted member-identity reference only. Community statements, not court findings.

A later comment mentions a business owner identified as [删节：成员身份], described as also belonging to the old group. Community statements, not court findings.

One speaker says lawyers cannot represent themselves pro se. Community statements, not court findings.

Another speaker claims pro se representation should be allowed. Community statements, not court findings.

A third participant argues that license status should not change the answer. Community statements, not court findings.