Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 122

him*** asks why the case continues to experience ongoing delays.

beg*** contends that participants should submit their stay motions before Jun 22, 2026.

kir*** asserts that no third procedural alternative exists.

ntp*** urges an immediate release without further procedural fuss.

kir*** disputes the prospect of a prompt release, asserting it remains far off.

ntp*** describes the defendant having no place to live once released.

him*** encourages silent group members and pro se motion filers to submit any major new evidence.

reb*** argues that investors testifying under oath about personal investments constitutes valid evidence countering the prosecution's narrative.

him*** stresses the necessity of providing confirmed and truthful information.

kir*** contends that cryptocurrency transactions should be excluded entirely from loss calculations.

joh*** points out that the funds frozen by the prosecution only reflect wire transfer amounts.

kir*** maintains that wire transfer sums do qualify in the calculation.

get*** questions the legal significance of having executed signed contracts.

get*** asserts that signed investment agreements amount to void paper.

joh*** argues that other farm leaders with investment contracts can be brought into the case as victims seeking losses.

ken*** recalls previous statements claiming Gettr held only a five percent share.

ken*** recounts that grassroots facilitators previously assisted in remitting US dollars overseas.

joh*** contends that funds unable to be wired abroad simply remained in people's hands.

kir*** suggests adopting an aggressive posture without relying on speedy trial arguments.

kir*** advises extending delays up to the limits permitted under the Betterman precedent.

kir*** contends that arguments under Ray should be raised directly by defense attorneys.

beg*** analyzes United States v. Ray, 578 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2009), Barker v. Wingo, and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(1) regarding due process standards for sentencing delays.

beg*** argues that appellate court intervention becomes justifiable if emergency stay or mandamus motions establish administrative paralysis below.

roy*** contends that sentencing on Jun 29, 2026 without addressing pending motions provides grounds under Ray to challenge procedural delays.

joh*** alleges that the prosecution's data witness fabricated testimony during the proceedings.

joh*** points out that the trial record documents the witness's testimony.

kir*** disputes the integrity of the prosecution, claiming government fabrications are far more severe.

him*** characterizes statements in the chat group as being eighty percent true and twenty percent false.

him*** asserts that deceptive claims are being used to dupe group members.

him*** observes that only three or four people believe Brother Luosi will avoid arrest.

him*** claims that the Chinese Communist Party fears US courtroom proceedings.

joh*** asks how many people nationwide have been summoned for police questioning.

him*** contends that Chinese authorities realized they should cease arresting G-series investors following Guo's arrest.