Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 127

kir*** advocates initiating a criminal investigation against Luc.

kir*** contends that combining seven pre-sentencing recusal motions with multiple Second Circuit stay requests and an immediate post-sentencing vacatur motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 corners Judge Torres procedurally and threatens her judicial standing.

kir*** asserts that Judge Torres has been completely neutralized by their procedural strategy.

sar*** asks whether the certificate of service should be served on the prosecution in addition to the defense.

kir*** states that the document should be emailed to the defense.

kir*** contends that omitting it is not a significant problem.

ntp*** questions what would happen if Judge Torres actually responds to the recusal motion.

kir*** contends that the judge has not recused herself.

kir*** argues that the judge cannot explain her actions.

beg*** outlines criteria for eligible participants to file emergency mandamus and vacatur petitions in the Second Circuit immediately following the Jun 29, 2026 sentencing.

beg*** argues that participants should proceed with filings immediately rather than waiting for the Second Circuit to issue a stay on Jun 29, 2026.

sar*** contends that victims without docketed Second Circuit cases can still file submissions with the Southern District to seek Judge Torres's recusal.

spr*** describes planning to argue that failing to vacate the sentence will inundate the Second Circuit with an unmanageable volume of appellate disputes.

kir*** argues that the priority is supplementing filings with what actually occurs during the sentencing hearing.

kir*** affirms the necessity of recording and adding courtroom developments to the submission.

kir*** contends that Judge Torres is deeply alarmed by third-party petitions invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

_ki*** predicts a sentence of around forty-five years based on five years across nine felony counts.

kir*** disputes the alliance's assertion that sentencing must occur before a presidential pardon can be granted.

sar*** questions whether calculations reversed the $240 million and $1.14 billion figures in reconciling forfeiture totals.

reb*** clarifies that the unexplained gap consists of the $1.38 billion judgment minus over $600 million on the preliminary forfeiture list and $400 million held by the SEC, distinguishing nominal liability from actual asset seizures.

sar*** suggests adjusting the figures to $340 million and $1.04 billion to balance the calculation.

reb*** argues that imposing a $1.38 billion judgment with an unrecovered $1.14 billion gap violates Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. 443 (2017) and conceals Brady material regarding non-prosecution agreements.

reb*** asserts that non-prosecution agreements shielding cooperating actors from forfeiting investor funds undermine §853(n) remedies and warrant Second Circuit review under 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

beg*** recirculates the legal argument that non-prosecution agreements improperly legalized third-party fund misappropriation in violation of Honeycutt and Brady standards.

him*** recounts a claim by a Falun Gong practitioner stating that he met Guo at the Metropolitan Detention Center.

him*** relays the assertion that Guo told the visitor the Chinese Communist Party had consistently targeted Falun Gong.

0x_*** contends that the shared screenshot is fabricated because the referenced account lacked long-post privileges, requesting corroborating evidence.

.an*** disputes claims regarding anti-CCP effectiveness while the defendant has remained incarcerated for three years.

reb*** sarcastically argues that institutional corruption and extortionate leverage influence judicial rulings.

joh*** contends that commentators push a political narrative aligning with the prosecution, forcing investors into categories of either co-conspirators or victims awaiting government remission rather than recognizing independent third-party status.

_ki*** contends that another participant's behavior resembles previous conflicts between competing figures.

roy*** demands that the group administrator enforce rules against disruptive, non-substantive postings.

beg*** recounts having previously regarded a prominent figure as wise but describes changing that evaluation.

sar*** inquires about the scheduled start time for the next day's hearing and asks whether dial-in access is available.

hel*** argues that prosecutors should summon former farm leaders and corporate executives to testify at an open hearing.

beg*** asks whether anyone present has seen Guo.

sar*** contends that commentator live streams distract members during a critical period of intense legal preparation.

kir*** asks what the commentator discussed during the broadcast.

sar*** states that she does not know what was said.