Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 146

Participant hah*** addresses private prosecution standing and procedural rules, though the specific message text is omitted in the record.

Participant kir*** contends that an individual interfered with victims' private prosecution rights and obstructed justice, asserting that the Second Circuit judge found malicious destruction of evidence after the individual deleted their Twitter account.

Participant kir*** derides another user by alleging they only intervened for payment.

Participant hah*** discusses requirements regarding personal service on the defendant, though the message text is omitted in the record.

Participant hah*** addresses the 120-day service deadline, though the message text is omitted in the record.

Participant hah*** considers the viability of alternative service via social media platforms, though the message text is omitted in the record.

Participant joh*** quotes user spr*** to argue that the criminal case cannot forfeit G-series assets while Tony is present and contends that bankruptcy trustee Luc lacks standing to enter the criminal case.

Participant joh*** reiterates that the bankruptcy proceeding cannot penetrate the criminal case while Tony is involved, urging participants to stop creating confusion.

Participant roy*** cites Docket 5739 and ECF 691 to argue that criminal victims and bankruptcy creditors are distinct groups under different distribution schemes, insisting that Luc's prior coordination and stays affecting the criminal prosecution must be scrutinized.

Participant joh*** argues that individuals seeking self-preservation will inevitably betray and discard their accomplices.

Participant joh*** contends that parties are hedging across both the bankruptcy creditor and criminal victim tracks to ensure priority in capturing 1.4 billion dollars.

Participant beg*** contends that Judge Torres suppressing CIPA issues serves as a key ground for appeal.

Participant kir*** argues that issuing an order requires written justification and that even an outright denial subjects the judge to immense pressure.

Participant roy*** argues that Luc preserved contingent rights should forfeiture be reversed in appeal 26-1853, noting that Docket 5739 from Aug 18, 2026 is post-judgment material that cannot simply be added to the appellate appendix under FRAP 10(e).

Participant kir*** shares a link to a Gettr account targeting user qmay.

Participant kir*** posts an external link to a post on X.

Participant ntp*** remarks that user qmay appears not to read Gettr.

Participant roy*** contends that Docket 5739 explicitly excludes third-party beneficiaries from direct payout rights but establishes critical evidence for appeal 26-1853 by demonstrating substantial property ownership disputes between Luc and the government rather than simple criminal proceeds.

Participant roy*** explains that Luc reduced his immediate exposure as an opposing forfeiture claimant while reserving the right to reassert claims if appeal 26-1853 overturns the forfeiture order, adding that Docket 5739 cannot be routinely added to the record under FRAP 10(e).

Participant roy*** contends that Docket 5739 demonstrates Luc previously stayed key portions of the bankruptcy case for the criminal prosecution, showing that bankruptcy claims and criminal victims are governed by separate legal frameworks.

Participant roy*** contends that if an initial complainant filed a bankruptcy claim later deemed fraudulent or an obstruction of justice, counsel in appeal 26-1853 must verify whether the government simultaneously used that individual's claimed loss in criminal sentencing.

Participant chu*** asks how to address a situation where an original criminal complainant filed a bankruptcy claim that prosecutors and the judge deemed a fraudulent claim and an obstruction of justice.

Participant roy*** outlines a four-step framework under 18 U.S.C. § 152(4) to cross-check whether bankruptcy claims rejected as fraudulent were used by prosecutors to substantiate criminal loss figures, noting that the government has seized approximately 642 million dollars.

Participant kir*** uses vulgar language to attack another user for suggesting that invoking the Crime Victims' Rights Act would disadvantage Guo.

Participant beg*** observes with amusement that a phone call has finally arrived.

Participant kir*** points out that no intended recipient was specified for the call.

Participant beg*** questions where the funds are located for a victim who was allegedly defrauded of one million dollars by Guo.

Participant reb*** contends that combining Luc's 150 million dollars with the Southern District's 630 million dollars leaves an unreconciled gap of 109 million dollars that was embezzled by various actors.

Participant may*** presses another participant on how they intend to achieve their objective of destruction.