Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 163

kir*** relays him***’s claim that the recording is with someone on another team and not with the addressee.

kir*** relays him*** giving the addressee two days.

joh*** argues that farm loans and a settlement payment do not reconcile with the amounts discussed at trial.

joh*** contends that Maywind’s settlement shows it operated independently of MOS LLC.

joh*** argues that at least $4.55 million in farm loans was omitted from the $110 million total.

reb*** contends that testimony attributed others’ alleged misuse of farm investments to Guo’s fraudulent intent.

joh*** argues that funds allegedly withheld by Long Island and Zhang cannot be linked to Guo, undermining the overall G-series amount.

joh*** contends that appellate evidence concerning Zhang and Fair Fund refunds warrants prosecutors bringing him back.

reb*** argues that the funds were not Guo’s forfeitable interests and at most belonged to other actors.

hel*** says their goal is to recover the money they invested.

kir*** contends that Section 853 disputes must be resolved before post-sentencing forfeiture.

joh*** describes objections from HEX users and Guo family companies, and speculates about the parties’ motives and court delay.

kir*** asks whether the settlement might leave the nature of the funds unresolved.

joh*** argues that the settlement could help the Southern District address an earlier problem involving Mahwah.

kir*** says Guo’s appellate lawyer found pages missing from the jury screening materials.

kir*** speculates that counsel may pursue Cronic and ineffective-assistance claims.

kir*** contends that avoiding the issue would acknowledge that third parties had reached the merits.

kir*** relays a chatbot’s claim that the Second Circuit created a tandem hearing for third parties in the case.

kir*** says Sarah seeks an explanation for different treatment of two groups’ motions.

sar*** describes Docket Entry 32.1 in No. 26-1476, associated with 1:23-cr-00118-AT, as seeking clarification of treatment compared with 25-3046 and the scope of Dkt. 31.

kir*** questions the value of private prosecution if it does not overturn the case.

kir*** argues that private prosecution should seek to overturn the case rather than recover money.

kir*** contends that establishing a Cronic claim would overturn the entire case.

sar*** recalls being persuaded by Guo and the alliance’s question-and-answer sessions.

hel*** blames Guo for bringing in people who harmed others.

kir*** argues that the alliance should dissolve if its continued operation only supports the prosecution’s narrative about victims.

kir*** contends that three prosecutors linked unrelated matters when referring to Judge Torres’s prior cases.

kir*** describes Torres as treating the case as financial and not primarily considering national security or Chinese Communist Party infiltration.

joh*** says third parties directly requested Torres’s replacement.

sar*** recounts accessing ECF 477 but not its attachments and shares an AI analysis of ECF 477-1 and 477-3 in 1:23-cr-00118-AT.

sar*** continues the AI analysis, including speculative claims about restricted attachments, submitters’ motives and Dkt 32.1 in 26-1476.

reb*** alleges new evidence, witness-credibility disclosure violations and unreliable loss calculations and sentencing.