Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 166

tan*** recalled Luosige saying he wanted to overturn the case.

tan*** argued that Luosige helped initiate discussion despite not understanding the private litigants’ detailed arguments.

tan*** credited private litigation with exposing alleged procedural and evidentiary problems and challenging bankruptcy proceedings’ claim to funds.

ntp*** asked whether the Fair Fund had sent everything to Zhang and recalled being told their own refund awaited SEC approval.

ntp*** requested evidence that the Fair Fund paid Zhang and that Zhang denied receiving the money.

joh*** said Jason had applied for a refund and authorized Zhang, and proposed using CVRA to investigate the money.

joh*** contended that GTV investments were legitimate and that the jury found no GTV loss for sentencing and monetary judgment.

joh*** argued that GTV forfeiture in Wang’s case might change and that investors who had authorized Zhang but received no refund still suffered losses.

joh*** speculated that VOG funds held by Wei explained a difference between the GTV amount in the indictment and forfeiture.

beg*** argued that Zhang’s various roles, including seeking Fair Fund money for alleged victims, warranted closer examination.

kir*** questioned whether Zhang’s representation of investors created an evidentiary conflict relevant to Order 388, while noting that it would not automatically overturn the ruling.

kir*** disputed the chronology and argued that the person’s role in pursuing funds undermined Torres’s characterization of her as a co-conspirator.

kir*** directed another participant to Exhibit A in Order 388.

kir*** asked what Exhibit A said about Zhang’s alleged co-conspirator conduct and statements.

roy*** described Dkt. 388, Dkt. 382-1 and GX VI66, distinguishing Li Ya’s reported financial threat and fear from an explicit death threat or a signed affidavit.

kir*** described ECF 383 as already citing independent conduct and disputing a link between Zhang’s statements and Guo.

kir*** argued that defense counsel had already made the point another participant proposed.

kir*** argued that potentially favorable testimony omitted from Dkt. 383 merited review but did not establish a Cronic claim by itself.

joh*** argued that Jason’s authorization could be used in a CVRA proceeding against Zhang.

kir*** asked whether Guo had instructed Xia to sue Wei in the Maywind case.

kir*** contended that Dkt. 383 insufficiently used refund and independent-conduct evidence and proposed a more specific argument concerning Dkt. 388.

ntp*** asked whether someone who missed the Southern District proceedings could approach the Second Circuit.

joh*** described Jason’s GTV investment and unanswered refund inquiries and proposed using CVRA to seek clarification.

kir*** asked whether Xia and Wei’s case involved mostly Farm loans rather than GTV.

beg*** contended that disproving testimony from alleged co-conspirators seeking favorable treatment could undermine the conviction.

joh*** referred to extensive livestream material.

kir*** argued that alleged common control over evidence would require a documented chain linking specific sources, participants and effects on the proceedings.

joh*** proposed involving Hahn in the criminal case over a Korean loan project that they said was absent from the indictment and preliminary forfeiture list.

beg*** said Anna had already included Hahn, Caogen and Wang Xuebing.

joh*** argued that the defense had only speculated about Wei taking GTV funds and overlooked a Maywind civil lending case with a judgment.

kir*** speculated that the Chinese Communist Party’s role was limited and blamed actions by the alliance for consequences facing its members.

reb*** predicted that the Communist Party would protect them.

kir*** speculated that CIPA might show GTV was a US intelligence project.