Luosige, We Want to Know You Are Safe

On Aug 31, 2026, in the Guo Wengui case discussion group, someone asked: “Has Luosige returned?”

On Sep 1, 2026, someone followed up: “Still no word from Brother Screw [Luosige]?” On Sep 2, 2026, and Sep 3, 2026, similar inquiries continued to appear. By Sep 4, 2026, the question became: “Can Brother Screw's [Luosige's] phone still get through?”

These brief questions were sandwiched between debates over refunds, court documents, private prosecutions, and politics. Message followed message, with everyone still debating the conclusions they each believed in, while the person being called upon repeatedly did not respond within this newly added period of records we reviewed.

What we can currently confirm is very limited: people in the group continually inquired about his recent situation; some members reported on Sep 3, 2026, and Sep 4, 2026, that his phone was powered off; the records collected as of Sep 6, 2026, are not yet sufficient to confirm where he currently is or whether he is safe.

A claim of “ten days of detention” circulated within the group. As the wait dragged on, others speculated that he remained in custody, and discussions about death even emerged. However, these claims were not supported by reliable firsthand materials in this review. Being unable to reach someone by phone cannot replace a detention notice, nor can an absence of posts in a group chat be used to confirm a person's life or death.

This uncertainty should be carefully preserved. Every additional reposting of an unfounded conclusion may subject his family and those who care about him to an added measure of fear, while genuinely useful information ends up being drowned out.

Returning to U.S. court records, one can see the path he walked previously. Group members call him Luosige (Brother Screw); his signature in the court docket is Chunk Chyi. His concerns regarding personal safety predated this round of reports that he could not be reached in the group.

On Mar 20, 2025, his pro se motion to participate in the case was docketed as ECF 505, requesting to participate in the case as an interested party, obtain documents, and attend hearings. ECF 507 on Mar 21, 2025, and ECF 508 docketed on Mar 24, 2025, both recorded his statements expressing fear of being arrested by the Chinese government due to participating in the case. ECF 508 also involved revoking his own representation agreement with attorney Geyer and challenging the validity of an agreement representing thousands of exchange customers. These requests and concerns originated from him personally; the filing of documents itself does not mean the court accepted his conclusions. 〔1〕

Subsequently, he continued to submit materials concerning his personal funds, representation relationships, and creditor claims registration. On Apr 3, 2025, Judge Torres issued a consolidated response in ECF 528: ruling that, except for ECF 505 which could be construed liberally as a § 853(n) third-party petition, his relevant submissions were improper, denying several motions among them, and warning that continued non-compliant filings could result in a permanent filing injunction. The order also noted that he had previously denied victim status in certain filings. On Apr 4, 2025, ECF 596 further required that his subsequent submissions first undergo screening by the court, to be docketed only if they complied with the rules, were in good faith, and had a legal basis. This was a procedural restriction on filings and cannot be construed as the court having fully adjudicated and rejected all of his property claims. 〔2〕

ECF 679, docketed on Apr 8, 2025, is a document particularly worth reading from this period. Titled as an application to participate in the case as a victim, he stated that he would comply with the prior two orders, explained delays in receiving court documents, and voiced a more direct fear: if entirely excluded from court proceedings, he worried he would be arrested or even suffer fatal harm. He linked remaining within U.S. court proceedings to his perceived safety. 〔3〕

This also documented shifts in his assertions of status: from previously denying victim status to requesting continued participation as a victim. We can question the legal basis for this choice, but we should also recognize the fear he repeatedly mentioned in his explanations. He believed that participating in court proceedings might bring him protection, but this application cannot prove that the U.S. court ever promised to protect his personal safety.

By Jan 2026, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, docketed as No. 26-77. Subsequent government filings recorded the filing date as Jan 13, 2026; relevant materials entered the district court docket on Jan 14, 2026, as ECF 788. He asserted CVRA rights, requested Torres's recusal, and challenged the pre-screening system. Regarding the court's statement about “continuing to file after warnings,” he offered a chronological rebuttal, contending that certain materials had actually been sent before the prior order was made public. These were his grounds for petition and cannot yet be stated as the court having found the original order to be erroneous. 〔4〕

On Feb 18, 2026, the Second Circuit coordinated his petition for parallel consideration alongside cases of three other petitioners. In Apr 2026, he again requested a stay of Guo Wengui's sentencing, raising issues concerning the scope of victims, loss calculation, and screening of submissions. On Apr 24, 2026, the government filed its opposition. 〔5〕

On May 15, 2026, the Second Circuit denied the mandamus petitions, including his. His motion to stay district court proceedings was also dismissed as moot. However, the order reserved conditions for renewing applications regarding delays in docketing and adjudication: if the district court still fails to docket submissions within a reasonable time, or fails to consider them within a reasonable time after sentencing, the petitioners may reassert relevant requests. Therefore, this order can neither be characterized as him having prevailed nor as having all of his subsequent procedural opportunities closed off. 〔6〕

ECF 868, docketed in the criminal case on Aug 6, 2026, incorporated the mandate version of the aforementioned joint order of May 15, 2026; its header corresponded to another parallel case, No. 26-563, and cannot be treated as a new ruling issued against him on that date. As for new motions and subsequent orders in Jul 2026 mentioned in group chats, corresponding originals and the complete docket were not obtained for this review, making it impossible to determine his full litigation status to date on that basis. 〔7〕

Connecting these dates, what can be confirmed is: he continually attempted to enter court proceedings and wrote his concerns regarding personal safety into court filings. Rereading these words today brings greater concern. But those were concerns at that time; what is happening at present still requires present evidence. The gap between the two cannot be bridged by speculation.

Rereading the chat messages from recent days, what is distressing is that voices inquiring about his situation were constantly accompanied by mockery. Some treated his silence as proof that certain viewpoints had become bankrupt, while others rushed to interpret it as a signal that the entire case was about to be overturned. Both sides could find what they wanted to say in this void.

Yet this void belongs to a specific person.

He may have argued with you, may have said things you consider wrong, or may have adhered to assessments you cannot agree with. Those statements can continue to be questioned, and those arguments should also be tested. But a person's safety should not become a trophy for winning an argument. Those who once opposed him can likewise ask: Is he safe? Those who once supported him should also permit themselves to state candidly: We still do not know what happened.

Someone in the group asked whether there was a notice and whether further materials could be obtained. This at least brought the discussion back to verifiable questions: When was the last direct contact? Has any credible person received a message directly from him? Who is able to confirm his safety while respecting his and his family's wishes?

These questions require patience and restraint. Please do not publicly disclose his and his family's phone numbers, home addresses, or identity information, and do not turn concern into gawking or round-the-clock questioning. If you have had direct contact with him recently, we hope you will assist in confirming his safety through people he knows and trusts. There is no need to account for his whereabouts online, much less require him to prove anything through a public appearance.

We wrote this piece because those inquiries should not simply slide by in chat logs. That a person temporarily does not respond is worthy of someone caring; that the reasons have not been clarified is worthy of someone continuing to verify earnestly.

Brother Screw [Luosige], if you can see these words, we hope you are safe.

If convenient and safe, please let someone you trust know that you are safe. You can rest, you can temporarily step away from these debates, and you do not have to explain your life to onlookers.

There are still many questions in the group. At this moment, the news we most hope to receive is just one sentence: You are safe.

---

Source Note: This article was compiled based on Discord group chat texts collected as of Sep 6, 2026, at 00:39 UTC, and the following court documents. Group chat dates are in UTC; court dates are based on document signature dates, docket stamps, or noted procedural records; images, voice messages, and other attachments from the group chat were not processed. Statements by community members regarding contact status have not been independently verified. This article does not confirm detention, death, or reasons for being unreachable, nor does it disclose real identities or private contact information. If reliable updates become available, statements regarding his current situation should be promptly revised.

English summary

Luosige (Chunk Chyi), We Hope You Are Safe

Members of a Discord community discussing the Guo Wengui (Miles Guo) case repeatedly asked about Luosige’s whereabouts between late August and early September 2026. Some reported that his phone was switched off. These accounts do not independently establish detention, death, or the reason he could not be reached.

The column traces his participation in the Southern District of New York criminal case, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, under the name Chunk Chyi. His 2025 filings expressed fears about his safety. After orders limiting nonparty submissions and requiring screening, he sought participation as a crime victim and later petitioned the Second Circuit in No. 26-77. On May 15, 2026, the court denied the mandamus petitions, while preserving specified opportunities to renew claims concerning delays in docketing or considering submissions. Later developments have not been fully verified for this article.

His earlier fears warrant attention but cannot establish what has happened now. The column calls for reliable confirmation of his safety, respect for his and his family’s privacy, and restraint toward unverified allegations. It asks anyone with recent direct contact to help through a trusted intermediary, without publicly disclosing his location or private information.

Court document sources and verification boundaries:

• 〔1〕 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, ECF 505, pro se motion to participate in the case, p. 2; ECF 507, letter, p. 3; ECF 508, motion regarding representation agreement, pp. 1, 3. These three early documents were verified for this review based on docket-stamped document texts preserved in public search indexes; because original PDF links could not be opened directly, the body text uses paraphrase rather than unverified verbatim quotations. The characterization of 505 under § 853(n) was separately verified against court ECF 528, p. 2.
• 〔2〕 Same case, ECF 528, Apr 3, 2025, order regarding nonparty letters and motions, pp. 1–2; ECF 596, Apr 4, 2025, similar order, p. 1. ECF 596 provided a joint explanation for submissions by him and another nonparty, and not all filings involved can be attributed to him alone.
• 〔3〕 Same case, ECF 679, docketed on Apr 8, 2025, Motion to intervene as a victim, p. 1. Descriptions concerning arrest, fatal harm, and the protective role of court status were entirely the applicant's own concerns and understanding.
• 〔4〕 Same case, ECF 788, docketed on Jan 14, 2026; Second Circuit No. 26-77, Dkt. 6.1, pp. 2–6. For filing date, see Second Circuit No. 25-2726, government opposition document Dkt. 46.1, p. 7. ECF 788 consists of the petition and exhibits and cannot be mistakenly described as an order granting his request simply due to document-type labels on archival websites.
• 〔5〕 Second Circuit No. 26-361, Dkt. 12.1, order of Feb 18, 2026, pp. 1–2; No. 26-77, emergency motion to stay sentencing, dated Apr 15, 2026, filed on Apr 18, 2026, as recorded in government Dkt. 46.1, p. 7, corresponding to 26-77 Dkt. 12. Public motion text; Government opposition document.
• 〔6〕 Second Circuit No. 25-3046, Dkt. 34.1, joint order of May 15, 2026, pp. 2–3, listing No. 26-77; entered on the SDNY docket the same day as ECF 849. Full text of public joint order.
• 〔7〕 SDNY ECF 868, docketed on Aug 6, 2026, pp. 1–3, mandate document with header corresponding to Second Circuit No. 26-563. This article has not verified all subsequent entries in No. 26-77 and does not use group chat statements to supplement court findings.

Community statements, not court findings.