January 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: FOIL Request# 2023-093329 Acknowledgement FOIL-2023-093329-018900
by Gunnar Larson 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Dear Joanne Verdejo: Thank you very much. These Coinbase records are very important to identify if Goldman Sachs has violated their Deferred Prosection Agreement with the United States of America. Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-454-9107 On Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 8:51 AM <Joanne.Verdejo(a)dfs.ny.gov> wrote: > > Dear Gunnar Larson: > > I write to acknowledge receipt of the FOIL request that you submitted to > the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) on 01/17/2023, > which has been assigned the above referenced tracking number. This number > should be the number that you refer to in all future communications with > DFS. > > > > Your request has been referred to the appropriate DFS unit(s) to search > for the records that are responsive to your request. The assigned unit(s) > will contact you within 20 business days to (i) advise whether the unit has > any records that are responsive to your request; (ii) grant or deny your > request, if the unit has responsive records; or (iii) apprise you of the > progress of your request, if the search or review of the records that you > requested is still on-going. > > Thank you. > > > New York State Department of Financial Services > > If you are a New York State resident and would like to register to vote or > update your address, you may complete and submit to your County Board of > Elections a New York State Voter Registration Form which can be found at > http://www.ny.gov/services/register-vote . > > Tracking Number:FOIL-2023-093329-018900 > ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <noreply(a)its.ny.gov> Date: Sat, Jan 14, 2023, 3:26 PM Subject: FOIL Request Confirmation from Open FOIL NY To: <G(a)xny.io> Thank you for submitting your FOIL request through Open FOIL NY. Here is your Open FOIL NY confirmation information for future reference: LARSON_DFS_20230114152649702 LARSON_DOB_20230114152649702 LARSON_DTF_20230114152649702 INFORMATION SUBMITTED: Records Requested From Department of Financial Services Division of the Budget Department of Taxation and Finance Short Title Coinbase $100M Settlement Investigation Records Description Dear Madam or Sir: xNY.io - Bank.org kindly seeks access to any and all records concerning New York State's investigation of Coinbase, comprising the $100M settlement mentioned here: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202301041. We are requesting all public records from 2018 to 2022 concerning New York's aforementioned Coinbase investigation. Moreover, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks access to any and all records concerning New York's regulatory scrutiny (and/or approval) of Goldman Sachs' partnership with Coinbase, issuing the bank's first Bitcoin loan mentioned here: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/goldman-sachs-partners-with-coinbase-for-ba…. In addition, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks any and all records concerning New York's approach to Coinbase and Goldman Sachs compliance programs mandated by the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section mentioned here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r-m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=…. Finally, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks records concerning New York's regulatory approval of Coinbase engaging a fine of $50M to implement heightened controls and additional procedures and policies relating to electronic surveillance and investigation, due diligence on transactions or clients and the use of third-party intermediaries across business units; and enhancing anti-corruption training for all management and relevant employees. Warm regards, Gunnar Larson Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-454-9107 Uploaded Files FOIL Response Format Email If fees apply, please contact me if costs will be greater than $10000 Your FOIL request has been forwarded to the organization(s) you selected, and the respective Records Access Officer will contact you directly for further processing of your request. Please allow up to five business days for such communication(s). For your convenience, here is additional contact information: Department of Financial Services One State Street 20th Floor New York, NY 10004 Division of the Budget State Capitol Room 128 Albany, NY 12224 Department of Taxation and Finance W.A. Harriman Campus Bldg 9, Room 100, Albany, NY 12227

1 2

Fwd: FOIL Request #2022-092039
by Gunnar Larson 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Transmitted by Email to Mr. Gunnar Larson 406 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 g(a)xny.io Re: Freedom of Information Law request No. 2022-092039: Appeal dated November 3, 2022 of the Department of Financial Services’ November 3, 2022 response Dear Mr. Larson: By email dated November 3, 2022, you are appealing pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law Section 89, the Department of Financial Services’ (the “Department”) November 3, 2022 response (the “Determination”) to your Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request No. 2022- 092039 1 which the Department construed as “Any and all documents concerning the Superintendent’s said role with Brex (Declaration on said disclosure form)” In your appeal, you state “[p]lease find a copy of the corresponding financial disclosure form, that was also included in the FOIL request: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1 ikLnjkr7lwt2pKqIxnnUKkgzBz7dh/view?usp=drivesdk. Question 4(a), ‘Positions of Authority’ lists an advisory role at ‘Brex, Inc.’ Furthrtmore, the role’s “State or Local Agency” is indicated as ‘DFS’.’ Our request is not intended to be vague, however, we seek records specific to the DFS role with Brex, Inc.” [Sic] The Determination informed you that your FOIL request does not meet the standard set forth in Public Officers Law (“POL”) § 89(3), which requires a FOIL request to reasonably describe the records sought. This means that the description of the documents sought must be sufficient to allow the agency to locate and identify the documents requested and that agency employees are not required to engage in unreasonable efforts to locate records.2 I concur with the Determination’s conclusion that your request does not reasonably describe the records that you seek. As was explained to you in the Determination, a FOIL request is not reasonably described if the agency cannot locate the requested record using its indexing or filing system, or, with respect to the agency’s electronic records, there is no single search term or combination of search terms that will result in the location of the record. See Asian American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund v. NYC Police Dep’t, 41 Misc.3d 471 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013), aff’d 125 A.D.3d 531 (1st Dep’t 2015). Additionally, where an agency must manually review voluminous records simply to locate responsive records, courts have held that such a request does not reasonably describe the records sought. Badar v. Bove, 273 A.D.2d Dep’t 2000), appeal den. 95 N.Y.2d 764 (2000) (finding that a request for “[a]ll notes, records, correspondence, meeting minutes and other records related to the adoption and/or revision of the Village Zoning Code’s prohibition of commercial activity” was not reasonably described). When a FOIL request requires an agency to make subjective judgments to determine whether a record is responsive, that request may be found to have not reasonably described the records. For instance, in the Committee on Open Government (“Committee”) Opinion No. FOIL-AO-11960 (February 17, 2000), the Committee opined that a FOIL request that sought records “tending to support” a particular statement, or “utilized”, “used” or “relating to” “various activities” was not reasonably described request for records under Public Officers Law Article 6. A response to such a request “would involve making subjective judgments a series of judgments based on opinions, some of which would be subjective, mental impressions”, and require “ascertaining which records might ‘tend to support’ a statement [that] would involve an attempt to render a judgment regarding the use, utility, accuracy or value of records.” The Committee futher opined that “for purposes of [FOIL], a request for such materials would not meet the standard of ‘reasonably describing’the records sought, for such a request would not enable the Department to locate and identify the records in the manner envisioned by that statute.” See also Committee Opinion No. FOIL-AO- 12012 (March 28, 2000), in which the Commttee opined that a request for “documentation utilized by SED to evaluate ‘certain needs, actions and functions’ was not reasonably described request for records under FOIL. Accordingly, I affirm the Department’s Determination. Sincerely, Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel cc: NYS Committee on Open Government One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650 Albany, NY 12231;l ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomczak, Christine (DFS) <christine.tomczak(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 4:30 PM Subject: FOIL Request #2022-092039 To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Cc: dos.sm.Coog.InetCoog <dosCOOG(a)dos.ny.gov> Dear Mr. Larson, See attached letter. Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel New York State Department of Financial Services 1 State Street, New York, New York 10004

1 0

Fwd: FOIL request #2022-090440
by Gunnar Larson 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Transmitted by Email to Mr. Gunnar Larson 406 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 g(a)xny.io Re: Freedom of Information Law request No. 2022-090440: Appeal dated September 30, 2022 of the Department of Financial Services’ September 19, 2022 response Dear Mr. Larson: By email dated September 30, 2022, you are appealing pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law Section 89, the Department of Financial Services’ (the “Department”) September 30, 2022 response (the “Determination”) to your Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request No. 2022- 090440 for “[A]ny and all records related to New York State and NYS-DFS’ approach to enforcement of “Permission for Interlocking Directors and Officers” as per outlined here https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_ and licensing/banks_and_trusts/other/Permission_for Interlocking Directors_and_Officers. In addition, we would like to receive and and all records associated with filed permissions for interlocking directorates at the NAACP and Goldman Sachs, specific to Mr. Rose (https://naacp.org/people/peter-rose and Mr. Ogunlesi (https://www.goldmansachs.com/about-us/people-and- leadership/leadership/board-of-directors/adebayo-o-ogunlesi.html). Finally, we would like to receive any and all records related to NY-DFS monitoring of Goldman Sachs’ minority scholarship fund support in Africa (and how any non- approved interlocking directorates may be engaged in AML violations).” In your appeal, you state that “[s]pecific to scholarships in Africa, Goldman Sachs has issued advertisements as principal funder of Africa’s largest online University. DFS having no records associated with ‘one of the world’s largest minority scholarship programs. . .’ that is funded out of New York would allude to willful negligence on behalf of New York’s financial regulators.” The Determination informed you that a search was conducted for records relating to (1) Part 701 compliance for Messrs. Ogunlasi and Rose and (2) references to Goldman Sachs’ minority scholarship programs in Africa. It also informed you that your request for “any and all records related to New York State and NY-DFS approach to enforcement of ‘Permission for Interlocking Directors and Officers’ ” was vague and improper. After conducting a de novo search of the Department’s files concerning the above described (1) and (2), I was unable to locate any records concerning these matters. Therefore, I affirm the Determination in its conclusion that there are no records regarding these subjects in the Department’s files. Furthermore, with your respect to your request for “any and all records related to New York State and NY-DFS approach to enforcement of ‘Permission for Interlocking Directors and Officers’ ” I find that the request does not not reasonably describe the records sought from the Department because FOIL requires that a requestor must describe the records sought and provide sufficient detail so that the agency can identify and locate the records requested. A FOIL request is not reasonably described if the agency cannot locate the requested record using its indexing or filing system, or, with respect to the agency’s electronic records, there is no single search term or combination of search terms that will result in the location of the record. See Asian American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund v. NYC Police Dep’t, 41 Misc.3d 471 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013), aff’d 125 A.D.3d 531 (1st Dep’t 2015). Additionally, where an agency must manually review voluminous records simply to locate responsive records, courts have held that such a request does not reasonably describe the records sought. Badar v. Bove, 273 A.D.2d Dep’t 2000), appeal den. 95 N.Y.2d 764 (2000) (finding that a request for “[a]ll notes, records, correspondence, meeting minutes and other records related to the adoption and/or revision of the Village Zoning Code’s prohibition of commercial activity” was not reasonably described). When a FOIL request requires an agency to make subjective judgments to determine whether to determine whether a record is responsive, that a request may be found to have not reasonably described the records. For instance, in the Committee on Open Government (“Committee”) Opinion No. FOIL-AO-11960 (February 17, 2000), the Committee opined that a FOIL request that sought records “tending to support” a particular statement, or “utilized”, “used” or “relating to” “various activities” was not reasonably described request for records under Public Officers Law Article 6. A response to such a request “would involve making subjective judgments a series of judgments based on opinions, some of which would be subjective, mental impressions”, and require “ascertaining which records might ‘tend to support’ a statement [that] would involve an attempt to render a judgment regarding the use, utility, accuracy or value of records.” The Committee futher opined that “for purposes of [FOIL], a request for such materials would not meet the standard of ‘reasonably describing’the records sought, for such a request would not enable the Department to locate and identify the records in the manner envisioned by that statute.” See also Committee Opinion No. FOIL-AO-12012 (March 28, 2000), in which the Commttee opined that a request for “documentation utilized by SED to evaluate ‘certain needs, actions and functions’ was not reasonably described request for records under FOIL. Accordingly, I affirm the Department’s Determination. Sincerely, Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel cc: NYS Committee on Open Government One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650 Albany, NY 12231;l ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomczak, Christine (DFS) <christine.tomczak(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 11:25 AM Subject: FOIL request #2022-090440 To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Cc: dos.sm.Coog.InetCoog <dosCOOG(a)dos.ny.gov> Dear Mr. Larson, See attached letter. Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel New York State Department of Financial Services 1 State Street, New York, New York 10004

1 0

“ You have a lot of folks who are just wishing for [Trump’s] mortal demise ”
by professor rat 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

“You have a lot of folks who are just wishing for [Trump’s] mortal demise,” former congressman Peter Meijer of his fellow Republicans. Hey, there’s an app for that! https://stiffs.com/celebrity/donaldtrump Any prediction market on a person is also an assassination market on that person.

1 0

Add 4,281 Hedge Fund Clients to What Makes JPMorgan Chase the Riskiest Mega Bank in the U.S.
by Gunnar Larson 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 30, 2023 ~ Jamie Dimon Sits in Front of Trading Monitor in his Office (Source — 60 Minutes Interview, November 10, 2019) According to a Yale School of Management study, in 2013 JPMorgan Chase had 1,339 hedge fund clients. As of July of last year, that number had soared to 4,281 according to the annual Convergence Inc. study. While Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley topped the total number of hedge fund clients (with 5,150 and 4,964, respectively) JPMorgan Chase ranked number one in terms of hedge fund Assets Under Advisement (AUA). (See Convergence Inc. study linked above.) There’s a big problem here that federal bank regulators are choosing to ignore at the peril of the U.S. financial system. JPMorgan Chase, unlike Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, is the largest federally insured, taxpayer backstopped, depository bank in the United States with more than $2.47 trillion in deposits as of June 30, 2022. Unfortunately, as a result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, this mom and pop depository bank with more than 5,000 Chase bank branches spread across the United States, is also allowed to make wild trading gambles. Those trading gambles have resulted in felony charges by the U.S. Department of Justice for rigging the foreign exchange markets, the U.S. Treasury market and the precious metals markets. Even without the dramatic growth of its risky hedge fund business, JPMorgan Chase already ranked as the riskiest bank in the U.S. The data comes from the National Information Center, a repository of bank data collected by the Federal Reserve. The National Information Center is part of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), which was created under federal legislation and imposes uniformity in how U.S. financial institutions are examined by federal banking regulators. The National Information Center creates an annual profile of banks, measured by 12 systemic risk indicators. The data used to create these graphics come from the “Systemic Risk Report” or form FR Y-15 that banks are required to file with the Federal Reserve. To measure the systemic risk that a particular bank poses to the stability of the U.S. financial system, the data is broken down into five categories of system risk: size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional activity. Those measurements consist of 12 pieces of financial information that banks are required to provide on their Y-15 forms. The data for the period ending December 31, 2020 showed that in 8 out of 12 measurements – or two-thirds of all systemic risk measurements – JPMorgan Chase ranked at the top for having the riskiest footprint among its peer banks. One of the 12 financial metrics is based on the Intra-Financial System Liabilities of each bank. This shows how much money a particular bank has at risk at other banks by using inputs such as how much of its funds it has on deposit with, or has been lent to, other financial institutions; the unused portion of any credit lines it has committed to other financial institutions; and its holdings of debt, equity, commercial paper, etc. of other financial institutions. The idea is to understand the interconnectivity of systemically-risky megabanks and whether one distressed megabank could cause a daisy-chain of contagion with other megabanks — such as the contagion caused by Citigroup and Lehman Brothers during and after the financial crisis of 2008. JPMorgan Chase’s footprint for Intra-Financial System Liabilities is very large. The 2020 data show that JPMorgan Chase has $577 billion exposure in that category. That’s an increase of $182 billion over what it showed in that category in 2019 – an increase of 46 percent in one year. The Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, likes to perpetually brag about the bank’s “fortress balance sheet.” Unfortunately, that bragging isn’t supported by the bank’s felony history or the fact that the bank lost $6.2 billion gambling in exotic derivatives in London during the leadership tenure of Dimon: the so-called “London Whale” scandal. Then there is also the fact that the Federal Reserve has yet to explain why a unit of JPMorgan Chase (J.P. Morgan Securities) needed to secretly borrow a cumulative $2.59 trillion in emergency repo loans from the Fed in the last quarter of 2019 – long before the first case of COVID-19 appeared in the U.S. (See chart below.) Perhaps it’s time for the Senate Banking Committee to take a long, hard look at what’s really under the hood of this banking behemoth. Related Article: Archegos: Wall Street Was Effectively Giving 85 Percent Margin Loans on Concentrated Stock Positions – Thwarting the Fed’s Reg T and Its Own Margin Rules

1 0

Phala Network is an AI-augmented blockchain platform concerning cloud computing
by professor rat 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

It’s positioned as a decentralised alternative to traditional cloud computing services such as Amazon AWS or Google Cloud. https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/top-10-artificia… Repost service bought to you by strong AI and cryptoanarchist friendly technology

1 0

Semich Announces Intention to Commence Normal Course Issuer Bid
by professor rat 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Karl is pleased to announce that he intends to commence a normal course issuer bid (the "NCIB"), under which it may purchase up to 8,003,535 common shares of the Company over a period of one year (the "NCIB Period"), representing approximately 5% of the Company's issued and outstanding common shares, with up to 3,201,414 common shares of the Company purchasable over any 30-day period within the NCIB Period, being 2% of the Company's issued and outstanding common shares. The NCIB is expected to commence on or about January 25, 2023, and will continue until the earlier of January 24, 2024, or the date by which the Company has acquired the maximum number of common shares which may be purchased under the NCIB.

2 1

Marxist morons looking to colonize anarchy ( again )
by professor rat 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Like those Marxist moron councilists, situationists, autonomen and communizers before them - they all tried - they all died https://www.gcasreview.com/magazine-1/2022/4/15/in-search-of-lost-time-a-no… Reposts not bourgeois bs about micro-management

1 0

Cryptocurrencies: Anarchist Turn or Strengthening of Surveillance Capitalism?
by professor rat 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Cryptocurrencies: Anarchist Turn or Strengthening of Surveillance Capitalism? By Catherine Malabou Translated by Robert Boncardo In an article published in the United States on 21 May 2018 http://australianhumanitiesreview.org/2020/05/31/cryptocurrencies-anarchist… Reposts not deadly toxic poison Hegelium 137

1 0

Untrammeled Catherine shares her views on cryptocurrency, AI, and other technological trends as they relate to the prospect of a "dawning anarchy".
by professor rat 30 Jan '23

30 Jan '23

Catherine Malabou returns to the podcast on the eve of her most recent work being translated into English, a book entitled "Stop Thief! Anarchism and Philosophy". https://anarchistnews.org/content/catherine-malabou-dawning-anarchy-vs-cybe… Reposts represent danger for Will Robinson

1 0