January 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

A Trump Prosecutor's Memoir Of A Case That Didn't Happened -- At Least Not Yet-- Is Latest Tell-All Controvers - Libel & Defamation - United States
by Gunnar Larson 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/libel--defamation/1276058/a-trump-prose… There is a long and rich history in the United States of government officials writing "tell-all" books about their experiences. Vincent Bugliosi wrote about his prosecution of Charles Manson. Two ex-prosecutors wrote "Stonewall," the "real story" of the Watergate prosecutions. Jeffrey Toobin wrote "Opening Arguments" about his role in the Iran-Contra investigation. Kenneth Starr wrote "Contempt" about his Whitewater prosecution. And John Bolton, James Comey and Andrew McCabe (among others) wrote revealing books about the workings of the Trump Presidency. There's also a long and rich history of government outrage (and sometimes litigation) because these works allegedly disclose confidential, classified or privileged information in violation of the author's fiduciary or contractual obligations, or because of disputes regarding the government's often cumbersome vetting process. See, e.g., Penguin Books USA v. Walsh, 756 F. Supp. 770 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (allowing publication of Toobin book; whether or not having prosecutors publish is a wise idea, "there is no permanent "gag" on prosecutors from speaking or writing about investigations and prosecutions which they have conducted or in which they have been involved"), vacated, 929 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1991). The latest controversy involving a former prosecutor's book is an especially bizarre addition to this canon. On January 18, 2023, the Manhattan District Attorney demanded that its former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, "pause" the scheduled February 7 publication date of his new book, "People v. Donald Trump: An Inside Account" so that the DA can review it to make sure pending investigations are not compromised by his disclosures. (The DA has not yet seen the manuscript.) What's going on? Well, Pomerantz's book focuses on something that didn't happen while he was in the DA's office: the indictment of former President Donald Trump, a non-event Pomerantz has described as a "grave injustice." But – less than a year after Pomerantz's angry resignation because of this alleged inaction – the DA says it is now actively pursuing just such a prosecution. The DA is concerned that Pomerantz's publication of a book setting forth the case against Donald Trump (and lamenting that it was never filed) at the same time as the DA is preparing to bring the case against Donald Trump could be harmful to the prosecution (and, one might add, would be very confusing). Put differently, assuming People v. Donald Trump is published on schedule,it would be the first prosecutorial "tell-all" in American history written about a criminal case before it was ever filed. If this sounds weird, it is. Pomerantz is a well-known former federal prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer. In February 2021, at the behest of then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Pomerantz joined the DA's office as one of the leaders of the team probing Donald Trump's financial dealings. In that role, Pomerantz formed the strong view that Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations" involving false financial statements and was said to be preparing to present the case to a grand jury in late 2021. However, in November 2021, with Vance retiring, Alvin Bragg was elected DA. In March 2022, Pomerantz noisily resigned from the DA's office because, as he described it, Bragg had decided to indefinitely suspend the pursuit of an indictment against the former President. In an open letter to Bragg, Pomerantz noted that Bragg had raised "issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of the case" and questioned "the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed." Pomerantz had tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Bragg that, although "no case is perfect," prosecutors believed Trump would be convicted before an impartial jury. Pomerantz declared that Bragg's decision not to prosecute Donald Trump immediately on the existing record "is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest" and "will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating," leaving Trump a free man when (in Pomerantz's view) he should not be. In the ensuing months, Pomerantz wrote a book to address this perceived injustice and secured Simon & Schuster as its publisher. According to the Amazon blurb about the new book, it tells the story of Pomerantz's "unprecedented investigation, why he believes Donald Trump should be prosecuted, and what we can learn about the nature of justice in America from this extraordinary case." The book is described as a "cautionary tale that illuminates the challenges of prosecuting Donald Trump, why Trump manages to dance between the raindrops of accountability" and how prosecutions in other jurisdictions might still bring him to justice. Simon & Schuster adds that the book explains why a justified indictment "never happened." It turns out that "never" might be a pretty short time. Notwithstanding Pomerantz's resignation, in 2022 Bragg's office continued to pursue a case against Allen Weisselberg, the long-time CFO of the Trump Organization, obtaining a guilty plea in August. The Office also obtained a conviction at trial in December of the Trump Organization for criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records. In the midst of this activity, on November 21, 2022, the press first reported that the DA had decided to "resuscitate" the Trump inquiry (The New York Post) and "breathe new life into an inquiry that seemed to have reached a dead end." (The New York Times). According to the Times, "the prosecutors had decided to return to the investigation's original focus under Pomerantz, i.e., the making and accounting for a 2016 "hush-money payment" to Stormy Daniels, a "porn star who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump." Whatever prompted this revival of a potential prosecution against Trump, subsequent media reports have indicated that Michael Cohen, President Trump's former lawyer, and others involved in the alleged scheme to pay Daniels to buy her silence have been meeting with attorneys in the DA's office as the investigation heats up. On January 18, 2023, the DA's general counsel wrote to Simon & Schuster that, "in light of the pre-publication descriptions of his book and the benefit of current knowledge of the matter," the DA "believes there is a meaningful risk that the publication will materially prejudice ongoing criminal investigations and related adjudicative proceedings." The letter continued by saying that Mr. Pomerantz had previously promised to obtain "prior written permission" from the DA before making any disclosure "relating to the 'existence, nature, or content' of any communications or records or documents that relate in any manner" to the investigation. The DA promised to take no more than 60 days for its review. According to the Wall Street Journal on January 18, 2023, Pomerantz and his publisher have declined the request to submit the manuscript and intend to publish on February 7, as scheduled. Pomerantz stated: "I am confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations." Neither Pomerantz nor his publisher has addressed the obvious disconnect between one of the premises for the book – the DA's failure to indict Trump – and the DA's current pursuit of such an indictment. One may infer that, by publishing, Pomerantz either does not believe the DA actually intends to proceed or that his book will not impair any future prosecution. How ironic it would be if publication of the People v. Donald Trump made it harder to obtain the very guilty verdict that Pomerantz so desires, or makes Pomerantz's predictions of "doom" from the delay a self-fulfilling prophecy. As to the legal issues, it is hard to assess the merits of the parties' positions at this juncture, especially without knowing the book's actual contents. The DA's Office has not asked a court to enjoin publication, and it would face a heavy burden to impose such a prior restraint on publication. See, e.g., Neb. Press Ass'n v Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976). For a government to impose a prior restraint on freedom of expression, it must generally show that such expression "will immediately and irreparably create public injury " Arcara v. Cloud Books, 68 N.Y.2d 553, 558 (N.Y. 1986). Nevertheless, this case has unique aspects. In most every other tell-all book by a prosecutor, the author talks about a prosecution where the evidence has already been presented in court and, at most, all that remains are appeals. The potential prejudice is much more direct when the book is published before trial. Here, to the extent that Pomerantz makes the case that Trump should have been indicted, he is doing so before his successors have presented that evidence, either to a grand jury or in open court. One can readily imagine a Trump defense lawyer seeking to exploit disclosures in the book such as Bragg's doubts about proceeding, or potential differences in the characterization of evidence between Pomerantz and his successors. Whether any of these factors is sufficient to establish immediate and irreparable "public injury" is open to question. There is also the possibility of a claim that the prosecutor has violated New York Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6, which forbids a lawyer who "has participated" in a criminal matter from making a public, extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know "will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter." The Rule provides that a statement is likely to be materially prejudicial if (among other things) it relates to the "character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party," or expresses "any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal matter that could result in incarceration." Of course, we don't yet know what is in the book so assessing the extent of potential prejudice is impossible. By the same token, Pomerantz is surely aware of his obligations as a former prosecutor and has concluded that he need not share the manuscript with the DA. He may well assert that the book appropriately relies on the mass of public information about the case against Trump or merely reflects his opinions on topics such as the societal consequences of the failure to indict before now. As he no doubt correctly stated in his resignation letter: "Many of the salient facts have been made public in proceedings brought by the Office of the Attorney General." Moreover, the "hush money" payment to Daniels was more than 6 years ago, and there have been numerous public disclosures about the underlying facts (including in Congressional inquiries and in the Southern District of New York prosecution of Michael Cohen), as well as in a number of prior books. As a result, it may be difficult for the DA to show what facts are really "new" in Pomerantz's manuscript. It is likely that the legal fall-out from publication will take a long time to resolve. Bragg's office reportedly copied both the Department of Investigation and the Conflicts of Interest Board on his letter to Pomerantz. To the extent there is any public disclosure of confidential information, that could also lead to a referral to an attorney disciplinary committee. Unsurprisingly, Trump is unhappy with the prospective book and, on January 23, his attorney warned Pomerantz and his publisher that he would sue for defamation and "use every possible legal resource to punish you and your publisher for the incredible financial harm that you have caused my clients to suffer." (Pomerantz's response: "If the former president should sue me, I will defend that litigation.") As to other future litigation, there is little precedent for an action for damages by the government for improper disclosure of information, though the CIA was able to get a judgment in 2012 seizing all revenues that a former CIA officer would receive from his unvetted and purportedly harmful book, "The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture." With all the moving parts here – the new book, the continuing DA investigation, the threatened defamation suit and the other potential fallout – this one will be worth watching.

1 0

Re: Morning Spam
by Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

On 1/10/23, Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many <gmkarl+brainwashingandfuckingupthehackerslaves(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Visitor: “ > > i was going to post more but i think it’s inferrable from what was > already said nd am confus3d some. i’m sure it will expand another way > with more coping. >

1 131

Sullivan & Cromwell’s Crypto Clients Are in Growing Distress
by Gunnar Larson 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/01/sullivan-cromwells-crypto-clients-ar… Screenshot of November 8, 2022 Message Sent by Former Sullivan & Cromwell Partner, Ryne Miller, to FTX Employees, Three Days Before FTX Filed Bankruptcy (Source: Sam Bankman-Fried Draft Testimony to House Financial Services Committee) By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 31, 2023 ~ Andrew (Andy) Dietderich, Law Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Andrew (Andy) Dietderich, Law Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Who Is Involved in the FTX Bankruptcy Case The 144-year old law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, which previously prided itself on being the go-to law firm for Wall Street, decided a few years back to get deep in the swamp with all things crypto. That dicey decision is now playing out in negative headlines that are dragging down the reputation of the 900-attorney law firm. Adding to questions swirling around its past legal representation of now indicted crypto kingpin, Sam Bankman-Fried, as well as his bankrupt crypto exchange, FTX, and his hedge fund, Alameda Research, is the fact that a growing number of Sullivan & Cromwell’s other crypto clients are also in various stages of distress. Notwithstanding that reality, the presiding judge in the FTX bankruptcy proceedings, John Dorsey, signed an order on January 20 naming Sullivan & Cromwell the lead counsel in the FTX bankruptcy case. But long before Judge Dorsey’s order was signed, Sullivan & Cromwell was billing large bucks to FTX, acknowledging in a bankruptcy court filing that over the prior 16 months it had collected legal fees and expenses of $8,564,487.50 from FTX and its affiliates, plus a $12 million retainer for FTX bankruptcy work. According to Bloomberg Law, Sullivan & Cromwell “has more than 150 people working on the FTX case, including 30 partners…” A court filing from Sullivan & Cromwell shows that its partners can charge as much as $2,165 per hour. The final tab in the bankruptcy case is expected to land in the “hundreds of millions of dollars” according to the Bloomberg Law article. Sullivan & Cromwell snagged this very lucrative bankruptcy work, according to a screen shot (see above) shared by Sam Bankman-Fried in the testimony he was prepared to present to the House Financial Services Committee on December 13, because it had a friendly former partner at FTX. (Bankman-Fried was arrested by federal prosecutors from the Justice Department and thus prevented from delivering his testimony in person, but Forbes obtained a copy of the document.) The inside man was Ryne Miller, who left Sullivan & Cromwell and went directly to FTX.US as General Counsel in August of 2021. Despite Miller’s eight years at Sullivan & Cromwell and more than three years working as legal counsel at a federal regulator, Miller somehow managed not to notice the following at FTX: there was no functioning Board of Directors; there was no accounting department; there was no functioning compliance department making sure that customer funds were not co-mingled with Sam Bankman-Fried’s personal piggy bank, his hedge fund, Alameda Research. This lack of corporate controls was described by the new FTX CEO, John Ray, at the December 13 hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. Despite these failures by Ryne Miller, John Ray reported in a declaration filed on January 17 with the FTX bankruptcy court that Miller is “still employed” by FTX.US, which is also part of the bankruptcy proceedings. As a direct result of this lack of corporate controls, Ray told the House panel that over $8 billion of customers funds are missing at FTX. At a bankruptcy court hearing on January 20, a former FTX in-house attorney, Daniel Friedberg, was prepared to testify as follows to the court, according to a sworn declaration he filed: “Mr. Miller informed me that it was very important for him personally to channel a lot of business to S&C as he wanted to return there as a partner after his stint at the Debtors. This bothered me very much and I told him that his job was to only hire the best outside counsel for the job, and that his allegiance was now to the Debtors and not S&C…” And this: “I told Mr. Miller that S&C was not the proper law firm to select [for the bankruptcy proceedings] because of the claims and conflicts, as well as the exorbitant costs of the firm. Mr. Miller told me that there was over $200 million cash in LedgerX and that he was going to send these funds to S&C, and that bankruptcy legal costs were therefore not a problem…” Friedberg appeared via Zoom on the day of the January 20 hearing. A lawyer, Marshal Hoda, who was representing two FTX customers who were challenging Sullivan & Cromwell being named lead counsel, asked Judge Dorsey to question Friedberg. Dorsey denied the request and then signed the order making Sullivan & Cromwell lead counsel. While Sullivan & Cromwell enjoys the potential for billing tens of millions of dollars in this bankruptcy case, this is a sampling of how its other crypto clients are performing. (The law firm filed a listing of its current and former crypto clients with the court so that potential conflicts could be explored by a correctly suspicious U.S. Trustee, who represents the U.S. Department of Justice in bankruptcy cases.) BlockFi: BlockFi, a crypto exchange, is Sullivan & Cromwell’s current client. It filed bankruptcy last November. It revealed that FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund, Alameda Research, owe it over $1 billion. Coinbase: This publicly-traded crypto exchange is Sullivan & Cromwell’s current client. It finished last year with a market value loss of 86 percent. Coinbase announced last June it was slashing 18 percent of its workforce. It announced a further 20 percent headcount reduction this month. Robinhood: This is a publicly-traded stock trading platform and Sullivan & Cromwell’s current client. Sullivan & Cromwell concedes in a bankruptcy court filing that it advised Bankman-Fried personally on a stock transaction involving his purchase of more than half a billion dollars of Robinhood stock. The monies to fund that transaction came from loans from his hedge fund, Alameda Research, which prosecutors say was looting the funds from FTX customer accounts. The Justice Department has seized those Robinhood shares. CNN reported yesterday that the Justice Department is alleging in its criminal case against Bankman-Fried that “he attempted to obscure his criminal misuse of FTX customer property,” by purchasing the Robinhood shares “through a foreign special purchase vehicle with no public connection to FTX or Alameda.” The lawyer and law firm that performed this work for Bankman-Fried has yet to be explored in Judge Dorsey’s court. Gemini is a current client of Sullivan & Cromwell. It has $900 million of customer funds frozen at another bankrupt crypto firm, Genesis. On January 12, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged both firms with selling unregistered securities. Kraken is another crypto exchange that is a current client of Sullivan & Cromwell. It settled charges in November with the U.S. Treasury Department for evading sanctions on Iran; then announced later in the month that it was laying off 30 percent of its workers. Sequoia Capital is a current client of Sullivan & Cromwell. It was also a large venture capital investor in FTX. It has now written down to zero its entire investment of $214 million in FTX. Silvergate Bank’s parent (publicly-traded Silvergate Capital) is listed as a former client of Sullivan & Cromwell. Just exactly when that relationship ended is not indicated. Silvergate Bank has managed to pull off a replay of the panic bank runs in the early days of the Great Depression. On January 5, Silvergate reported that its “total deposits from digital asset customers declined to $3.8 billion” as of December 31, 2022 (down from the previously reported $11.9 billion on September 30, 2022.) That’s a shocking 68 percent drop in deposits in one quarter – at a (wait for it) federally-insured bank backstopped by the U.S. taxpayer that also decided to get deep in the crypto swamp. Silvergate’s publicly-traded stock lost 88 percent of its market value last year. FTX was one of the crypto firms holding deposits at Silvergate. On December 6, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), and John Kennedy (R-LA) wrote to Silvergate demanding answers regarding the funds it had transferred from FTX customer accounts to Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund, Alameda Research. The Senators inquired as follows: “Your bank’s involvement in the transfer of FTX customer funds to Alameda reveals what appears to be an egregious failure of your bank’s responsibility to monitor for and report suspicious financial activity carried out by its clients. The public is owed a full accounting of the financial activities that may have led to the loss of billions in customer assets, and any role that Silvergate may have played in these losses.” Despite all of this, Judge John Dorsey stated in open court on January 20 that he couldn’t see any evidence that Sullivan & Cromwell had a conflict that would prevent it from serving as lead counsel in the FTX bankruptcy. (Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?)

1 0

[crazy][spam]
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

/ ! / / \

1 27

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