January 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

how is the U.S. mailbomber jewnazi grarpamp @ gmail.com 'financed'?
by punk 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

where does the stolen money that pays for all the list's propaganda come from? "In all, at least a mind-boggling $21 trillion of Pentagon financial transactions between 1998 and 2015 could not be traced, documented, or explained" http://web.archive.org/web/20200116111930/https://www.thenation.com/article… So that's the answer eh. 21 Trillions of 'black budgets' in less than twenty years. I bet the current figure is some 40 trillions. But hey, the only jewnazi global empire and biggest threat to humanity...in human history...the jewnazi U.S., is no different than any other 'bad actor', like, I don't know, the governmnet of paraguay!

1 0

Are The New York Giants, The New York Jets, And MetLife Stadium Misleading Consumers About Their Connection To New York?
by Gunnar Larson 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Binance Holdings Ltd., the biggest cryptocurrency exchange, acknowledged past flaws in the management of its stablecoin’s reserves which at times led to more than $1 billion in missing collateral, according to one analysis. The token, Binance-peg BUSD, is meant have a constant $1 value backed by reserves of BUSD, another stablecoin that is branded by Binance but issued and managed by a separate company, Paxos Trust. Binance signaled that the “peg,” referring to the amount of BUSD locked as collateral to support its own token, had frayed in the past but is now intact. -------- https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/advertising-marketing--branding/1267766… This time of year, I spend a lot of my time working on Super Bowl-related advertising. So, it seems like a perfect time to blog about football. Is it misleading for the New York Giants and the New York Jets to have "New York" in their team names when they actually play in MetLife Stadium, which is located in East Rutherford, New Jersey? And is it misleading for MetLife Stadium to use a New York City skyline image in its logo? Those were some of the key issues in a recent false advertising lawsuit in federal court in New York (yes, actually in New York). The Giants have played in New Jersey since 1976 and the Jets have played there since 1984. Notwithstanding this, two consumers -- both New York City residents, by the way -- sued the NFL, the Giants and the Jets, and MetLife Stadium, alleging false advertising and other claims, on the grounds that that they didn't realize that the teams played across the river in New Jersey and that MetLife Stadium was, in fact, located in New Jersey. The plaintiffs also asserted additional false advertising claims related to statements that appeared on the stadium's website, including that it is "the number one stadium in the world," that it "hosts the World's Biggest Events, on the World's Biggest Stage," that it "sets the standard for venue excellence," that the stadium is under 20 minutes from New York City, and that the stadium is accessible to Penn Station. In order to state a claim for false advertising under New York law, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in deceptive or materially misleading acts or practices. It's not enough to allege that a statement "might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers." Rather, a plaintiff must allege that the acts or practices were "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." The defendants here moved to dismiss the false advertising claims, arguing (among other things) that the alleged misrepresentations were not misleading to reasonable consumers. And the magistrate judge, in a report and recommendation to the District Court, agreed. Here's why. First, the court held that "no reasonable football fan, 'acting reasonably under the circumstances,' would conclude from the names and logos of the Jets and the Giants that their stadium is within the five boroughs of New York City." The court explained that it is common for professional sports teams to name themselves after the city they call home, even while playing in the suburbs of that city (or even further away). The court gave, as examples, the Washington Redskins (who played in Maryland), the San Francisco 49ers (who played in Santa Clara), and the New York Giants themselves (who played in New Haven, Connecticut for two years). The court concluded, "As these and similar examples demonstrate, there is nothing misleading -- in the context of professional football -- about the long-standing names and logos of the Giants and the Jets." Second, the court also didn't think that the MetLife Stadium's logo -- which features a version of the New York City skyline -- was confusing. The court pointed to a number of examples on the stadium's website which indicated that the stadium was located in New Jersey. For example, the site indicated that there was "NJ Transit rail station" located in front of the stadium and there was a map link on the site which showed that the stadium was located just off the New Jersey turnpike. The court explained, "A reasonable consumer (even if she did not click through to Google Maps) would understand that New Jersey Transit goes to New Jersey, and that the New Jersey Turnpike is in New Jersey." Third, the court determined that statements that MetLife Stadium is "the number one stadium in the world" and that it "sets the standard for venue excellence" are non-actionable puffery, since they are each a "general claim of superiority over comparable products that is so vague that it can be understood as nothing more than a mere expression of opinion." The court also held -- without much explanation -- that the statements, "hosts the World's Biggest Events," "has the World's Biggest Stage," and "has topped the industry charts annually since opening," were also puffery (though I could imagine another court struggling over these specific claims a bit more). And, finally, the court also found that the claims that the stadium is "under 20 minutes from New York City" and that it is "accessible to Penn Station" were also not misleading. The court said that the website didn't promise a 20 minute travel time, but instead just estimated that travel would take under 20 minutes (which the court felt was apparently pretty close to the actual 30 minute travel time that the plaintiffs experienced). The court also wasn't troubled by the claim that the stadium is accessible to Penn Station, since all consumers needed to do was to change trains in Secaucus. Are there any important take-aways here -- or is this just an entertaining case? It's probably mostly just an entertaining case, but here are a few things to think about. One of the things that strikes me about how federal courts often approach false advertising class actions is that it seems that they often bring a fair degree of skepticism to them. Without saying so explicitly, they often seem to be asking the question whether the case deserves to be heard (or whether it's just a stupid case), regardless of the potential legal arguments that could be made about whether particular claims are misleading. Here, it seemed pretty clear that the court didn't really see much merit in the claims, and without a lot of reasoning, was pretty comfortable disposing of the plaintiffs' claims. For example, the court seems to say that the MetLife Stadium's logo isn't misleading because someone can review the stadium's website and figure out by clues on the site (such as that it's near a New Jersey Transit station) that the stadium is in New Jersey. Putting aside the question whether the logo is actually misleading -- or communicating any specific claims at all -- if it were actually communicating claims, there's really no basis in advertising law for suggesting that a false claim can be cured by hunting for clues about the meaning of the claim on the advertiser's website. As another example, the court dismisses out of hand the plaintiffs' claim that it is misleading for the stadium to advertise that it "hosts the World's Biggest Events," holding, without any real explanation, that the claim is puffery. Regardless of how I might come out on this question, having recently been at The Big House, I would at least have struggled a bit with the fact that MetLife Stadium isn't the world's biggest football stadium or even the biggest football stadium in the United States. Another thing that struck me about the decision was that it was focused more on whether the claims were misleading to reasonable consumers, rather than on whether the claims were materially misleading. This isn't unique to this decision. Often, it seems to me, when considering potentially problematic claims, regulators and others often fail to sufficiently consider whether a claim, even if misleading, simply isn't material to a consumer's purchasing decision. Looking again at the statement, "hosts the World's Biggest Events," for example, regardless of whether this may be a false claim, could it possibly be material to a consumer's choice to attend a Giants game whether the stadium holds 80,000 or 100,000 fans? Finally, one important take-away from the decision is that the court -- when evaluating whether the team names were misleading -- considered the claims in context. In other words, advertising claims shouldn't be judged in isolation, without regard to who the intended audience is and what that audience will understand the claims to communicate. Here, the court was persuaded that sports fans in the United States understand -- based on their own experience as sports fans here -- that the team's name doesn't necessarily tell you where the team actually plays its games. Ever since I was a little kid, I remember driving over the George Washington Bridge to get to Giants games -- and the court's decision here supports the idea that advertising claims must be interpreted in light of consumers' actual experiences and their real world understanding of those claims. Suero v. NFL, 2022 WL 17985657 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

1 0

Adrienne Harris Is Crypto’s Most Powerful Regulator
by Gunnar Larson 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Pam: Another great story from Wall Street on Parade today. Wondering if you saw the New York Magazine mention of Sullivan and Cromwell? Seems your story would have been 360 on the essence of conflicts? Gunnar https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/adrienne-harris-is-cryptos-most-pow… 'In 2008, Harris joined Sullivan & Cromwell, a law firm so close with Goldman Sachs that it has long sent its lawyers to work in-house at the investment bank. It was there that she worked for H. Rodgin “Rodge” Cohen, then the law firm’s chairman and the so-called trauma surgeon of Wall Street.'

1 0

Sullivan & Cromwell, FTX Lead Counsel in Bankruptcy, Says It Has No Adverse Relationships, Despite Representing Four of FTX’s Crypto Exchange Competitors
by Gunnar Larson 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/01/sullivan-cromwell-ftx-lead-counsel-i… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 10, 2023 ~ Andrew (Andy) Dietderich, Law Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Andrew (Andy) Dietderich, Law Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Sullivan & Cromwell ranks among the oldest law firms in America. It was founded 144 years ago by Algernon Sydney Sullivan and William Nelson Cromwell in Manhattan’s financial district. During the financial bust in the 1930s, Sullivan & Cromwell garnered its reputation for defending Wall Street firms against shareholder lawsuits and antitrust actions. As Wall Street On Parade previously detailed, the firm’s Senior Chairman, Rodge Cohen, paved the way for the Fed’s unprecedented $29 trillion bailout of Wall Street banks after their corrupt activities collapsed the U.S. economy in 2008. And, of course, there was S&C partner Jay Clayton, who was tapped by President Donald Trump to Chair the SEC – and, in our opinion, left markets mired in the worst corruption since 1929. Against that backdrop, one would think that S&C would be attempting to stay off the radar screen of federal regulators and prosecutors. Instead, it has steamrolled its way into Lead Law Firm for bankruptcy proceedings of one of the largest financial frauds in U.S. history according to federal prosecutors – the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto exchange, FTX. According to the new CEO of FTX, John Ray, $8 billion of customers’ money is missing. On December 21, FTX and its related bankrupt companies, filed a request with the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware to name Sullivan & Cromwell as the lead law firm for the bankruptcy proceedings. Included in that request was a Declaration from S&C law partner, Andrew (Andy) Dietderich. In that declaration, Dietderich stated that “S&C does not represent any person or entity having an interest adverse to the Debtors.” But in that same document, Sullivan & Cromwell provides a list of its current clients who have a relationship to FTX, as well as a list of former clients who had a relationship to FTX. Stunningly, included on the list of Sullivan & Cromwell’s current clients are four crypto exchanges that are major competitors to FTX. Those competitors are BlockFi, Coinbase, Gemini, and Kracken. Clearly, a major competitor would logically seem to have a built-in motive to see its competitor fail rather than be resuscitated in bankruptcy proceedings. Adding to the unseemliness of the situation, on December 7, Bloomberg News reported that the incoming CEO of Kraken, Dave Ripley, called FTX mastermind, Sam Bankman-Fried, a “fraudster,” while adding that “We have information to know that fraud was committed there.” Two days later, on December 9, the New York Post reported that Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong, was blasting the media for being too soft on Sam Bankman-Fried, stating that “I mean, this guy just committed a $10 billion fraud, and why is he getting treated with kid gloves?” (Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to an 8-count criminal indictment brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. His trial is scheduled for October.) In addition to representing two crypto exchange competitors whose CEOs are using the media to bash the former CEO of FTX, Sullivan & Cromwell’s crypto client, BlockFi, has filed a lawsuit arguing that approximately $440 million of shares in stock-trading platform, Robinhood, belong to it as collateral for loans it made to FTX. At the same time, the bankruptcy team for FTX is arguing that the Robinhood shares belong to a related FTX company, Alameda Research, which is also in bankruptcy, and it needs to hold onto the stock while investigating other disputed claims to the shares. (One of those disputed claims has emerged as coming from Sam Bankman-Fried, who says he needs the Robinhood stock to pay his legal defense team.) Adding to the Sullivan & Cromwell rabbit hole of conflicts, Sam Bankman-Fried was previously its client according to its recently filed document with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. Robinhood itself is listed as a current client to Sullivan & Cromwell. Adding to Sullivan & Cromwell’s tenuous claims to the bankruptcy court that it “is not aware of any conflict between its representation of the Debtors and its representations of its Current Clients or Former Clients that would cause S&C not to be a ‘disinterested person,’” are the large legal fees it had been collecting from FTX during a period when federal prosecutors say FTX was looting its customer accounts and Sam Bankman-Fried was using the money as his personal piggy bank. According to the S&C document filed with the bankruptcy court, prior to it filing the FTX bankruptcy petition, Sullivan & Cromwell collected a “retainer in the amount of $12 million” from the parent of FTX.US. Sullivan & Cromwell further notes in its filing that it received legal fees and expenses totaling $8,564,487.50 from FTX and its related companies from July 2021 to the Petition Date of November 11, 2022. Sullivan & Cromwell has asked the court to bill as follows going forward: “from $1,575 to $2,165 per hour for partners and special counsel, $810 to $1,475 per hour for associates and $425 to $595 per hour for legal assistants.” Adding further to the sinking ground on which Sullivan & Cromwell finds itself, a draft of the testimony that Sam Bankman-Fried was set to deliver before the House Financial Services Committee on December 13 (which never materialized because he was arrested on that date), claims that Sullivan & Cromwell used undue pressure tactics to get him to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Bankman-Fried writes: “Most of that pressure came from Ryne Miller, the General Counsel of FTX US and a former partner at Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), and Sullivan and Cromwell itself. 2) Sullivan & Cromwell was one of the primary external law firms that represented FTX US as well as FTX International at the time. a) I have 19 pages of screenshots of Sullivan & Cromwell, Mr. Miller, and others I believe were influenced by them, all sent over a two day period, pressuring me to quickly file for Chapter 11. They range from adamant to mentally unbalanced. They also called many of my friends, coworkers, and family members, pressuring them to pressure me to file, some of whom were emotionally damaged by the pressure. Some of them came to me, crying. b) It was only later that I was informed that it was very unusual for such a significant filing to be made so quickly. 3) Sullivan & Cromwell chose John Ray to run the Chapter 11 team.” John Ray is not just running the Chapter 11 team. Ray has been named as the new CEO of FTX. According to Bankman-Fried’s draft testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, “S&C chose John Ray as the new CEO of the Chapter 11 estate; John Ray then chose S&C to represent the Chapter 11 estate.” While Bankman-Fried has not particularly built up a reputation for truth-telling, the assertion that S&C picked the new CEO is supported by the fact that there was no proper corporate mechanism at the time to pick a new CEO. According to John Ray’s testimony to Congress, there was no functioning Board of Directors at FTX.

1 0

Re: Morning Spam
by Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

List Spammer: "I'm having trouble sending emails to this mailing list. I'd better send one off for practice." On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 8:20 AM Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Person wanders of MCBossCorp Headquarters. > > When they wander out, a bunch of mind controlled cultists, > experimentees, politicians, spies, ceos, homeless folk, etc etc, > wander after them so as to keep participating in the business with > them. > > Person Being Followed By Huge Mass Of Slaves Doing Boss's Shit: "Oh, > hello! How are you?"

3 156

Re: More on the RSA crack by new quantum approach paper
by professor rat 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

I don't enjoy becoming the boy who cried quantum wolf since I was a quantum-quackery debunker for years. However - the threat is now verifiable - the threat is real - and it consists of several looming factors, this present paper making up only a tiny part. In the interests of enlightened self-intertest please consider the following . . . 1) Quantum computing advances into the realms of theoretical attacks on RSA 2) Increased will to mobilize the resources by a ' pariah alliance ' that includes Russia, the DPRK and Iran. 3) Increased value of ' the Prize ' - this used to be ME oil - now its Satoshi's stash the public keys for which may be vulnerable. I don't think allowing the enemies of all decent humanity the chance to scoop up a trillion or so dollars is a risk worth running if we don't have to. With a huge effort we can avoid this. Its worth spending hundreds of billions on internet infrastructure anyway since that has huge spin-off benefits. Quantum PKI is expensive at the moment but economies of scale make most things like this more affordable with mass adoption. I'm not saying cypherpunks should be tactical statists either - I don't plan on letting up my primary goals of abolishing all religious and nation-state systems. This is still a second order issue as far as strategy is concerned. So long as anyone looks to c-punks for leadership we're obliged to perform at our highest standard - yes? Bottom line - quantum crypto is the gold standard and the more there is of it the more cryptoanarchy.

6 6

Cryptocurrency: Bitcoin Billionaires Dying Suspiciously
by grarpamp 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Crypto Billionaires' Subsequent Deaths Spark Wild Theories Among The Community https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-billionaires-subsequent-deaths-spark-… Many blamed the deaths on billionaires’ past, while others suspected some form of foul play and even execution... The death of four crypto billionaires within a month has caught the crypto community's attention. These deaths occurred under suspicious circumstances, and more importantly, some of these billionaires have raised alarms about being in danger. 4 crypto billionaires dead in the span of a month. Just before, and during the FTX collapse. Too strange 🤨 🚨 🔊sound ...🧐 pic.twitter.com/ubtpweiJcw — Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) January 9, 2023 The death spiral started towards the end of October when Nikolai Mushegian, the co-founder of MakerDAO, was found dead on a Puerto Rican beach just hours after tweeting that intelligence agencies were after him. The next billionaire to perish was broker Javier Biosca, who was found dead on Nov. 22, 2022, in Estepona. At the time, Biosca was being investigated for the biggest cryptocurrency fraud in Spain. On Nov. 23, 2022, Amber Group's co-founder Tiantian Kullander, was found dead mysteriously in his sleep. Just two days later, Russian crypto billionaire Vyacheslav Taran died in a helicopter crash. Apart from these four suspicious deaths, another death made headlines on Dec. 30 when Mr. Park Mo, the vice president of Vidente, the largest shareholder of South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb, was found dead mysteriously in front of his house in the early morning. The four deaths of crypto billionaires within a month’s time gave fuel to several conspiracy theories among the crypto community. One user associated the string of deaths with a mafia-style hit job and said that the “crypto world is taking a page from the mafia handbook.” Another user associated the death spiral with the “central banking hierarchy,” sarcastically saying, “I would definitely not put money on it being connected to the central banking hierarchy. There is no way. They are very trustworthy. 100% no chance.” Others questioned the source of the information but did acknowledge the fact that four deaths in less than a month call for some suspicion. While a few Redditors also pointed towards the possibility of faking deaths, where one user wrote, "I wonder how many of these are people faking their own deaths." Many Redditors also speculated that these billionaires might be living under fake names and they are using death to start a new inning in their life. The deaths of four crypto billionaires are for sure a cause of concern, but the crypto ecosystem is known for its fascination with conspiracy theories. A similar saga erupted in May 2020 when the CEO of defunct crypto exchange QuadrigaCX mysteriously died during a visit to India.

1 0

Say goodnight to Joshimath
by professor rat 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Joshimath: The horrors of life in India's sinking Himalayan town https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64201536 Reposts come back like a pet semetary

1 0

Cryptocurrency: CensorBanned - TomerStrolight via _log_scale_'s TheBitcoinSpot
by grarpamp 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Another random channel, killed by Google Youtube.

1 0

Cryptocurency: Fixes Theft Extortion Privacy and Efficiency
by grarpamp 10 Jan '23

10 Jan '23

Trump's Tax Returns Show Evil Of The Income Tax by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/january/09/trum… The final act of the Democrat majority on the House Ways and Means Committee was to make public several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns, which the Committee obtained after a prolonged legal battle. The tax returns confirmed that, despite being one of the richest people in America, Donald Trump paid very little in federal income tax. In fact, in at least one year he paid under a thousand dollars. Trump’s success in minimizing his tax liability without ever being audited is surprising only to those who think IRS audits are mainly used to catch rich “tax cheats.” According to data released by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Clearinghouse, in 2022 lower-income taxpayers were five and half times more likely than millionaires and billionaires to be audited! This is because low-income taxpayers cannot afford to hire top-notch tax attorneys and accountants to help fight the IRS, so they are more likely to give in to the agency’s demands. Despite claims of the Biden Administration and its Congressional allies, the $80 million in additional funds provided to the agency as a part of the misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” will likely increase the tax agency’s targeting of low- and middle-income Americans. Proponents of a flat tax or national sales tax argue that such a system would ensure millionaires and billionaires paid their “fair share” of taxes. Saying we must all pay our “fair share” of taxes assumes we have a moral obligation to the government that can only be fulfilled by turning over as much of our income as our so-called “public servants” demand. This is not the case. Individuals have a moral duty to support their families, and to support private charities if they wish. They do not have a moral duty to support the government. Tax reform proponents also complain that the current tax code contains too many loopholes that cause economic distortions and inefficiencies. It is true that the current tax system promotes inefficiency, but this is caused by the income tax itself, not the loopholes. Conversely, loopholes actually promote economic efficiency by giving taxpayers the ability to spend more of their money the way they prefer, rather than allowing politicians to spend it. As economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, “private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do.” Some have expressed concerns that the use of President Trump’s tax records as part of the Democrat and Deep State effort to discredit him sets a dangerous precedent that will lead to increased use of tax information as a political weapon. The sad fact is that ever since its creation, politicians have used the IRS as a tool for punishing political opponents. As an IRS agent told the head of conservative organization who was being audited after calling for the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton, “What do you expect when you target the President?” The major problem with the income tax, and the reason it must be eliminated, not merely “reformed,” is that it is rooted in the idea that the government has first claim on our income. This idea is incompatible with a free society. Furthermore, the income tax must also be repealed because the force of the IRS, along with the fraud of the Federal Reserve, is one of the two foundations of the welfare-warfare state that erodes our liberty and prosperity. The only way to avoid 1984 is to repeal 1913.

1 0