December 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Assange's Case #FREEASSANGE
by zeynepaydogan 27 Feb '24

27 Feb '24

Julian Assange's Brother speaks to @democracynow "Its 11 years since Julian was arrested in England...The charges need to be dropped...He should be at home with his family" @GabrielShipton #FreeAssangeNOW https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469321995292758016?s=21 Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 17:47, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: > Julian Assange Fiancee @stellamoris1: "Julian has been detained in one form or another for 11 years... every time we have a hearing we hear more about the criminal nature of this case" #HumanRightsDay > > https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469317128977326093?s=21 > > Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 17:40, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: > >> Today is international human rights day. How cynical to have this decision on this day.' >> >> Stella Moris has urged people to 'fight for' her partner Julian Assange after describing the High Court's ruling as a 'grave miscarriage of justice.' >> >> https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1469268552448421895?s=21 >> >> Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 14:49, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: >> >>> Reminder: >>> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469254580374577155?s=21 >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail for iOS >>> >>> Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 14:16, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: >>> >>>> I can't believe Assange's case is up to these people's opinions >>>> >>>> https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1468577874630303751?s=21

6 64

Fwd: FOIL Request Confirmation from Open FOIL NY (Stacks (STX) Virtual Currency Custody Approval by New York State Department of Financial Services)
by Gunnar Larson 24 Feb '24

24 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <noreply(a)its.ny.gov> Date: Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 2:48 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_20230711144828136 *INFORMATION SUBMITTED:* *Records Requested From* Department of Financial Services *Short Title* Stacks (STX) Virtual Currency Custody Approval by New York State Department of Financial Services *Description* Dear Madam or Sir: On July 22, 2022 NY-DFS denied xNY.io - Bank.org records access STX custody in New York. NY-DFS' memo to our attention suggests STX records were held as secret given a current investigation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xfUJA26SBOn_RYIV-yo6QefIWy5HgKTH/view?usp=…. Today, xNY.io - Bank.org renews our records access request and/or all NY-DFS correspondence regarding approval of Stacks (STX) custody in New York State: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/virtual_currency_businesses/appro… ber”. Such records may include the approval letter sent by the Department regarding Blockstacks (STX), the virtual currency of Coinbase Custody Trust Company LLC (the “Requested Record”). Furthermore, we seek to learn if NY-DFS has a "confidential and shall not release" mandate relating to the STX and NYCCoin relationship similar to the Office of the Mayor of New York City. NY-DFS should be open to sharing STX records, as the City of Miami has here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view?usp=…. Warm regards, Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8053 *Uploaded Files* *FOIL Response Format* Personal Inspection *If fees apply, please contact me if costs will be greater than* $1000 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

1 4

FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread
by grarpamp 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/09/krebs-files-lawsuit-against-digenova-… https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AFtCgSn%2Dq5lrL8c&cid=477107F019583E7… http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/390640 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html https://newsmax.com/ https://www.twitter.com/newsmax Fired Pussy Christopher Krebs whines to the State to shutter FreeSpeech... " Fired CyberSec Head Krebs Files Lawsuit Against diGenova, The Trump Campaign, And Newsmax Authored by Jonathan Turley, Christopher Krebs, has filed a lawsuit against Trump attorney Joe diGenova over this controversial joke that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “shot” for his failures as the former head of U.S. cybersecurity. The lawsuit strikes me as meritless under governing tort doctrines. While Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest,’” many of us took the comment as an obvious use of exaggerated rhetoric. While I immediately condemned the language, I did not view it as a serious call for violence. Torts cases of defamation often turn common understanding of such expression as jokes or opinion. The lawsuit not only contradicts governing case law but threatens constitutional protections for free speech and the free press in seeking such tort relief. Joe diGenova gave an interview to Newsmax’s The Howie Carr Show and said that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out at dawn and shot.” It was a typical over-heated statement of “that guy should be shot” variety. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval method of execution. It was both literally and figuratively an example of overkill. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He stated “For anyone listening to the Howie Carr Show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic and made in jest. I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm. This was hyperbole during political discourse.” The lawsuit names diGenova as well as the Trump campaign and Newsmax. The lawsuit is filed by Charles Fax and Liesel Schopler of Rifkin Weiner Livingston Inc and Jim Walden, Jefferey Udell, Jacob Gardener, Rachel Brook, and Derek Borchardt of Walden Macht & Haran. It is not clear who the opposing defense counsel will be in the case. The lawsuit reads at points more like a political screed in defending the “patriot” Krebs against the “angry mob” fueled by Trump and diGenova who is described as a conspiracy theorist. Count I is a straight defamation claim (against all three defendants). Count II is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (against diGenova and the campaign). Count III is an aiding and abetting claim (against Newsmax). Count IV is a civil conspiracy claim. >From the outset, the complaint collides with controlling case law. Take Count II. The argument of Krebs would gut the first amendment and run counter to the clear precedent laid down in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column. I was therefore gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of the free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church. Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly subjective approach espoused by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent: Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous. Ironically, these lawyers are espousing the position of the lone dissenter: Justice Alito. The dissent gave little credence to concerns over the constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.” It is hard to see how any court could accept Count II and not do precisely what the Supreme Court barred in the use of this tort to limit political and religious speech. Count III and Count IV is equally troubling. It makes sweeping and vague claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracies without support. The comment was clearly part of over-heated rhetoric now common on both ends of the political spectrum. Such claims, if successful, would gut the first amendment. That leaves us with Count I on defamation. That claim is equally dubious from both constitutional and tort perspectives. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Again, the Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Krebs is a former public official and a current public figure under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” He would have to carry the burden of proving that the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for its truth. The problem is the the statement is clearly opinion given in the heat of a contested election. The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted: It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable. The comment here is clearly “rhetorical hyperbole” that is part of public debate over the 2020 election. Ironically, I have previously criticized President Trump for his calls (here and here and here and here) to change defamation laws to erode protections for the media and free speech. These lawyers and Krebs are doing precisely what Trump has called for. Notably, while I consider this lawsuit to be meritless, I do not believe that any of these lawyers should be charged with bar complaints. That has been the call of Democratic members and many liberal lawyers who want to see bar complaints filed against lawyers challenging the election. I also would not support a campaign like the one at the Lincoln Project (funded by many lawyers) to harass these lawyers or put pressure on their clients. The lawsuit in my view will fail and the legal system will protect free speech from such ill-considered and unsupportable legal claims. Here is the complaint: Krebs v. diGenova "

8 162

Re: Memo #3 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFZ2sFXx1cSYRcZTOGdPelZbVtuhpHuCKk011Uz… February 21, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #3 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1329926/download> Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OsxfjN3TUepftKklopkQDSMwFWstWozuku4IPPu…> and Memo #2 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10BYgCtCf9F7A4YnhN792cTBU6P-pfdaOg0UTRbt…> with our recent inquiry to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Deferred Agreement. Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery…> with the United States of America is in potential breach, with ethical enforcement being concerned. Memo #3 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFZ2sFXx1cSYRcZTOGdPelZbVtuhpHuCKk011Uz…> aims to associate malfeasance with Marketplace Manipulation. The 2021 Apple Card Investigation What would Steve Jobs say? xNY.io - Bank.org feels this is one part of a broader discussion we must have about equal credit access. Corruption occurs when the private search for economic advantage and personal advancement clashes with laws and norms that condemn such behavior. Further complicating the picture, some illegal corrupt transactions drain public resources away from education, health care, and effective infrastructure—the kinds of investments that can improve economic performance and raise living standards for all. The cost of corruption is greater than the sum of lost money. Distortions in spending priorities undermine the ability of the state to promote sustainable and inclusive growth. This is possible in a framework already characterized by weak law that creates both a certain alteration of the rules of the market and perverse dynamics distorting the economy and inhibiting free competition. - Goldman Sachs has a history of poor ethical stewardship, at the global level. Similarly, New York's former Governor Andrew Cuomo and NY-DFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell are now world famous for women's rights. - On March 23, 2021, Lacewell published NY-DFS' Findings on Apple Card and its Underwriter Goldman Sachs Bank. Former Superintendent of NY-DFS, Ms. Linda Lacewell's stone faced propaganda assured that Apple Card did not discriminate against women, while under Goldman Sachs management. - The red flags started to appear when an authorized user drew attention to the following: A person who relies on a spouse's access to credit, and only accesses those accounts as an authorized user, may incorrectly believe they have the same credit profile as the spouse. - xNY.io - Bank.org recently collated 61 highlights <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xH16OKyuXzB-MVqIznMWDE9w8RRdmZCw/view> to the Report on Apple Card Investigation from March 2021. Mr. Marzulli, the Apple Card investigation was to assess women's access to equitable finance. March 2021 also saw New York State Attorney General Letitia James' formal green light to launch an independent investigation <https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/second-woman-accuses-gov-andrew-cuomo-of-sexu…> into sexual harassment allegations Lodged against Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Lacewell's legacy is authoring reports disparaging women. The integrity of the Apple Card investigation must be rationally considered as flawed. Likewise, Goldman Sach has a history of unethical posturing on matters specific to women and girls (via global regulatory arbitrage structures). 1. Mr. Marzulli, Peter Oppenheimer is Apple's former CFO and in 2014 joined Goldman Sachs' board of directors and serves on key committees such as Audit (Chair), Governance, Risk. 2. There is no logical reason for Apple to trust the Apple Card Report and Apple’s former CFO is well aware of the legacy of Goldman's unethical antics and regulatory arbitrage frameworks that take advantage of the world's most vulnerable populations. 3. Mr Marzulli, at the very least, it is now clear that New York’s former Superintendent is famous for publishing reports that disperage women. Given the obvious logical factors at play, it may appear that elements of the Deferred Agreement may have been ignored in the facts, figures and assessment of impact on women and girls concerning the Apple Card Report under the former Superintendent. We seek DOJ guidance on the Apple Card Report as a marketplace manipulation instrument. Next, Memo #3, will explore our organization’s management analysis of marketplace manipulation partnering with MoneyGram and Ripple. United States and Africa Marketplace Manipulation Instruments xNY.io - Bank.org feels this is one part of a broader discussion of marketplace manipulation architectures operating from lower Manhattan that potentially function as a cross-border regulatory arbitrage banking operation in the United States and Africa. - MoneyGram, which has about 227,000 global money transfer agent locations in 191 countries and territories, was recapitalized in 2008 (same year as Bitcoin's whitepaper <https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-train…> ). - Walmart is the only MoneyGram agent, for both the Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products segments, that accounts for more than 10% of revenue. In 2020, Walmart accounted for 13% of total MoneyGram’s revenue and 16% in 2019 and 2018. - Goldman Sachs acquired an equity interest of 63 percent in MoneyGram for about $710 million. Per the 2008 agreement, MoneyGram also received $500 million in debt financing from Goldman Sachs (Cordeiro 2011) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10952410&pre=&suf=&sa=0>. - Goldman Sachs as a MoneyGram investor has a Participation Agreement with Walmart Inc. under which the Investor is obligated to pay Walmart certain percentages of any accumulated cash payments received by the Investor in excess of the Investor's original investment in the Company (MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL INC 2021) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10952491&pre=&suf=&sa=0>. - In 2016, Ripple received New York’s First NY-DFS BitLicense for an Institutional Use Case of Digital Assets (Larsen 2016) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10953308&pre=&suf=&sa=0>. Shortly after being NY-DFS accredited, Ripple announced it was teaming up with MoneyGram to test payments using Ripple’s xRP virtual currency. During this time, Ripple was making headlines as the xRP digital currency had surged — and fallen — dramatically (Browne 2018) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10953324&pre=&suf=&sa=0>. Soon after, Ripple announced a $50 million investment in MoneyGram snagging a 10% equity stake in the firm. Brad Garlinghouse, Ripple’s CEO, added that his firm would support MoneyGram’s “further expansion” into the European and Australian payment corridors (De 2019) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10953333&pre=&suf=&sa=0>. Connecting the dots, MoneyGram is now one of the most expensive transfer providers (Tierney 2019) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10953437&pre=&suf=&sa=0> on planet Earth. Customers incur fees for postal mail, telephone calls, electronic mail, and other computerized messaging services. - Computer crimes as a threat is no less a threat because it is contingent, because the speaker does not intend or is unable to carry it out when the threat was not directly communicated to the MoneyGram customer as a target, or because the language used might be considered cryptic or ambiguously not part of the current New York BitLicense mandate. - Ripple simply made MoneyGram’s business more efficient, thus accruing more profits for Goldman Sachs directed out of Manhattan. - From 2019 - 2020, MoneyGram received more than $40 million in market development fees from Ripple Labs in return for providing liquidity to its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) network. It can be calculated that 10%-15% of the proceeds came from Walmart customers, who are some of the most disenfranchised Americans financially. Over the last five years, through conscious organizational HR management, Goldman Sachs created layer upon layer of New York BitLicense-related disguises and cross-border systems under potential conspiracy and plausible deniability to computer crimes and marketplace manipulation. Goldman Sachs' various direct and/or indirect BitLicensee connections profit daily from virtual currency market manipulation computer crimes with cross-border reach, operating as a large syndicate group from lower Manhattan. New York banks have a long and profitable history of exploiting regulatory arbitrage. Similar to the MoneyGram instance, some evidence shows that Goldman Sachs also seems to have entered Africa. - What is astonishing is that Ripple is powering some of www.JUMO.World’s <http://www.jumo.world> bank customers (Ripple 2020) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10959408&pre=&suf=&sa=0>, in a troublesome manner similar to MoneyGram. - Given that several enforcement actions and lawsuits in the United States specifically targeted banks’ treatment of minority borrowers (Taibbi 2014 ) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10961062&pre=&suf=&sa=0>, it may not be surprising to learn of www.Jumo.World or “JUMO” (Buchak et al. 2017) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10956108&pre=&suf=&sa=0> - A domain extension, in this case “.World” domain, is the targeted subject area of a computer program. It is a term used in software engineering (Wikipedia 2021) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10968017&pre=&suf=&sa=0>: During the fourth quarter of 2018, JUMO successfully finalized a $65 million capital raise that was led by Goldman Sachs in New York. JUMO is a full technology software stack for building and running financial services, targeted at the world’s most disadvantaged populations. Today, JUMO operates across numerous African markets including Tanzania, Ghana, Zambia, Kenya, Uganda, and most recently in Pakistan, with plans to expand further across the sub-continent. 1. Since its launch in 2014, more than 15 million people have saved or borrowed on the JUMO platform, with over $1.6 billion in funds disbursed to customers. Nearly 70% of JUMO’s customers are micro and small business owners. 2. JUMO targets the unbanked population across several emerging and developing markets. A variety of JUMO’s partnerships with leading banks and mobile network operators creates a marketplace where consumers can access financial services and banks can access a new pool of mobile money customers (Vostok Emerging Finance Ltd 2020) <https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10955874&pre=&suf=&sa=0>. 3. Given the regulatory environment in Africa, it could be suggested that from New York, Goldman Sachs and Ripple’s organizational HR management structures once again aim to profit from some of the most vulnerable of the human population. Memo #1 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OsxfjN3TUepftKklopkQDSMwFWstWozuku4IPPu…>, Memo #2 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10BYgCtCf9F7A4YnhN792cTBU6P-pfdaOg0UTRbt…> and Memo #3 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFZ2sFXx1cSYRcZTOGdPelZbVtuhpHuCKk011Uz…> profile instances that correspond with potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement that are impacting our global enterprise. Finally, we have made 28 highlights to Deferred Agreement <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r-m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=…> as a reference resource tool. We are looking forward to learning more about the DOJ’s approach to assessing any potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement’s mandates. Respectfully yours with anticipation, Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> | Bank.org <http://bank.org>MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107

1 51

Re: MIA Coin and POX Kleptocracy: CORRUPTION FIN-2022-A001 - SAR 38(m).
by Gunnar Larson 18 Feb '24

18 Feb '24

Dear Department of the Treasury: On 04/20/2022 (below), we contacted your esteemed office with concern of potential MiamiCoin (MIA Coin) klepocracy. MIA Coin and NYCCoin were born product of Stacks (STX) powered by POX technology. Today, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks Treasury's assessment on digital asset market manipulation and likely klepocracy associated with MIA Coin, FTX Stadium, the Mayor of Miami and Miami Dade County that has impacted our global enterprise. 1) In March 2021, FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange, acquired the naming rights to the arena for $135 million. The NBA approved the deal in early April, and the arena was fully renamed to FTX Arena in June 2021: https://www.nba.com/heat/news/heat-partners-with-ftxus 2) In September 2021, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez was interviewed by Fox Business on MIA Coin and how it generated $5M for the City of Miami. Mayor Suarez suggested that MIA Coin translates to increased life quality: https://twitter.com/FrancisSuarez/status/1440090602213871617?s=20&t=Ue01mCO… 3) In January 2022, FTX announced trading of STX: https://help.ftx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360059081712-FTX-has-listed-AXS-HUM-… >From xNY.io - Bank.org's initial kelpocracy memo to Treasury, market forces show multiple fraud and market manipulation instances spanning FTX, STX and MIA Coin that have directly impacted our enterprise in New York. We kindly seek your esteemed appraisal of the matter. Warm regards, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson - xNY.io - Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 4:38 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Department of the Treasury: > > From the prompt of FinCEN's Resource Center, the details below are kindly > submitted to your esteemed attention. > > Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. > > Sending you the very best regards. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar Larson > -- > *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> - Bank.org <http://bank.org/>* > MSc > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - > Digital Currency > MBA > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship > and Innovation (ip) > > G(a)xNY.io > +1-646-454-9107 > New York, New York 10001 > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > Date: Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 1:17 PM > Subject: MIA Coin and POX Kleptocracy: CORRUPTION FIN-2022-A001 - SAR > 38(m). > To: <FRC(a)fincen.gov> > Cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> > > > Dear FinCEN: > > xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC thanks you for sending yesterday's advisory on > kleptocracy and foreign public corruption. We have made 30 highlights to > the FIN-2022-A001 > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yF3qDQG19J-qN1vUPC36lQfVClq3HPXB/view?usp=…> > advisory for reference. > > *The aim of today's memo is to learn FinCEN's insights into MIA Coin and > the consensus algorithm Proof of Transfer (POX). xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is > concerned about potential MIA Coin and City Coin kleptocracy that may be > affecting our global enterprise. * > > *FinCEN may note that NYCCoin is illegal in New York State, given the > BitLicense mandate. As such, we are not concerned with NYCCoin's legality > given the clear BitLicense mandate. * > > - On February 4, 2022 we submitted a City of Miami records request for > any and all correspondence between the City of Miami concerning CityCoins, > MIA Coin and Stacks (STX). Additionally, any and all related correspondence > concerning CityCoins, MIA Coin, Stacks (STX), Digital World Acquisition > Corp and Harvard Management Company. > - Today, April 15, 2022 > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OyVUBq8PcG7SVZ5lUp_oWyL0IDAR5uTP/view?usp=…> > we have yet to receive the 13, 092 records. Attached you will find our > latest correspondence with Miami, notifying them of our intention to > contact FinCEN concerning MIA Coin and POX. > - Conducting independent marketplace research, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC > established a premise to potential kleptocracy between the City of Miami > and City Coins, of Iceland <https://who.is/whois/citycoins.co> > international registration. Furthermore, MineMiamiCoin.com is registered > in Germany <https://who.is/whois/minemiamicoin.com>. > - Please find the City of Miami's resolution > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view?usp=…>approving > gifts from City Coins ... Furthermore, City Coins suggests a $25,000 > "reward" > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eb2Q-LZNApwQRyjbBcD5-_yEW0Id51QD/view?usp=…> > (that may be confused as bribery) for Mayors who participate. > > MIA Coin is powered by POX > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wL2kN6aMfsyT-T7g01YJSBB8meMn2SWg/view?usp=…>, > a computer protocol that may exploit the U.S. and international financial > systems to launder illicit gains, including through the use of shell > companies, offshore financial centers, and professional service providers > who enable the movement and laundering. > > MIA Coin' POX protocol is a wealth extraction tool that unfairly rewards > an inside group of miners, rewarding patronage networks that benefit his > inner circle and regime. These practices harm the competitive landscape of > financial markets and often have long-term corrosive effects on good > governance, democratic institutions, and human rights standards. > > FinCEN, we are concerned Miami's City Coin > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view> > resolution potentially confirms Miami leaders as kleptocrats, using their > position and influence to enrich themselves and their networks of corrupt > actors. > > Finally, we understand that MIA Coin and POX operations are powered by > international data warehouses, located in Iceland, Germany and Hong Kong. > For these reasons, given FinCEN's alert on kleptocracy and foreign public > corruption we kindly seek guidance. > > Sending you the very best regards. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar Larson > -- > *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> - Bank.org <http://Bank.org>, > PBC* > MSc > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> > - Digital Currency > MBA > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> > - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) > > G(a)xNY.io > +1-646-454-9107 > New York, New York 10001 > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network < > fincenupdates(a)public.govdelivery.com> > Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:46 PM > Subject: FinCEN Updates: FinCEN Issues Advisory on Kleptocracy and Foreign > Public Corruption > To: <g(a)xny.io> > > > *You are subscribed to FinCEN Updates. The information below is available > at Fincen.gov.* > > *FinCEN Issues Advisory on Kleptocracy and Foreign Public Corruption* > > The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued an advisory > on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption, urging financial institutions > to focus their efforts on detecting the proceeds of foreign public > corruption — a priority for the U.S. Government as it continues to > implement the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption > <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVy…>. > The advisory provides typologies and potential indicators of kleptocracy > and other forms of foreign public corruption, namely bribery, embezzlement, > extortion, and the misappropriation of public assets. > > *News Release:* > > > https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-advisory-kleptocrac… > <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVy…> > > *Advisory: * > > https://www.fincen.gov/resources/advisories/fincen-advisory-fin-2022-a001 > <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDIsInVy…> >

1 5

Potential Uptick in IP Finance and Investment on the Way - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 15 Feb '24

15 Feb '24

Check out a recent article and the mention of "metaverse and money": https://litigationfinancejournal.com/potential-uptick-in-ip-finance-and-inv… Law Business Research’s IAM-Media.com has published new guidance that the United States and European patent and intellectual property marketplace will soon experience increased activity. West U Capital is making headlines in the United States as a powerhouse with a patent and trademark pedigree hard to match. In other news, Europe will soon open its Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is rumored to represent over 24 of the 27 European Union member states. Over 40 countries are eligible to join the UPC, helping to solidify the notion that increased IP marketplace activity should be expected forward. IAM-Media.com has collated an outline of several <https://www.iam-media.com/article/ipbc-global-2022-chicago-day-three-report…> global patent and trademark marketplace events for litigation investors to consider. Specifically, trends point to an inflow of capital in patent, trademark and intellectual property portfolio building. Trends also suggest a growing disparity between United States and European risk as trends point to Europe’s UPC being a conduit for aggressive IP claims against US enterprises. As an added bonus, Litigation Finance Journal has included 33 highlights <https://www.iam-media.com/article/ipbc-global-2022-chicago-day-three-report…> to Citibank’s Metaverse and Money report that includes several IP and trademark issues expressed by leaders in the United States, Europe and Russia, that could become part of UPC portfolios.

1 2

United States: Russian State-Sponsored TV Network's Attempt To Dismiss Copyright Lawsuit On Fair Use Grounds Denied
by Gunnar Larson 15 Feb '24

15 Feb '24

In other news, related to Meta's (FB) logo being very similar to the Moscow Stock Exchange logo, something similar has been discussed in New York. I found this quote very interesting: - "Lastly, regarding the fourth factor, concerning the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, the Court noted that this factor "ask[s] not whether the second work would *damage* the market for the first (by, for example, devaluing it through parody or criticism), but whether it *usurps* the market for the first by offering a competing substitute." ---------- https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/copyright/1174834/russian-state-sponsor… TV-Novosti, a non-profit operating the Russian state-controlled RT(formerly Russia Today) television networks and 38 associated RT YouTube channels, has been sued for copyright infringement by Business Casual, an American media company that creates documentary content, based on its use of translated clips of Business Casual's documentaries in its own videos posted to YouTube. Business Casual creates short original historical documentaries which it posts to its YouTube channel. Its documentaries frequently feature photographs of historical figures, using a process called "parallax" which "transforms century-old low-resolution photographs into dramatically restored high-resolution photographs" and "turn[s] two-dimensional images into three-dimensional models . . . simulating a depth-of-field. This optical illusion provides Business Casual's videos with an immersive three-dimensional look and feel." The lawsuit relates to two of Business Casual's documentaries—"How Rockefeller Built His Trillion Dollar Oil Empire" and "J.P. Morgan Documentary: How One Man Financed America"—clips of which Business Casual alleges TV-Novosti incorporated into three separate videos on its "RT-Arabic" YouTube channel, including portions featuring parallax-enhanced images, altering the brightness and saturation of the copied content and replacing Business Casual's watermark with TV-Novosti's own in order to hide from YouTube's algorithms. TV-Novosti moved to dismiss the copyright claims, arguing that it's use of the clips is protected as fair use. However, after considering each of the four statutory factors, Judge Koeltl of the Southern District of New York denied TV-Novosti's motion, holding that while three of the four factors weighed against finding fair use, "[t]he fourth factor, which the Supreme Court has described as 'the single most important element of fair use,' cannot be determined without further factual development." Specifically, regarding the first factor, concerning the transformation of the use, Judge Koeltl found that while TV-Novosti's videos take portions of the plaintiff's videos, re-arrange them, and add new commentary to them, TV-Novosti had not made any meaningful changes to the visual clips themselves, and "[m]erely overlaying new audio does not effect a sufficient transformation . . . to find fair use as a matter of law." The Court further noted that TV-Novosti had "not changed the purpose of the parallax-enhanced images," i.e., to provide visual illustration for the overlain audio commentary, but had instead "simply lifted the copyrighted depictions . .. for the purpose of illustrating [TV-Novosti's] own video." In addition, the Court found that the fact that TV-Novosti could have sought to pay for the clips, but didn't, and tried to hide its use of the excerpts from YouTube's algorithms, also weighed against a finding a fair use under the first factor. Regarding the second factor, concerning the nature of the copyrighted work, the Court initially noted that factual material such as that at issue, "cuts less closely to the core of copyright." Nevertheless, the Court held that the fact that source material for Business Casual's videos was in the public domain weighed against finding fair use, because TV Novosti could have simply used public domain photos of the historical figures, rather than the modified clips, to create its videos. Regarding the third factor, concerning the amount of use in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, the Court noted that while only "small portions of the entire copyrighted works were used"—excerpts of 7 seconds, 1 minute and 28 seconds, and 8 minutes and 50 seconds in length—the portions were "not so trivial as to warrant dismissal under the de minimis doctrine." Lastly, regarding the fourth factor, concerning the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, the Court noted that this factor "ask[s] not whether the second work would *damage* the market for the first (by, for example, devaluing it through parody or criticism), but whether it *usurps* the market for the first by offering a competing substitute." With this framing, the Court thus found that while one the one hand, TV-Novosti's "videos are alternative ways of learning about the lives of J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller," on the other hand, they "have a broader focus and are in a different language, meaning that they cater to a different audience." These differences, the Court held, were significant enough to preclude the Court from "determining the effect of [TV-Novosti's] videos on the market for [Business Casual's] videos at this time." The Court's recognition of the weight of the fourth factor in determining fair use means that there may still be hope for TV-Novosti—time (and fact discovery) will tell. For now, the takeaway may very well be that parties seeking to raise a fair use defense should take care to emphasize any characteristics of their use that distinguish not just their work, but its target audience, including the scope of the work and the language (if any) which communicates it. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 15

An Open Letter to Bloomberg on Modern BitLicense Logic
by Gunnar Larson 07 Feb '24

07 Feb '24

Dear Bloomberg: Thank you for pioneering innovation spanning all facets of global finance. For the last 15 years, Bloomberg has served as a wise friend offering daily, quality inspiration. Interviewing Mayor Mike Bloomberg on occasion as a young journalist and advancing to become a global executive and regular Bloomberg Breakaway attendee has fostered a dream of learning from top global business idols. Forever inspired by Bloomberg’s pioneering contributions to the culture of New York and global financial innovation, today’s memo highlights our now eventful journey to fundamentally modernize New York's BitLicense and global regulatory logic. - Our global team <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3hI4G7QYR7PmlKlc7oQHhl4RnroLYF-/view?usp=…> is comprised of seasoned professionals who cumulatively represent decades of industry experience across various fields and disciplines. - Our strategic partnerships <https://news.bitcoin.com/ternio-joins-visas-fast-track-program-as-new-enabl…> with the world’s leading financial, healthcare services <http://mydr.co/> and mobile payments providers support the key aim of our endeavor: to attain the legitimate financial inclusion and economic prosperity of all the excluded, under-privileged and under-served, offering financial inclusion and global citizenry. Pioneering global virtual currency innovation is in part due to pedigree responsibility as a “Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar,” (UG) a “Blockchain Scholar” (GR) and a principle creator of “United Nations AudioVisual Library on International Law <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BweeaClFZ8c0dDNDWGFveVFTXzlOTjhXY2tKS2FZN2…>.” Humble scholars and UN esteem are indeed supportive. However, our working example of success is modeled on Bloomberg's business of international excellence, pioneering many of the world's greatest financial systems and technology frameworks out of New York. *The New York BitLicense vs. Global Regulatory Arbitrage* The 2015 BitLicense mandate was envisioned as synonymous with New York’s leadership of next-generation global innovation. New York’s contemporary virtual currency innovation rests with a modern BitLicense with cross-border logic (similar to New York human rights law <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a>). 1. Today many New York firms have various legacy regulatory arbitrage frameworks. 2. The utility concept behind virtual currency is in its cross-border appeal. 3. Modern European regulation shares this logic. New York’s BitLicense does not, therefore creating a virtual currency “Crypto Bank” regulatory arbitrage loophole between Europe and New York. New York banks’ traditional engagement of regulatory arbitrage has overflowed the BitLicense and correspondingly is responsible for global virtual currency marketplace manipulation. Circumnavigating this problem is key to modern BitLicense logic. Given the inherent universal cross-border nature of virtual currencies, there is no real good reason for New York firms under the BitLicense mandate to manipulate other global markets via regulatory arbitrage. Engaging the New York Department of Financial services’ new “Conditional BitLicense” framework as a vehicle, we have signed our clear intent to win the Superintendent's Conditional Approval and other necessary regulatory approvals of modern virtual currency logic. - BitLicense members today should not be surprised by New York wasting no time issuing modern logic and that virtual currency regulatory arbitrage is a lawless New York rights concern affecting <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a> over 1 billion people. - European regulation has allowed our team to build these concepts which are theoretically illegal in New York, thus creating global loopholes. - Africa is the most concerning “virtual currency regulatory arbitrage market” directed outside of New York and Europe jurisdictions. African consumers are being manipulated most. United States consumers also are affected at various levels. European consumers have a favorable environment, but do not have the “dynamism” New York affords. Working in New York, European and African jurisdictions as “Blockchain Scholars,” we tested the concept of our Modern BitLicense Logic at our “sister” University in Africa <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3hI4G7QYR7PmlKlc7oQHhl4RnroLYF-/view?usp=…>, and interestingly Goldman Sachs out of New York was a lead investor. The key observation is that New York banks “own,” or lead investment in, the European and African marketplace leaders. At every level, New York’s BitLicense is the most significant hurdle to the global virtual currency industry. Given our own experience in these markets, we have found that Goldman Sachs has fine tuned global virtual currency regulatory arbitrage. To be fair, we have reported on various other Silicon Valley firms leveraging the BitLicense, given that Valley firms like Robinhood <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> use New York banks, like Goldman Sachs, as a key actor. Note, as some of the industries top “real global scholars” we understand it would be a mistake to be adversarial to the current New York environment. Like Boomberg, we aim to be very impressive in terms of successfully shepherding/persuading meaningful New York innovation. *The Art of Diplomacy* Rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change is like a slide, and Modern BitLicense Logic is necessary. As a matter of New York law, there is no other option. The process of filing complaints or legal mediation is sub-par. Furthermore, if virtual currency firms want to game regulatory markets they honestly should forfeit the prestige of New York’s BitLicense. 2020 will go down in history as New York banks continued to profit heavily under regulatory arbitrage frameworks while virtual currency reached global proportions. New York’s newly announced “Conditional BitLicense” framework offered our group the perfect opportunity to earn a “Conditional License” and suggests advancing the BitLicense mandate with “modern logic.” - The interests ensured through interpretations of specific provisions in the existing national and supra-national legal framework (civil law, securities law, bankruptcy law, international human rights law) call for New York to clarify the rights of the public and obligations of BitLicense members engaged in the global virtual currency economy. - BitLicense regulation must preserve a technology-neutral, principle-based, non-discriminatory framework for the next generation of modern New York virtual currency public policy, naturally to support innovation within the limits imposed by overriding international public interests. As a proud New Yorker, the only option is to be a “real scholar,” and the job would not be complete without New York regulator approval and campaign for cross-border modernization of the BitLicense logic in any way possible. *Vast Undue Economic Hardship* Bloomberg has championed actions to promote an inclusive economy -- one in which people have the chance to move themselves and their families out of poverty, one in which systemic racism does not limit opportunities and one in which all people can fully participate. Without this inclusivity, the global economy will not be able to live up to its full potential and people will suffer. As we have reported <https://thecapital.io/article/new-yorks-raging-regulatory-arbitrage-racket-…>, virtual currency fraud is a serious problem for such a developed country as the United States, whose bank regulators have drawn attention to the increase of these crimes. Having discovered that an unregulated virtual currency sphere (such as in Africa, or other developing markets) is very popular among virtual currency fraudsters <https://www.americanbanker.com/news/jpmorgan-chase-warns-of-upcoming-fine-o…>, the New York State Department of Financial Services concluded that this kind of regulatory fraud was threatening US national security. Research on the social importance and credibility <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> of good institutional design from an organizational perspective seeks to prevent undue hardship requiring significant expense or difficulty (including a significant interference with the safe or efficient operation of international operations due to the seniority system of New York banks who are playing global markets). - Factors to be considered in determining whether an undue economic hardship exists shall include, but not be limited to, special requirements or conditions that are imposed upon an applicant or class of applicants in circumstances where similar requirements or conditions are not imposed upon other applicants. - Consumer protection is an umbrella term covering a group of laws and organizations that protect the rights of consumers and foster the free flow of accurate information in the marketplace. Consumer protection laws are designed to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or unfair practices, to protect individuals from scam artists, and to identity thieves and crooks. - A New York State resident or corporation is in violation if found to have contributed to an act committed outside New York State against a resident of this state or against a corporation organized under the laws of this state (or authorized to do business in this state) that would constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice if committed within New York State. - If the New York State has reason to believe that a non-resident person or foreign corporation has committed or is about to commit outside of this state an act which if committed within this state would constitute an unlawful practice, such act is in violation. Speaking generally, at least during its 2015-2020 implementation phase, the BitLicense has likely contributed to increased cross-border virtual currency market manipulation. Specifically, we reference our individual hardship example in New York, Europe and Africa with concern to Goldman Sachs’ cross-border manipulation as a violation of New York Human Rights law. *New York Human Rights Law* Our analysis of the factors that drive cross-border differences in the implementation of BitLicense reform link the resulting heterogeneity to cross-jurisdictional arbitrage. In this manner we identify New York in a “virtual currency regulatory crisis” – to the extent that the BitLicense is unevenly implemented – as a source of new and unchecked global financial risk. Given the nature of traditional regulatory arbitrage, it is key to differentiate the BitLicense and understand New York’s universal nature <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a> of Human Rights Law. - The science of pure virtual currency design and human rights are universal movements to end ins <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation>titutionalized <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation> discrimination and disenfranchisement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States>, and to offer quality consumer financial product access without cross-border regulatory segregation. - We trust that virtual currency regulatory arbitrage can be addressed via BitLicense modernization and that New York regulators share our logical provisional interpretation of cross-borders with respect to human rights. Our experience in Europe and Africa points to the necessity to work with New York regulators directly without BitLicense member interference. This approach is not to purposely irritate the esteemed Superintendent or rock the boat that is New York State and risk disrupting the system that guarantees our future. *Conditional BitLicense Approval* Modern BitLicense Logic’s opportunity is to meet a new global standard for virtual currency regulatory innovation while protecting market integrity by stringent standards applicable to all law-abiding business enterprises. In our case, a few approvals are necessary and are proposed via a hybrid model under the supervision of the Superintendent. Following this desire, we have navigated the five step process for Conditional review. 1. *Inform*: Applicants inform NYDFS of the intent to collaborate with a specific BitLicensee and provide a copy of the draft agreement between the applicant and the BitLicensee. 2. *Submit: *Applicants submit information on the expected type of business and the perceived risks, among other things. 3. *Review: *NYDFS begins its substantive review after all of the requested documentation has been submitted. 4. *Contract: *NYDFS and the applicant enter into a supervisory agreement defining the scope of the applicant’s business, shared responsibilities with its sponsor BitLicensee and NYDFS’ level of oversight. 5. *Approve:* If NYDFS approves the application, a Conditional BitLicense is issued. Every day of delay in ambiguity of Modern BitLicense Logic poses a problem for those who want to offer additional products and services at international scale while staying within the letter of the law. Currently, we believe that our Conditional application is ready to enter stage four and seek to begin negotiation of the supervisory agreement. Bloomberg as the prime example of global prestige and success fuels our desire to be best in class in providing global virtual currency financial services out of New York. Warm regards, *Gunnar Larson* Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar | Blockchain Scholar Conditional BitLicense Applicant (Global Team Lead) New York, New York 10001 -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

2 7

Re: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.)
by Gunnar Larson 07 Feb '24

07 Feb '24

Hello: Thank you for your Jul 16, 2023 response. xNY.io - Bank.org did not hear from you on November 29, 2023 as promised. Can xNY.io - Bank.org please receive the NYPD body cam footage for NYCCoin Touting by December 31, 2023? Warm regards, Gunnar Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Larson - xNY.io - Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 11:11 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Hello: > > Any updates on the body camera footage mentioned below? > > Gunnar > > Gunnar Larson > xNY.io - Bank.org > 917-580-8093 > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 7:10 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > >> Dear Madam or Sir: >> >> I am just confirming that the NYCCoin body camera footage is still on >> track for November 29, 2023 delivery. Can you confirm as such please? >> >> The matter was recorded late March 2023. And xNY.io - Bank.org must close >> our EOY-23 books. >> >> Any further delay of the body camera footage could be a challenge to N.Y. >> Executive Law, Article 15 >> Human Rights Law, § 296. Unlawful discriminatory practices: >> >> 14. ... whether or not accompanied by the >> person for whom the dog is being trained. >> >> 16. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless specifically >> required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency, bureau, >> corporation or association, including the state and any political >> subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about, whether in any form of >> application or >> otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the individual involved, any >> arrest or criminal accusation of such individual not then pending against >> that individual which was followed by a termination of that criminal action >> or proceeding in favor of such individual, as defined in subdivision two of >> section 160.50 of the criminal procedure law, or by an order adjourning >> the criminal action in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section >> 170.55, 170.56, 210.46, 210.47, or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, or >> by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of >> section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction for a >> violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the criminal procedure law >> or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to section 160.59 or 160.58 of >> the criminal procedure law, in connection with the licensing, housing, >> employment, including volunteer positions, or providing of credit or >> insurance to such individual; provided, further, that no person shall be >> required to divulge information pertaining to any arrest or criminal >> accusation of such individual not then pending against that individual >> which was followed by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding >> in favor of such individual, as defined in subdivision two of section >> 160.50 of the criminal procedure law, or by an order adjourning the >> criminal action in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55, >> 170.56, 210.46, 210.47, or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, or by a >> youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of section >> 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by >> a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the >> criminal procedure law, or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to >> section 160.58 or 160.59 of the criminal procedure law. An individual >> required or requested to provide information in violation of this >> subdivision >> may respond as if the arrest, criminal accusation, or disposition of such >> arrest or criminal accusation did not occur. The provisions of this >> subdivision shall not apply to the licensing activities of governmental >> bodies in relation to the regulation of guns, firearms and other deadly >> weapons or in relation to an application for employment as a police officer >> or peace officer as those terms are defined in subdivisions thirty-three >> and thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal >> procedure law; provided further that the provisions of this subdivision >> shall not apply to an application for employment or membership in any law >> enforcement agency with respect to any arrest or criminal accusation which >> was followed by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined >> in subdivision one of section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by >> a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the >> criminal procedure law, or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to >> section 160.58 or 160.59 of the criminal procedure law. For purposes of >> this subdivision, an action which has been adjourned in contemplation of >> dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55 or 170.56, 210.46, 210.47 or 215.10 >> of the criminal procedure law, shall not be >> considered a pending action, unless the order to adjourn in contemplation >> of dismissal is revoked and the case is restored to the calendar for >> further prosecution. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Gunnar >> >> Gunnar Larson >> xNY.io - Bank.org >> 917-580-8053 >> >> n, Jul 16, 2023, 11:03 AM IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> wrote: >> >>> Mr. Larson, >>> >>> The FOIL request you requested was acknowledged and a response will be on >>> or about Wednesday, November 29, 2023. They will follow-up with your >>> request. If the request is denied, and you would like to file a complaint, >>> we will assist you. Have a good day. >>> >>> >>> >>> *COMMAND CENTER, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This e-mail message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the >>> person and/or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL >>> or PRIVILEGED material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or >>> distribution is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws >>> including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the >>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >>> delete/destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended >>> recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, >>> please so advise the sender immediately. Please treat this and all other >>> communications from the New York City Police Department as LAW ENFORCEMENT >>> SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. NO REPORT OR SEGMENT THEREOF MAY BE >>> RELEASED TO ANY MEDIA SOURCES. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2023 10:56 AM >>> *To:* FDSHelpDesk(a)ethics.ny.gov <FDSHelpDesk(a)ethics.ny.gov>; >>> ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov <ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov>; IABCMDCNTR < >>> IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> >>> *Cc:* letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov>; >>> cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>; Harris, Adrienne A >>> (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> >>> *Subject:* Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER* >>> >>> *STOP WHEN UNSURE.* Never click on links or open attachments if sender >>> is unknown, and never provide user ID or password. *Suspicious?* >>> Please report to this email address: reportphishing(a)nypd.org >>> >>> Dear New York Ethics Team: >>> >>> I am concerned that the FOIL below is subject to obstruction of justice. >>> >>> The FOIL request is for access to NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin >>> Touting. >>> >>> Ethics Team, I am concerned that the Chief of your office is also the >>> Chief of the City Mayor's office. >>> >>> The body cam footage should have an agreeable time for delivery. I am >>> concerned that the Mayor is retaliating against NYCoin and the NYPD may be >>> aware of this. >>> >>> The video would or would not delineate any form of unnecessary force. >>> The NYPD may be aware of this. >>> >>> Obviously, xNY is very protective of digital asset innovation. Ethics is >>> a serious matter and the body cam footage would be helpful concerning >>> NYCCoin. >>> >>> Sincerely yours, >>> >>> Gunnar >>> >>> Gunnar Larson >>> xNY.io - Bank.org >>> 917-580-8053 >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: <donotreply(a)records.nyc.gov> >>> Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 12:25 PM >>> Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged >>> To: <g(a)xny.io> >>> >>> >>> The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has *acknowledged* your FOIL >>> request FOIL-2023-056-15960 >>> <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960>. >>> >>> You can expect a response on or about Wednesday, November 29, 2023. >>> Additional Information: >>> >>> Your request has been assigned to PAA Quagliano (646-610-5296) >>> >>> >>> Please visit FOIL-2023-056-15960 >>> <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960> to >>> view additional information and take any necessary action. >>> >>

1 5

Freedom of Speech: Islam Goes Apeshit over Charlie Hebdo Muhammad Cartoons Repub, Quran Eating, and Successful Critical Analysis
by grarpamp 05 Feb '24

05 Feb '24

7 166