February 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

The perfect privacy blockchain has not yet been built
by professor rat 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

"How Nym fights surveillance and control with blockchain technology" - BeinCrypto (German) “There are already some blockchains that offer privacy features…But they can't do smart contract execution, so they purposefully have quite a limited feature set. I think that offering privacy features for smart contract execution, which Nym is just about to get on mainnet, is the next obvious step…We think it's going to change the way people think about privacy and blockchains. Looking to the future, there's a huge protocol design space for privacy features to do things like protecting transaction gossip, stop MEV extraction, and allow people to control their privacy levels. The perfect privacy blockchain has not yet been built.” FROM NYM newsletter - caveat emptor

1 0

Anarchism to the Max
by professor rat 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

WOLFIE "When I first read The Ego and Its Own, I recognized that there was a great deal of humor, sarcasm, and satire throughout the book. I never understood how anyone could call Stirner “humorless”—yet certain critics (particularly those who wanted to present him as a precursor of the political right or some other sort of “supreme evil” in their eyes) accused him of precisely this. After translating Stirner’s Critics and “The Philosophical Reactionaries,” I realized the extent of his mocking, sarcastic, and, at times, bawdy humor and the breadth of his wordplay. My play with these translations and talks with Jason McQuinn {1} clarified some of the flaws I had recognized in the existing English translation of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, and the pleasure I find in the activity of translating moved me to take up the project... you could do what Stirner did and see the humor in the ultimate absurdity, recognizing that this lack of universal meaning and purpose is what gives you and I the capacity to willfully create our lives for ourselves. Stirner willfully grasped his own self-creative power and took aim at all that was considered sacred with the intention of demolishing it. He knew the best weapon for demolishing the sacred is mocking laughter. Instead of being a wise man, Stirner chose to be a wise guy, and if you don’t get the joke, the jokes on you... Stirner’s ideas and words have quite a bit to offer, but even more, his method provides a most useful and enjoyable weapon: merciless and mirthful mockery, the sarcastic use of his opponents’ methods to twist their own ideas back against them, the cruel and joyful laughter of one who sees past the delusions that keep others in chains. Stirner combined the small jokes of wordplay, (mostly) subtle lewdness, and sarcasm with an overarching joke that undermined the edifices of philosophy, religion, politics and all systems of overarching thought to demolish the foundations of the sacred. But this is a battle that each one of us has to fight for her or himself. Stirner found enjoyment in writing this. His grin stretches across the pages and reminds all of us who rebel and create for ourselves that this is all one great, wild, joyful joke played on every “higher value,” a book intended to pull the rug out from under everything that anyone holds sacred. . . " LANDSREICHER Cheap plastic-toy imitation Nietzsche fellators GO FUCK YOURSELF

1 0

United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, 22 Cr. 673 (LAK)
by Gunnar Larson 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/January-30-2023-L… BY ECF Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, 22 Cr. 673 (LAK) Dear Judge Kaplan: The Government writes in reply to the defendant’s opposition to the Government’s motion to impose two new conditions of pretrial release, and its request to remove the existing condition prohibiting the defendant from accessing or transferring any FTX or Alameda assets or cryptocurrency. For the reasons below, and those in the Government’s motion filed on January 27, 2023 (see Dkt. 50), the Court should impose the Government’s proposed conditions of pretrial release and maintain the already-imposed conditions. 1. The Proposed No-Contact Condition Is Warranted The first proposed condition—that the defendant shall not contact or communicate with current or former employees of FTX or Alameda (other than immediate family members), except in the presence of counsel or as approved by the Government—is necessary to prevent witness tampering and obstruction of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(iv) & (v) (providing that a court may impose conditions of bail that restrict personal association and avoid contact with victims and potential witnesses). The defendant’s messages to Witness-1, attached as Exhibit 1, illustrate why such a condition is appropriate. The defense argues that these messages were merely an “innocuous attempt to offer assistance in FTX’s bankruptcy process,” similar to the defendant’s earlier outreach to John Ray, the CEO of the FTX Debtor entities. Dkt. 51 (“Def. Letter”) at 5; see also Ex. 2 (January 2, 2023 email from the defendant to John Ray). Putting aside that the defendant is trying to participate in FTX asset recovery despite being charged with crimes related to the misuse of FTX customer assets that precipitated FTX’s bankruptcy, the defendant’s messages to Witness- 1 cannot bear his interpretation The differences between the defendant’s contacts with Witness-1 and John Ray are instructive. First, Witness-1, unlike John Ray, is a witness to the charged crimes and not the steward of FTX’s bankruptcy. Second, the messages to Witness-1 are not of the same character as those to John Ray. In reaching out to John Ray, the defendant copied his attorneys and was explicit that he wanted to assist with asset recovery. The defendant’s messages to Witness-1 omit both Witness-1’s and the defendant’s attorneys and are comparatively oblique, making no mention of asset recovery, and referring instead to a “constructive relationship,” “us[ing] each other as resources,” and “vet[ting] things with each other.” Ex. 1. This goes beyond offering “assistance to FTX ‘as a resource.’” Def. Letter at 2. The defendant refers to “resources” plural; he not only offered himself as a resource, but also asked Witness-1 to be a resource for him in return. Asking a potential witness to be a resource to him, and to “vet things” with him—without any clarification of a supposedly benign intent—shows an effort to improperly influence Witness-1. Tellingly, the defense proffers no permissible or innocuous means by which Witness-1 could be a “resource” to the defendant. Although, as the defense points out, Witness-1 did not respond to the message, Witness-1’s attorney promptly alerted the Government to the defendant’s concerning overture. Regardless, a defendant can engage in improper witness contacts even without explicitly seeking to shape the witness’s testimony. Improper tampering with a witness can be achieved by both “direct and indirect means,” and whether an “overt threat or implied intimidation,” the “taint” of such “improper contacts . . . cannot easily be overcome.” United States v. Grisanti, No. 91 Cr. 299A, 1992 WL 265932, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. 1992). Because “[w]itness tampering by its very nature strikes at the fairness and perverts the integrity of the judicial process,” id., the bail statute expressly recognizes that a condition that prohibits “all contact with an alleged victim of the crime and with a potential witness who may testify concerning the offense,” is among the conditions that may be necessary to protect the safety of the community, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(v). Here, the defendant’s position of authority with respect to his former employees, combined with his recent outreach to a former employee about the case, raises a sufficient specter of witness tampering to justify the proposed condition. The defendant asserts that “many” of the former employees who would fall under the proposed bail condition are the defendant’s friends and an “important source of personal support.” Def. Letter at 6. While that may be true, it is also true that many of the defendant’s former employees are not only potential witnesses, but also his victims. The defendant perpetrated his scheme with the assistance of a few high-level executives, but many of his employees were in the dark until FTX’s collapse, and themselves lost money as a result of the defendant’s crimes. These employees had assets on FTX.com, including compensation the defendant had paid in the form of FTT, FTX.com’s cryptocurrency token that collapsed in value in November 2022 as the defendant’s misconduct was exposed. The defense notes that FTX and Alameda had approximately 350 employees. Def. Letter at 6. That merely highlights the Government’s informational disadvantage; while the Government has conducted dozens of interviews, it has not communicated with every former FTX and Alameda employee, let alone defined the complete universe of former employees with information relevant to the charged crimes. The defendant, on the other hand, can more readily identify for the Government or the Court the close friends whose support he considers critical to his mental health and wellbeing. See Def. Letter at 5. The Government does not seek to deprive the defendant of personal support—it acquiesced in the defendant’s request to live with his parents in California and has already indicated no objection to the defendant communicating with his therapist and several friends (and former employees) identified by the defense as continued close friends of the defendant. In an email on January 27, 2023, at 11:42 a.m., the Government thanked defense counsel for their “engagement” on the proposed bail condition, informed defense counsel of the conditions it intended to seek from the Court, and noted the Government’s view that it is “more administrable to approve proposed contacts than to give you a potential witness list, particularly because our investigation is ongoing and we continue to identify former/current employees with relevant information.” Notably, while the defendant’s proposed bail modification includes a category of witnesses whom the defendant would be prohibited from contacting, even in the presence of his attorneys, the Government seeks no such restriction. Under the Government’s proposal, the defendant would remain free to contact and communicate with potential witnesses, as long as his attorneys are present, thereby preserving his constitutional right to participate in and prepare his defense. The defendant’s claims that that the proposed condition would impinge upon his First Amendment right of association and ability to participate in his defense are therefore without merit. See Def. Letter at 5. As the cases relied upon by the defendant themselves makes clear, a district court may impose a bail condition that restricts a defendant’s right to associate upon a finding that such a condition is necessary. See United States v. Lillemoe, No. 15 Cr. 25, 2015 WL 9694385, at *2 (D. Conn. May 28, 2015); United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 603-04 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Indeed, Section 3142 specifically contemplates that judges may make such a finding. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(iv) (conditions of release may include “that condition that the person . . . abide by specified restrictions on personal associations”). The defendant makes no persuasive showing that the proposed condition would impede participation in his defense. If anything, the proposed condition ensures that to the extent the defendant participates directly in his own defense, he does so consistent with the rules that require contact through a represented person’s attorney and without improperly influencing or intimidating witnesses. The defense cites several cases that included a bail condition similar to that proposed by the defense. Notably, those cases too imposed restrictions on a defendant’s association with others. But to the extent that the defendant advances those cases to support his proposed restrictions as opposed to the Government’s, those cases are readily distinguishable. Ruiz, for example, involved charges against a drug courier, and the government needed to identify the “witnesses and alleged co-conspirators” to which the no-contact restriction applied because there was not an easily identifiable category of witnesses, such as employees, investors, or victims to use in the restriction. United States v. Ruiz, 21 Cr. 596 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2021). Similarly, Ospina involved charges against an individual who helped to move proceeds of an elder fraud scheme, and it was necessary for the government to identify “witnesses and victims” to which the no-contact restriction applied because the defendant did not know the identities of all the witnesses and victims. United States v. Ospina, 20 Cr. 102 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2020). Courts in this District have routinely imposed a condition like that proposed by the Government here in cases where the defendant perpetrated a fraud in a corporate setting and the defendant’s former employees, co-workers, or investors were among the potential witnesses or victims. See, e.g., United States v. Chastain, 22 Cr. 305 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2022).(“Defendant to have no contact with present or former employees of OpenSea except in presence of counsel”); United States v. Milton, 21 Cr. 478 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2021) (“Defendant is not to have contact with any investors except individuals the defendant has an independent relationship with”); United States v. Wynder, 20 Cr. 470 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) (“No contact with past or present employees, agents, board members of LEEBA or LEEBA funds, except in presence of counsel”); United States v. Petit and Taylor, 19 Cr. 850 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2019) (“absent the advance written approval of the Government, deft shall have no contact (direct or indirect) outside of the presence of counsel, with (a) current or former Mimedx employees (b) current or former employees/representatives of Mimedx distributors or auditors; (c) current or former Mimedx counsel; except for inadvertent/nonsubstantive social contact”); United States v. Cole, 19 Cr. 869 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2019) (defendant “to have no contact, direct or indirect, outside of the presence of counsel, with current or former employees of Iconix Brand Group, GBG, or BDO, except for defendant’s family members”); United States v. Wong, 18 Cr. 737 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2018) (“No Contact with Current or Former MCU Employees or Board Members”); United States v. Abghari, 14 Cr. 518 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2014) (defendant “shall have no contact with any current or former employees or representative of Vortex Financial Management, d/b/a Professional Legal Network, Attorneys Legal Network, Attorneys Alliance Union, Legal Exchange Group, and Professional Marketing Group; The Rory M. Alarcon Law Firm, d/b/a RMA Legal Network, National Legal Associates, and R.A. Legal Group and the Brian Butler Law Firm”). The proposed no-contact condition is similarly justified here. 2. The Proposed Prohibition on Using Encrypted and Ephemeral Messaging Is Warranted In opposing the Government’s second proposed condition—that the defendant not use any encrypted or ephemeral call or messaging application—the defense asks the Court to disregard evidence that the defendant used Slack and Signal, and their autodelete functions, to obstruct detection of his underlying crimes, claiming that this is “irrelevant to the bail analysis.” Def. Letter at 6. But this evidence is precisely why the Government’s concerns about the defendant’s continued use of Signal are not “unfounded,” as the defense insists. Def. Letter at 6. The Court is expressly directed when determining bail conditions to consider the “nature and circumstances of the offense charged,” 18 U.S.C. § 1342(g)(1), and here that includes the defendant’s deliberate destruction of inculpatory communications with his coconspirators using Signal and Slack’s autodelete function. While the specific messages to Witness-1 were not set to autodelete at the time they were sent, Signal allows either party to unilaterally delete existing messages. The defendant’s continued use of Signal to communicate with a former employee about the case, combined with his previous use of Signal to obstruct justice, warrants the proposed condition. Moreover, the proposed condition does not burden the defendant’s ability to communicate or to prepare his defense. The defense identifies no compelling need for the defendant to use encrypted and ephemeral messaging applications, as opposed to standard forms of communication, such as unencrypted text messages, emails, and phone calls.3. The Existing Prohibition on Accessing or Transferring any FTX or Alameda Assets Remains Warranted In asking the Court to remove the existing bail condition that prohibits the defendant from accessing or transferring any FTX or Alameda assets, the defense relies on a mistaken premise. Contrary to the defense’s assertion, this condition does not solely depend on whether the defendant is responsible for the access and transfer of Alameda funds that occurred shortly before the initial conference (a matter that the Government continues to investigate). Instead, that incident highlighted that despite the Government’s property seizures and the extensive assets already secured by the bankruptcy estate, there remain FTX and Alameda cryptocurrency assets that are vulnerable to exploitation and in need of protection from the defendant. Given the “nature and circumstances of the offense charged,” 18 U.S.C. § 1342(g)(1), the existing condition is justified because the defendant is charged with defrauding customers of FTX, investors in FTX, and Alameda’s lenders—meaning that the very assets that the defendant seeks to access are the potential proceeds of his crimes. The Government continues to identify and trace assets that are potentially forfeitable in this case but that remain at risk of diversion. Because FTX’s and Alameda’s remaining assets may include stolen customer funds, fraud proceeds, or assets that are otherwise recoverable by FTX’s creditors, there is no justifiable basis for the defendant to access these assets, and he identifies none. Moreover, although the Government has not identified the source of the hack that occurred shortly before the initial conference, the defendant’s misuse of FTX and Alameda assets during November 2022 independently justifies the bail condition. As FTX struggled to meet customer withdrawal requests in early November, Bankman-Fried approved halting customer withdrawals from the exchange. Shortly thereafter, however, he reopened withdrawals only for customers in the Bahamas. In an email to Ryan Pinder, Attorney General of the Bahamas on November 10, 2022, Bankman-Fried wrote in part, “We are deeply grateful for what The Bahamas has done for us, and deeply committed to it. We are also deeply sorry about this mess. As part of this: we have segregated funds for all Bahamian customers on FTX. And we would be more than happy to open up withdrawals for all Bahamian customers on FTX, so that they can, tomorrow, fully withdraw all of their assets, making them fully whole. It’s your call whether you want us to do this--but we are more than happy to and would consider it the very least of our duty to the country, and could open it up immediately if you reply saying you want us to. If we don’t hear back from you, we are going to go ahead and do it tomorrow.” Opening withdrawals exclusively for Bahamians resulted in millions of dollars being withdrawn from the exchange, while other customers of FTX had no ability to access withdrawals. In addition, and as noted at the initial conference, after FTX declared bankruptcy, the defendant worked with foreign regulators to transfer FTX assets to foreign regulators, when he knew that FTX’s lawyers were seeking to secure those very assets for the U.S. bankruptcy, and he told Gary Wang—FTX’s Chief Technology Officer who has pleaded guilty to a cooperation agreement with the Government—in substance and in part, that he wanted to stall with the U.S. bankruptcy in order to assist the foreign regulators, whom he thought would be more lenient with him and who might permit him to regain control of FTX.1 Finally, in December, the defendant moved to take control of approximately $500 million of Robinhood shares that were purchased using misappropriated FTX customer funds by a special purpose entity owned primarily by the defendant. The Government has since seized the shares after demonstrating probable cause to believe that they are the proceeds of wire fraud and are property involved in money laundering. Since the Government’s seizure, the defendant has claimed that he would direct the majority of these funds toward making customers whole, but the original circumstances of the purchase of these shares, through a foreign special purpose vehicle with no public connection to FTX or Alameda, further indicate the steps the defendant has taken to obscure his criminal misuse of FTX customer property. For these reasons, the defendant’s request to remove this bail condition should be denied. Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney by: /s/ Danielle R. Sassoon Nicolas Roos Danielle R. Sassoon Samuel Raymond Thane Rehn Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-1115

1 0

A Document Implicating Powerful People Is Blocked from Public Viewing in Sam Bankman-Fried Criminal Case
by Gunnar Larson 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/02/a-document-implicating-powerful-peop… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 1, 2023 ~ Sam Bankman-Fried Sam Bankman-Fried Five pages of a deeply sensitive document that is both embarrassing and potentially a legal threat to people in positions of power vanished yesterday from public viewing in the criminal case against former crypto-kingpin Sam Bankman-Fried. The document is a letter written by five federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The courthouse where the five pages vanished from view is where the case is being heard: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to personnel in the Press Office and Records Management Office of that District Court that we spoke to yesterday, all six pages of the document had been filed electronically on Monday, January 30, and all six pages of the document were able to be viewed in the court’s ECF system (Electronic Case Files) according to those personnel. ECF is the federal judiciary’s system that allows case documents, such as pleadings and motions, to be filed electronically. What’s available for viewing on the ECF system should also be available for attorneys, the press and the general public to view through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at a cost of ten cents per page. We’ve been using PACER for many years and our experience yesterday was a first. We learned of the situation as follows: On Monday evening, CNN reporter Kara Scannell quoted a portion of one paragraph from this document. We didn’t come across that CNN story until Tuesday morning. When we went to PACER to view and download the full document, only the first page of the six-page document appeared with text. The other five pages were completely blank except for the case number and page number at the top of page six. That is, the five blank pages were not redacted using thick black lines which is the customary technique for redacting court documents; they were simply blank with no text other than the header on page six. We checked the Court Docket to see if a redaction or sealing request had been made for this document. We could find none. After learning from the Press Office and Records Management Office that all six pages had been filed by the federal prosecutors, we were referred to the Courtroom Deputy for the Presiding Judge in the case, Lewis A. Kaplan. We left a voice mail explaining the problem, along with our email address and a request to receive the full document via email. We promptly received via email from the Courtroom Deputy a complete copy of the document and its two exhibits. You can view the six-page document and exhibits here. In a return email, we thanked the Courtroom Deputy for the document and asked that the problem be corrected so that all six pages could be accessed and viewed via PACER. As of this morning, the five pages are still blank on PACER. It was immediately obvious to us that multiple powerful persons might have had an interest in suppressing further press coverage of the material on those five pages. We’ve broken down the most sensitive areas into two parts below, along with essential background information. Information Embarrassing to, and/or a Legal Threat to, Big Law Firm Sullivan & Cromwell, Which Has Already Been Under a Barrage of Negative Publicity for Aggressively Pushing to Become Lead Counsel in the FTX Bankruptcy Case, Despite a Mountain of Conflicts of Interest: Page Six of the document carries this information: “…the defendant [Sam Bankman-Fried] moved to take control of approximately $500 million of Robinhood shares that were purchased using misappropriated FTX customer funds by a special purpose entity owned primarily by the defendant. The Government has since seized the shares after demonstrating probable cause to believe that they are the proceeds of wire fraud and are property involved in money laundering. Since the Government’s seizure, the defendant has claimed that he would direct the majority of these funds toward making customers whole, but the original circumstances of the purchase of these shares, through a foreign special purpose vehicle with no public connection to FTX or Alameda, further indicate the steps the defendant has taken to obscure his criminal misuse of FTX customer property.” (Italics added.) On January 17, Sullivan & Cromwell law partner, Andrew Dietderich, filed a document with the bankruptcy court acknowledging that the law firm had not only done extensive legal work for FTX but personally represented its CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, from April 14, 2022 through August 5, 2022. The disclosure noted that “This matter was arranged, and paid for, by Alameda.” That’s Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund which prosecutors have charged he used to loot FTX customer funds. The specific nature of the work Sullivan & Cromwell did for Bankman-Fried involved “a position that had been established in the stock of Robinhood Markets, Inc.” according to the Dietderich declaration. So the paragraph above, that has vanished from public viewing, adds the smoking gun that federal prosecutors believe that some lawyer or law firm created “a foreign special purpose vehicle” to hide more than half a billion dollars of looted funds. It also means that it is highly likely that federal prosecutors know who that lawyer or law firm is. This information comes at a delicate time for Sullivan & Cromwell. Next Monday, February 6, the U.S. Trustee in the FTX bankruptcy case, who represents the U.S. Department of Justice, is scheduled to present its case at a hearing as to why an independent examiner should be appointed so that Sullivan & Cromwell is not afforded the ability to investigate its own conduct in its previous legal dealings with FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried. Sullivan & Cromwell has aggressively opposed that intervention. The government’s newly disclosed position that the half billion dollars of Robinhood shares – on which Sullivan & Cromwell provided legal guidance to Sam Bankman-Fried – came from “the proceeds of wire fraud” and “money laundering” isn’t a good look for Sullivan & Cromwell. The Document Is Deeply Embarrassing and a Potential Legal Threat to the Government of the Bahamas: The third paragraph on page three of the document carries this revelation, backed by an explosive email from Bankman-Fried: “Moreover, although the Government has not identified the source of the hack that occurred shortly before the initial conference, the defendant’s misuse of FTX and Alameda assets during November 2022 independently justifies the bail condition. As FTX struggled to meet customer withdrawal requests in early November, Bankman-Fried approved halting customer withdrawals from the exchange. Shortly thereafter, however, he reopened withdrawals only for customers in the Bahamas. In an email to Ryan Pinder, Attorney General of the Bahamas on November 10, 2022, Bankman-Fried wrote in part, ‘We are deeply grateful for what The Bahamas has done for us, and deeply committed to it. We are also deeply sorry about this mess. As part of this: we have segregated funds for all Bahamian customers on FTX. And we would be more than happy to open up withdrawals for all Bahamian customers on FTX, so that they can, tomorrow, fully withdraw all of their assets, making them fully whole. It’s your call whether you want us to do this–but we are more than happy to and would consider it the very least of our duty to the country, and could open it up immediately if you reply saying you want us to. If we don’t hear back from you, we are going to go ahead and do it tomorrow.’ Opening withdrawals exclusively for Bahamians resulted in millions of dollars being withdrawn from the exchange, while other customers of FTX had no ability to access withdrawals.” This is not the first time that something less than transparent has occurred in FTX cases. In fact, a dark curtain has been drawn around much of what is going on in both the FTX bankruptcy case in Delaware and the criminal case in lower Manhattan. For starters, the media has been unable to obtain a list of customer names in the FTX bankruptcy case and had to hire a lawyer to get creditors’ names released. After the creditors names were finally released, and mega banks on Wall Street were included on the list of creditors, a clarifying statement was issued saying that not all of the names on the creditors’ list might actually be creditors. So, almost three months after the FTX bankruptcy petition was filed, the public has no clarity on who the creditors or customers are. In the criminal case against Sam Bankman-Fried, media outlets had to intervene to ask the court to reveal the names of two unnamed persons who guaranteed bonds of $500,000 and $200,000 to secure Bankman-Fried’s release on bail, in addition to his parents who put up their California home as collateral. Judge Kaplan ruled in favor of the media but has put his decision on hold pending an appeal. The criminal court case also suffered an embarrassment when the first judge assigned to the case, Judge Ronnie Abrams, had to later recuse herself because her husband, Greg Andres, is a law partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, which handled a deal involving crypto exchanges FTX and BlockFi, both of which are now in bankruptcy. See our report: Sam Bankman-Fried’s Criminal Trial Judge Is Married to Law Partner of Firm that Arranged the FTX-BlockFi Deal. The polling organization, Gallup, reported last September that American adults’ trust in the federal judicial branch had fallen from a high of 80 percent in 1999 to a new low of just 47 percent last year. If American democracy is to survive, our federal institutions must do a far better job at providing transparency to the public and policing conflicts of interest.

1 0

Re: [EXT]Re: Confirmation of Zoom Orientation
by Gunnar Larson 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

Ms. Knight: Ms. James and Ms. Harris know what is going on here. Again, obstruction of justice is a crime. Gunnar Larson On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 10:01 AM Denae Knight <DKnight(a)nadap.org> wrote: > Duly noted, thank you. Once again, I will be here when you are ready to > truly commit to this process and can keep your scheduled appointments. If > this was a job interview, you would not be able to continually reschedule > that either. > > > > > > *Denae Knight* > Career Services Coordinator > NADAP > 1825 Park Avenue, 5th Floor > New York, NY 10035 > T: (646) 809-4865 > F: (646) 791-4959 > DKnight(a)nadap.org > <https://www.facebook.com/NADAPInc> <https://twitter.com/NADAP_Inc> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/nadap> > <https://www.youtube.com/user/NADAP1971> > <https://www.pinterest.com/user_name_here> > <https://www.instagram.com/nadap_inc/>. > www.nadap.org > > > > Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains > privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail > is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in > error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your > system. > > *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2023 9:53 AM > *To:* Denae Knight <DKnight(a)nadap.org>; letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov; Harris, > Adrienne A (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> > *Cc:* cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> > *Subject:* Re: [EXT]Re: Confirmation of Zoom Orientation > > > > Obstruction of justice is a crime. > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, 9:08 AM Denae Knight <DKnight(a)nadap.org> wrote: > > No, we cannot keep pushing orientation back. If you are not able to make > orientation this week, I will need to remove you from our list. You can > reach back out when you are ready to move forward with the process without > rescheduling appointments. > > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > *Denae Knight* > Career Services Coordinator > NADAP > 1825 Park Avenue, 5th Floor > New York, NY 10035 > T: (646) 809-4865 > F: (646) 791-4959 > DKnight(a)nadap.org > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_NADAP…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_NADAP-5FIn…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_N…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_nada…> > . > www.nadap.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nadap.org&d=DwQFaQ&…> > > > > > Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains > privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail > is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in > error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your > system. > > *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2023 8:49 AM > *To:* Denae Knight <DKnight(a)nadap.org> > *Subject:* [EXT]Re: Confirmation of Zoom Orientation > > > > *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of NADAP's network. Please > use caution before clicking any links or attachments. Do not follow a link > that asks you to sign in with your credentials. > > Denae: > > > > Can I please schedule our conversation for next Monday at 2:00pm? > > > > Hope you have a great day. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Gunnar > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 12:21 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > > Denae: > > > > Would it be possible to schedule this meeting for tomorrow or Wednesday at > the same time? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Gunnar > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 10:24 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > > Denae: > > > > Thank you for the call today. > > > > My CV is attached. > > > > Have a great day. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Gunnar > > > > Gunnar Larson > > 646-454-9107 > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 10:21 AM Denae Knight <DKnight(a)nadap.org> wrote: > > Hi Gunner, > > > > As discussed, I have registered you for our zoom orientation which will > take place next Monday (1/30) at 2pm. You should have received a separate > email with the zoom link. Here is the zoom link if you have not received > the registration email: > > > > > https://us06web.zoom.us/w/84261393031?tk=Z3XDgLOJ-eEPyoBM4q4ZfqcLP1auPGGLjZ… > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__us06web.zoom.us_w_8426…> > > > > In the meantime, if you have an existing resume, please forward it along > with any diplomas/certifications. If you have any questions or concerns, > please don’t hesitate to reach out at the phone number below. You can also > text me at 516-995-1745. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > *Denae Knight* > Career Services Coordinator > NADAP > 1825 Park Avenue, 5th Floor > New York, NY 10035 > T: (646) 809-4865 > F: (646) 791-4959 > DKnight(a)nadap.org > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_NADAP…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_NADAP-5FIn…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_compa…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_N…> > [image: Image removed by sender.] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_nada…> > . > www.nadap.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nadap.org&d=DwQFaQ&…> > > > > > Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains > privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the > individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail > is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in > error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your > system. > >

1 0

Driving-while-black still a capital crime in the fascist USA
by professor rat 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

>> Fool Anarchists always raging in the street battling the Cops that the Puppetmasters among the State happily throw as cannon fodder against them from their endless supply of same. So long as the Anarchists continue falling for that trap, wasting their own limited resources on failed strategy, there will be no Peace, Love, and Voluntary An-archy. << No justice - no peace. Its cryptoanarchy not quantum gravity. > Clearly this is not a Black and White problem - Its a Black and Blue one. >> Disprove that both, and much more, are not all manufactured distraction, by State, Politician, Media, Masters, and Corp, to keep the Fool Anarchist distanced and busy. << I never assert conspiracy where stupidity will cover it. >> Wake up. << Get fucked. Only Anarchism believes in abolition of the Police, and this is the most hotly-disputed argument of Anarchism. Yet the police force as we know it is a comparatively modern phenomenon, fiercely resisted when introduced for reasons which have since been proved up to the hilt, such as the ability of the Police to introduce or bolster up a dictatorship, known indeed as a police state.

1 0

Freckle Punch
by professor rat 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

keet_io · Jan 31 🍐Keet Mobile Alpha is Now Live📱🦜 🚀👉Download Keet for iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/keet-by-holepunch/id6443880549 🚀👉Download Keet for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.keet.app Show this thread adam3us · Jan 31 🚀 decentralized future. IMO @keet_io end to end secure p2p voice, video, chat and large file sharing is the killer app to replace signal, zoom, dropbox and slack. Planning to switch over.

1 0

Driving-while-black still a capital crime in the fascist USA
by professor rat 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

All minority and female police in the US must be assumed to be fans of Adolph Hitler as we as staunchly militant blue-collar trade-unionists. Clearly this is not a Black and White problem - Its a Black and Blue one. And only anarchists will abolish the Police. Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system they wish to abolish Republicans would abolish the monarchy, Secularists would abolish or disestablish the Church, Socialists would (or used to) wish to abolish the apparatus of exploitation; pacifists would abolish the Army. Anarchism is unique in wishing to abolish all. Could be a good week for Big Igloo types in the US to ambush and murder minority cops - or any cops. They have my full tactical solidarity and support. Esp in Florida. You don't want to get frost-nip when killing pig-cops. Men and women of the worlds police work every day to fuck the public. You can fuck some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you are going to end up in a body bag or a pinebox before you manage to fuck all of the people all of the time.

2 1

Nexo Mulls Suing Bulgaria for $1 Billion, Says Co-Founder Antoni Trenchev
by Gunnar Larson 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

https://cryptopotato.com/nexo-mulls-suing-bulgaria-for-1-billion-says-co-fo… Nexo Mulls Suing Bulgaria for $1 Billion, Says Co-Founder Antoni Trenchev Antoni Trenchev – Co-Founder of the cryptocurrency lending platform Nexo – said the company could sue the Bulgarian government for more than $1 billion for raiding its offices and undermining its reputation. He also refuted the rumors that members of the entity run an organized criminal group, and commit money laundering and terrorist financing operations. ‘We Will Defend our Interests’ The clash between Nexo and the Bulgarian authorities escalated after Trenchev vowed to take the dispute to court: “Our consultants estimate the damages at over $1 billion. We were in the process of listing on the American stock exchange, and now it has to be postponed because of the reputational damage that was done to us.” – he explained. Antoni Trenchev Antoni Trenchev, Source: Dnes The executive claimed the actions of the Bulgarian prosecutors to raid the offices in the capital Sofia were “absurd, unnecessary, and a large part of them – illegal.” The Nexo scandal happened just a day before President Rumen Radev was about to give the third and final mandate to form an acting government. Some assumed Democratic Bulgaria (a center-right political party that pledged to cope with corruption and enforce several judiciary reforms) had the best chance of receiving the mandate. However, it was revealed that more than a dozen Nexo employees had previously made significant donations to the aforementioned party, which might have affected the President’s decision. He eventually gave the mandate to the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP). Trenchev agreed with the assumption that raiding Nexo’s offices precisely that day was an orchestrated PR move from the prosecution. He also admitted knowing the leader of Democratic Bulgaria – Hristo Ivanov: “I know Hristo Ivanov. I was part of public life in Bulgaria years ago. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. We are a handful of people in Bulgaria.” Nexo’s boss said people are free to make donations and sees nothing wrong with those that gave away funds to Democratic Bulgaria since they have publicly registered and reported everything to the Audit Office. Despite the confrontation, Trenchev assured that the crypto lender still has a solid base of five million customers and processes millions of transactions every day. Paying $45 Million to the US Apart from its issues in Bulgaria, Nexo recently agreed to pay $45 million in penalties to the US SEC and the NASAA over allegations that it offered crypto lending products without complying with the necessary regulations. Commenting was Gary Gensler – Chairman of the SEC: “We charged Nexo with failing to register its retail crypto lending product before offering it to the public, bypassing essential disclosure requirements designed to protect investors. Compliance with our time-tested public policies isn’t a choice. Where crypto companies do not comply, we will continue to follow the facts and the law to hold them accountable. In this case, among other actions, Nexo is ceasing its unregistered lending product as to all U.S. investors.” Nexo confirmed the fines, stating they are pleased to have engaged in a “constructive dialogue” with the watchdog and settled all the issues.

1 0

FOIL # 2022-090627 Appeal
by Gunnar Larson 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

Transmitted by Email to Mr. Gunnar Larson 406 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 g(a)xny.io Re: Freedom of Information Law request No. 2022-090627: Appeal dated November 2, 2022 of the Department of Financial Services’ November 1, 2022 response Dear Mr. Larson: By email dated November 2, 2022, you are appealing pursuant to New York State Public Officers Law Section 89, the Department of Financial Services’ (the “Department”) November 1, 2022 response (the “Determination”) to your Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request No. 2022- 090627 for copies of: “[M]emo requests records related to NY-DFS monitoring of $10,610,000,000 of pledge funds (detailed below) specific to financial inclusion. xNY.io would like to receive any and all records related to NY-DFS' monitoring of Goldman Sachs' potential money laundering and other abuses of Goldman project, One Million Black Women, with $10B in direct capital and $100M in charity investments: https://www.goldmansachs.com/our- commitments/sustainability/one-million-black-women/ xNY.io would like to receive any and all documents correlating NY-DFS monitoring of (or, confirming no correlation) the One Million Black Women fund related to any association to other Goldman student scholarship funds in Africa ... Furthermore, xNY.io would like to receive any and all documents, related to NY-DFS' regulatory scrutiny of interlocking directorates at the NAACP, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and PayPal with potential collusion in leveraging marketplace spoofing tactics (or, records confirming no spoofing tactics) concerning $810 million in pledge funds associated with the 2020 Mission Driven Banks whitepaper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rOXE7ierZcd8HlvNVy7hAYg7d86q_1dv/view?usp=… ring Attached and below, kindly find outline of the $850M pledged: Goldman Sachs Industry: Financial Services Pledge Amount: $250 million Use of Funds: Goldman Sachs has committed $250 million for small business lending. Goldman Sachs will not issue these loans directly since it is not an approved small business loan provider in the United States. Instead, it will provide the financing to CDFIs and other mission-driven lenders to make the loans. Wells Fargo Industry: Banking Pledge Amount: $50 million Use of Funds: Wells Fargo has pledged a $50 million investment in African American MDIs. See Press Release PayPal Industry: Financial Services Pledge Amount: $510 million Use of Funds: PayPal has pledged $500 million for a long-term economic opportunity fund to support African American and underrepresented minority businesses and communities. The initiative will include “bolstering the company’s relationships with community banks and credit unions serving underrepresented minority communities, as well as investing directly into African American and minority led startups and minority-focused investment funds.” PayPal deposited $50 million in Optus Bank, an African American MDI in Columbia, South Carolina. PayPal will use another $10 million for grants to African American-owned businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic or civil unrest surrounding protests. The very best, Gunnar Larson.” In your appeal, you state: “For example, One Million Black Women's board of directors states inclusion of policy and social leadership from Apple. Mr. Bogdan, xNY.io - Bank.org has filed another FOIL request concerning DFS' recent "Apple Card Report." The Apple Card Report and associated DFS investigation focused on financial inclusion metrics for women in New York State. Between the Apple Card Report and One Million Black Women being under DFS' umbrell of oversight, it would appear no records being publicly available would signal potential marketplace spoofing.Furthermore, DFS' "Student Protection Unit" licenses and supervises student loan servicers, monitors student-related financial practices in New York, and educates and advocates for student consumers and their families about available financial products and services.As a "Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar" and a "Blockchain Scholar" and a "Al Neuharth Freedom Forum Scholar" I am aware of a scholarship program funded from New York targeting students in Africa. Mr. Bogdan, from New York this fund advertises over $100M in scholarships for online degrees for students in Africa.” [Sic] The Determination informed you that Public Officers Law (“POL”) § 89(3) requires a FOIL request to reasonably describe the records sought meaning that the description of the documents sought must be sufficient to allow the agency to locateand identify the documents requested.1 To support its conclusion, the Determination explained that the New York State Committee on Open Government (the “Committee”), which is responsible for, inter alia, issuing advisory opinions regarding FOIL, has opined that “[w]hether a request reasonably describes the records sought . . . may be dependent upon the terms of a request, as well as the nature of an agency’s filing or record- keeping system.” Committee Opinion No.. FOIL-AO-16073 (July 17, 2006). Additionally, in the Committee’s Opinion No. FOIL-AO-11960 (February 17, 2000), it opined that a FOIL request that sought records ‘tending to support’ a particular statement, or ‘utilized’, ‘used’ or ‘relating to’ various activities of the Department of Environmental Conservation” was not a reasonably described request for records under POL Article 6. The Committee stated that a response to such a request “would involve making a series of judgments based on opinions, some of which would be subjective, mental impressions”, and require “ascertaining which records might ‘tend to support’ a statement [that] would involve an attempt to render a judgment regarding the use, utility, accuracy or value of records.” The Committee held that “for purposes of [FOIL], a request for such materials would not meet the standard of ‘reasonably describing’ the records sought, for such a request would not enable the [agency] to locate and identify the records in the manner envisioned by that statute.” The Determination also informed you that your FOIL request specifically failed to meet the “reasonably describe” requirement in POL § 89(3) because of the very broad nature of the records requested and your use of such expansive phrases such as “any and all,” and “relate to” when applied to excessively broad categories. I agree with the Determination’s conclusion that your FOIL request does not reasonably describe the records that you seek and your appeal also does not make your FOIL request any clearer. Therefore, I affirm the Determination. Nevertheless, I conducted a de novo search of the Department’s records and I found that the Department does not possess any records regarding the Goldman Sachs’s investment in the One Million Black Women project. Sincerely, Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel cc: NYS Committee on Open Government One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650 Albany, NY 12231 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomczak, Christine (DFS) <christine.tomczak(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 3:28 PM Subject: FOIL # 2022-090627 Appeal To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Dear Mr. Larson, See attached letter. Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel New York State Department of Financial Services 1 State Street, New York, New York 10004

1 0