March 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Breaking News: Robinhood Rebrands as 'Libra'
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

*SILICON VALLEY - Embroiled in the naturally malevolent evolutionary controversy of brand fakery <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> in the name of manipulating humanity, Robinhood Markets (a financial services company) rocked the brand marketing world by finally coming to its senses while vindicating Mr. Hood’s legacy. The company has distanced itself from the old Robinhood firm image of “we take advantage of our customers” with a fresh rebrand as ‘Libra.’* *Celebrated humanitarian Richard Simmons applauded the name change. “Mr. Hood’s story of altruism is loved by young and old alike world-wide. Today Mr. Hood is vindicated from association to the former Robinhood’s tricky company shenanigans. The new ‘Libra’ image is a super smart act of serving our country well... I hope the all-stars at Bear Stearns will join me in congratulating the new ‘Libra’ brand,” Simmons said.* *The nature and timing of the brand change raised eyebrows in New York, a recent familiar reaction to news from our pal <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…>s from the Valley.Gleefully contemplating the long term impact on society, this reporter touts the courage of the real Mr. Hood for opposing forces similar to that of the former Robinhood.History will celebrate the newly minted Libra, which will be hailed for its valor in rebranding, even though it did so to escape the regulatory cloud that has hung over the Robinhood project since it first came into the public domain.(A Satirical Monograph on the News) *

1 2

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast <https://litigationfinancejournal.com/hong-kong-and-singapore-litigation-inv…> International arbitration has experienced an uptick in activity over the past decade, with litigation finance driving increased accessibility to quality arbitration outcomes. Hong Kong and Singapore have both passed regulations to authorize third party funding in each jurisdiction. New research sponsored <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, led by faculty of law professor Can Eken profiles Hong Kong and Singapore’s regulatory environment in granular detail. Eken compares and contrasts nuances between both markets, while asking what innovations Hong Kong and Singapore may embrace to further expand third party funding engagement across the international arbitration spectrum. Governments in Hong Kong and Singapore overwhelmingly embrace a ‘soft touch’ approach to litigation finance regulation. Forecasting the region’s growth prospects signal both Hong Kong and Singapore are in competition to be Asia’s arbitration capital, supported by friendly third party funding regulation. Eken suggests that with the high cost associated with international arbitration, viability is often framed by financial capacity. With such need, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as having pioneered international arbitration regulation, legalizing the use of third party funding agreements. As an added bonus, we have included 36 highlights <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> to Eken’s 23 page essay for your general reference. -- *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 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
by Gunnar Larson 09 Mar '24

09 Mar '24

Brody Larson makes 190 highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=… BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 177, Am. Compl. ¶ 9). On this general premise, Plaintiff brings a claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), predicated on the theft of trade secrets, obstruction of justice, and wire fraud (Count I). He additionally brings claims for: injurious falsehood (Count III); malicious prosecution (Count V); violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) (Count VII); theft of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) (Count VIII); and violations of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) (Count IX). The Amended Complaint also contains counts for various conspiracy charges and theories of agency and vicarious liability.

1 16

1984: Thread
by grarpamp 08 Mar '24

08 Mar '24

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-state-assembly-introduces-bill-manda… https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/A11179

8 384

USA 2024 Elections Thread
by grarpamp 08 Mar '24

08 Mar '24

The races have begun... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections And so has the censorship, deranking, selection, election fraud, violent protests, local and foreign influence and agents, big tech, fake news, lies, hypocrisy, expose', massively unfair moneyed interests, hacks, leaks, trolls, memes, biased coverage, doctored videos, etc... Take out long options on popcorn, if Trump runs it'll be in high demand. US Libertarian Party https://twitter.com/LPNational https://lp.org/ https://freetalklive.com/ https://lbry.tv/The-Ignorance-of-Voters-with-Keith-Knight:7083abfb8bf6cbf88… https://reason.com/video/2022/06/20/dave-smith-comedian-podcaster-president… https://lauraloomerforcongress.com/ https://aria4sheriff.com/ https://keenequeen.com/ https://twitter.com/Aria_DiMezzo "Did Ancaps and Voluntarists somehow not know that the HBO series "The Anarchists" would bring out countless AnComs across the Internet insisting that AnCaps aren't real anarchists? The fuck? Have you never been on Reddit?" "I just think Cheshire County Democrats shouldn't invoke trans issues if they're unwilling to let the trans person speak." Trump's top allies told Axios earlier this month he plans a "purge" of the deep state http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63229 Fox News 'Banning' Trump From Network, Aggressively Shilling DeSantis http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63248 https://twitter.com/alexbruesewitz/status/1553844592142946304 https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fox-news-donald-trump-republican-leader/2… https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/business/media/fox-news-donald-trump-rup… https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-owner-rupert-murdoch-predicts-a-land… https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1546812895802974208 http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63140 https://twitter.com/infolibnews https://www.facebook.com/informationliberation/ https://gab.com/InfoLib https://www.minds.com/InfoLib https://t.me/informationliberation Chris Menahan InformationLiberation Jul. 31, 2022 Fox News hasn't had former President Donald Trump on their network in over 100 days and have begun aggressively shilling for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to replace him. >From Newsmax, "Fox News Banning Trump From Network": The New York Times reported Friday that Fox News has not had Donald Trump on its network in over 100 days, which the paper said was part of a larger strategy to eliminate the former president as a major GOP player. Trump's last appearance on Fox News came April 13 on "Hannity." But, The Times noted, even Trump has complained his longtime friend "doesn't seem to be paying him much attention anymore." The paper said Trump believes Fox's strategy of shunning him is an effort in "effectively displacing him" from the news cycle and as de facto leader of the Republican Party. The decision to shun Trump has been made at "the highest levels" of Fox's parent company, and is backed by its billionaire chairman, Rupert Murdoch, and his son, company CEO Lachlan Murdoch. They're probably the same ones who made the decision to run a Fox News segment for "Pride Month" endorsing trangenderism and child sex changes. Both are Republicans, but are said to have to developed a strong distaste for Trump. Earlier this month, the Murdoch-owned newspapers the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal published harsh rebukes of Trump's actions regarding Jan. 6 while strongly opposing a Trump bid for president in 2024. The Times said Trump's failure to accept the 2020 election result was at the root of the Murdochs' criticism of the former president, a view shared by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. As Newsmax noted, two weeks ago FoxNews.com ran a three minute propaganda video posing as man-on-the-street interviews "with Trump 'supporters' who did not want him to run again and 'unanimously' backed DeSantis for 2024." If you listen carefully to the Trump "supporter" at the 1:13 mark, you can hear they spliced in him saying "I don't think it would be best for our country for him to run for reelection" at the 1:18 mark. They cut away from his face and ran B-roll footage to hide the edit. The audio levels are different and those comments were said closer to the mic, perhaps in post production or after the initial interview took place. Poll of Republican primary voters. DeSantis beats Trump among those with college degrees, 32-28. But Trump wins non-college, 58-21. This is why pundits fail to see Trump�s strength. https://t.co/UZRxjiACvk https://t.co/5pOweV5fxM pic.twitter.com/rzmhzea6HS � Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) July 12, 2022 Fox News opposed Trump in 2016 when it mattered and right before the 2020 election the Daily Beast reported that Rupert Murdoch was predicting Trump will lose "in a landslide." The Daily Beast credited "three people who have spoke with Murdoch" for the scoop but I suspect Murdoch just gave them the story himself. Trump's top allies told Axios earlier this month he plans a "purge" of the deep state if reelected and will right the wrongs he made during his first term in office. �Let�s go Brandon� chant breaks out at #LIVGolf as President Trump, @DonaldJTrumpJr, @TuckerCarlson, @kimguilfoyle, @RepMTG, and @EricTrump stepped outside together. MAGA! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/68MF0DgSPm � Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) July 31, 2022

3 558

Wokeism is Doomed
by grarpamp 06 Mar '24

06 Mar '24

Why Wokeness Is Doomed https://bombthrower.com/why-wokeness-is-doomed/ https://bombthrower.com/deconstructing-wokethink/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-01-20/onset-catabolic-collapse/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisdorsey/2021/03/17/americas-mass-migration… https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2021/7/helping%20people%20be%20seen,%20he… Four Megatrends of Reality Have Become Impossible To Ignore What we call “Wokeism” today has its roots in so-called “political correctness” which goes back decades. It began to accelerate in the early years of the 21st century, and while it was always driven by left-wing, liberal, impulses, who seemed to have the upper hand in culture and media; they still always feigned powerlessness and victimhood. Even in 2012, at possibly the apogee of the Liberal World Order, Paul Krugman wrote, with no sense of irony, “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.“ This victimhood-as-bedrock continues to this day, especially since 2016 when the unthinkable happened. Brexit and Trump (basically, a backlash of populism) precipitated a full fledged psychotic break in the progressive zeitgeist, which until that moment was consolidating its hegemony. Political correctness metastasized into terminal Wokeness, where all aspects of discourse, popular culture and even public policy became delineated into whether it meshed well with left-wing sanctimony, or not. “Wokeness” takes the otherwise noble aspirations of egalitarianism and stewardship and twists them into a dogma that provides a Trojan Horse for despotism. The high priests of this mindset assert total moral authority and claim an elevated consciousness over the infantile, sub-human masses. Especially if those masses live in fly-over country, hold blue-collar jobs or are otherwise un-credentialed and without pedigree. This ideology (a word invented by rudderless Jacobins who went to work for Napoleon, helping him consolidate absolute power), translated well into modern times. The “science of ideas” provides the camouflage of choice for the totalitarian impulses of an elite class – increasingly destined for secular, sclerotic decline under the weight of its own corruption, internal contradictions and excess. For years we (the contrarian, non-compliant “we”, the “racist”, “fringe” we) have been sounding the alarm that the pillars of “Wokethink”, such as “all or nothing”, emotional thinking, catastrophizing and seven other markers, were highly congruent with mental illness. Worse, they are detrimental and destructive to society on a fundamental level. Where many fear a coming, Davos-inspired technocracy of owning nothing, eating bugs and living in the pod, I think the COVID pandemic created an irreversible phase-shift. Where before we were headed for a totalitarian dystopia that would ultimately fail, but probably last for large swaths of our lifetimes, COVID (more accurately, the overbearing policy response) created an inflection point in history. Several decades of creeping authoritarianism was compressed into eighteen months, and that was Too Much, Too Soon, for everyone. Serious question. My contention is that The Lockdown Era was the crescendo of Peak Wokeness. Under the guise of a not-so-cataclysmic pandemic, the moralizing and sermonizing reached fever pitch. Wokeness itself degenerated into Mass Formation Psychosis on a global scale. Only recently, in this year, has The True Cost of Wokeness begun to make itself apparent: In Germany, where they shut down their nuclear reactors on misguided environmental concerns, the citizenry there is now looking at chopping down trees and burning the wood to remain warm this winter. Residents are being told to take shorter showers. Large commercial landlords are setting limits on thermostats and rationing hot water. They’re restarting their coal plants. Sri Lanka, which embarked on a WEF-inspired campaign of “sustainable” farming and stakeholder capitalism, collapsed into anarchy as rioters stormed the presidential palace and drove the government there into exile. Liberal run cities and states across the US are facing mass exoduses of citizens, capital and tax revenue as their socially motivated policies like “defund the police” cause them to descend into chaos and criminality. Political leaders everywhere look more out-of-touch than ever as they try to run economies and respond to geo-political events with unhinged platitudes. The list is endless, growing, and we are just into the early innings. The Four Megatrends Exposing True Cost of Wokeness Wokeness as an ideology will fail, it’s just a matter of how much damage will it do to the rest of us before it collapses under its own internal contradictions and failures. #1 Wokeness is Inherently Unprofitable The expression “Get Woke, go broke” is more than sardonic wit. It’s a powerful meme that captures the essence of wokenomics’ never-ending failures. Whether it’s so-called “green energy” sources that have larger carbon footprints than their hydrocarbon or nuclear counter-parts, or Hollywood perpetually losing their shirt on “woke” reboots, politically correct sitcoms or short-lived streaming channels, Wokeness is economically unviable across the board. 95% coal, actually. Love this clip. "The elEctrIcitY cOmeS fRoM iNsIde tHe bUIldiNg!" https://t.co/hP2dgHn32e — Mark Jeftovic, The C̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) June 8, 2022 Without government subsidies there wouldn’t be a profitable “woke” company anywhere and with governments increasingly teetering on the edge of insolvency, the money spigot for the platitude industry may be drying up fast. #2 Conspicuous Hypocrisy of The High Priests of Wokeness People are getting sick of being told they’re going to own nothing, eat bugs and live in a pod in order to save the climate by people who are flying around in private jets, lounging on super-yachts and dining on grass fed beef. Here’s UN Climate Change ambassador Leonardo DiCaprio aboard a 315ft, £110 million superyacht, complete with a helipad and six decks that spew out as much as your average car does in a year by sailing as little as 7 miles. Remember that as you watch his climate catastrophe movie. pic.twitter.com/jfSp95xXZa — Darren Grimes (@darrengrimes_) January 10, 2022 It goes beyond self-important celebrities or messianic politicians who flagrantly live a “my rules are for other people” lifestyle. The double-standard is so palpable and abrasive that to ignore it requires hyper-normal rationalizations. Justin Trudeau lands in Costa Rica for holidays with his family all unmasked in a private jet. You can see Trudeau’s unmasked wife Sophie sneezing repeatedly into her hand before being greeted.pic.twitter.com/fbb2n58Cke — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 6, 2022 #3 Negative Externalities Are Being Re-shored If the well-meaning rank-and-file of the social justice warriors were right about anything, it’s that the global economic system has been rigged. Since at least the onset Bretton-Woods Era the developed, industrial nations in orbit around the USA have been able to externalize their negatives to the rest of the world (inflation, conquest, etc) while leaching everybody else’s wealth and natural resources. This was “the exorbitant privilege” of running the world’s reserve currency. But once the anchor to gold was severed in ’71, it began an inexorable process of what people like Michael Greer call “catabolic collapse“. The perimeter of the economic leaching began to contract. Once the 80’s or so hit, began to hollow out the homelands of the developed countries themselves. We can see this dynamic when we look at how GDP diverged from median earnings. If the working class didn’t really participate in the GDP gains, who did? This chart from a former Chief Economist at the World Bank Group isn’t fully current, but if anything, the trends accelerated after 2015. The table showing the stratification of wage growth does capture 2022 and we see what’s happening quite starkly: He’s using data from Thomas Pikkety, who often argues for redistribution schemes I oppose, but mainly for the reason that I don’t trust policy makers to distribute anything effectively, let alone redistribute other people’s wealth. But the point is clear, the globalist financial system is “structurally unjust”. However this is not, as the social justice warriors believe, because of systemic racism, or the patriarchy. It’s because of a deeply flawed (rigged) financial system that enables aristocratic elites to print value ex nihilo, and then distribute it to their Cantillionaire cronies. As everybody should know by now, the Cantillon Effect provides benefit from newly printed money for the insiders, before it turns into inflationary cost-of-living increases for everybody else. The Cantillon Effect Since The Lockdown Era (which is now being opportunistically pivoted into intensified climate hysteria), this dynamic has only intensified to blow-off top levels. We can see this in the trajectory of M2 money supply: Before the fiat currency era started, this economic leaching could work when its effects were largely externalized to far off shores, where it could be dolled up under the rubrics of “spreading democracy” and “economic development”. But now that the fiat currency system is eating itself (too much debt, not enough actual productivity, supply chain failures), that thin scab of elites that sits atop the global cap table now needs to somehow convince the rabble that the most important thing in the world right now is for everybody (else) to drastically ratchet down their standard of living. Wokeness looked perfect for this, except for one last problem: #4 Wokeness is Inherently Self-Destructive Once catabolic collapse had already started in earnest, it hit a disorderly phase transition in COVID. The legacy of that chapter in recent history has been so defined by failure that a crisis in legitimacy has set in. This has left policy-makers no choice but to double-down. Globalists had to resort to a more intense, emotionally charged zeitgeist that justifies running the rigged tables at much closer quarters: the ESG movement was elevated to primacy. This is now resulting in self-induced energy crises, supply chains seizing up, and if this new obsession on demonizing fertilizer goes well (for policy makers), global famine. Rationalizations about climate emergencies aside, the underlying reality is that we’re in a genuine Austrian-school style crack-up boom. The global elites are facing a crisis in credibility and desperate to ensure that they get to stay in charge after the whole system derails. It bears repeating: globalism, as exemplified by the likes of the World Economic Forum is essentially a Malthusian and Marxist philosophy. The reality behind all forms of collectivism is that collectivists create inclusive-sounding mythologies that are really intended to apply to everybody else, not themselves. The consequences of Woke-ism manifest in absurd policies that lead to self-destruction. When everything is politicized, it becomes impossible to correct a bad trajectory. If undoing previous policy errors means abandoning core tenets of the ideology, the policy makers will choose destruction instead. Anything is better than loss of credibility, especially it’s only the rabble that has to bear the consequences for the policy-makers’ failures. Here we arrive at why Woke-ism is ultimately doomed, because one of its own internal contradictions is a glaring example of creating its own headwinds: The COVID pandemic was politicized beyond any rationality, and the Woke are now fully committed to a course of action that could result in incalculable damage to themselves and the public. Where vaccine uptake is plummeting among the normies, (people who aren’t ideologically committed to COVID), the most devoted, brainwashed Covidians are continuing with rabid adherence to COVID as a religion: including a desire for lockdowns, the more masks the better, and a regimen of never-ending boosters. For the longest time I thought the people who were talking in terms of “Nuremberg 2” and “tribunals” were, in word, unhinged. But when you look at official, vetted data, there is no sugar coating it. The same way I became a lockdown skeptic by tracking the government supplied numbers, and I knew by June 2020 that COVID was not an existential threat. In this case the data coming out from official vacine injury databases is painting just as stark a contrast between reality and official narrative: Via Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) with data sourced from CDC VAERS and FDA FAERS databases Somewhere along the line, “safe and effective” turned into “sudden and unexpected”. Even if the economic and reality-based failures we’ve mentioned so far were not enough to put an end to this, the Woke have gone too far with hard-line vaccine policies. Too much, too young in this case. Trying to jab children being the line in the sand for many adults. I take no joy nor solace in pointing out that since the woke are truly committed to these vaccines, they may actually be thinning themselves out as the data and evidence continues to mount that the probability of an adverse affect from the “cure” may exceed the risk of dying from the disease itself, at least for adults under the age of 70 and especially in children. The public is catching on: despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to demonize people asking questions about this as “anti-vaxxers” and Big Tech duly co-operating through concerted deplatforming, public compliance is rapidly dwindling (and the most boosted people among us keep catching COVID). In Canada, where 81% of the population received two doses in order to be deemed “fully vaccinated”, we have the lowest uptake of boosters throughout the entire G7. This despite Health Canada’s declared intention to move the goalposts such that Canadians would be required to get boosted every nine months. That won’t happen, and the only people who will comply going forward are the über-woke… It’s a parody account, but it is hard to tell these days. These four super-trends are converging to create a zeitgeist saturated with hyper-normality and failure. As The True Cost of Wokeness plays itself out with accelerating consequences, the logical conclusion is that it will be abandoned en masse by a disgruntled populace feeling increasingly betrayed.

4 104

New York » Penal Law Sec. 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree
by Gunnar Larson 03 Mar '24

03 Mar '24

https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ny/statutes/sec-25045-unlawful-surveillance-… Sec. 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when: 1. For his or her own, or another person’s amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent; or 2. For his or her own, or another person’s sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent; or 3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person’s knowledge or consent. (b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose; or 4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person; or 5. For his or her own, or another individual’s amusement, entertainment, profit, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, the actor intentionally uses or installs or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast, or record such person in an identifiable manner: (a) engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision ten of section 130.00 of this part; (b) in the same image with the sexual or intimate part of any other person; and (c) at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person’s knowledge or consent. Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a class E felony.

1 3

Re: Morning Spam
by Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many 02 Mar '24

02 Mar '24

On 1/31/23, Bruce Gustafson, Jr. <bridgecrosser379(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Anal works well too. > > Bruce Gustafson > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 11:38 AM Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One > Victim of Many <gmkarl+brainwashingandfuckingupthehackerslaves(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> maybe boss says it's easy to take over a country: infiltrate their >> secret military, works every time >> >

2 631

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

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