April 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

He Asked Her To Babysit And Shot Her In The Butt With A Rubber Band. So She Sued For Hostile Work Environment. - Employee Rights/ Labour Relations - United States
by Gunnar Larson 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-rights-labour-relations/130199… I've seen weaker lawsuits. But let me explain why the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that asking a female colleague to babysit, once hitting her posterior with a rubber band, and even failing to use her proper title is not enough to create a hostile work environment based on gender. What is a hostile work environment? A successful hostile work environment claim under Title VII, based on sex, requires a plaintiff to establish four elements: she is a woman, she was subjected to harassment based on sex, the harassment had the effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and creating an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, and there is some basis for liability on the part of the employer. Let's focus on the second and third elements here. Are the actions I've described "based on sex," and did they unreasonably interfere with her work and create an objectively hostile work environment? Courts considering sexual harassment claims require behavior permeating the workplace with "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult." Put another way, isolated incidents will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment unless they are extremely serious. While it's not a mathematically precise test, I think you can see where we're heading with this one. The request to babysit. The plaintiff, a doctor, claimed that a male colleague asked her to babysit. The male colleague claimed the two were friendly; the plaintiff denied it. Accepting the plaintiff's version of the facts, one could infer gender stereotyping. But, critically, the plaintiff did not allege that the request impacted her ability to do her job, that she was afraid to refuse the request, or that the male colleague made any explicit or implicit threats if she disagreed. The rubber band in the posterior. This is clearly inappropriate and unwanted contact with a sensitive area. But it happened only once — in five years. This kind of isolated incident is not severe enough to create an actionable hostile work environment. Using the wrong title. The same male colleague who asked the plaintiff to babysit, and shot her with the rubber band, didn't call her "Doctor" after she obtained her doctorate, despite using that title for male supervisors with doctorates. Again, this could be gender-driven. However, like the rubber band and babysitting incidents, this conduct is insufficiently severe, even in combination with the other incidents, to amount to conduct that alters the terms or conditions of her employment. Theoretically, if some or all of these events occurred more frequently, they could be enough to create an actionable hostile work environment. Once is enough to warrant some corrective action at work. But somewhere in between lies a situation where two sides battle in court, the plaintiff loses, and the defendant wastes money paying lawyers to defend it. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

1 0

Some Third-Party Litigation Funders Pose a Threat to US Security
by Gunnar Larson 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/some-third-party-litigation-funde… Former House Armed Services Committee chairman Howard McKeon analyzes the risk foreign-based litigation investment entities pose to national security by asserting litigation against innovative companies in US courts. Intellectual property is now a bedrock for national and economic security. Every strategically important industry, whether it is defense, high-tech, energy, or health care, relies on a vast network of interrelated technologies and patent property rights. Stories about espionage and IP theft are flashy, and rightfully draw attention and concern from lawmakers. But, what if in addition to stealing US IP, foreign adversaries could also accomplish many of the same goals by using well-established, and legal, channels? This is exactly the current situation, as litigation investment entities and third-party litigation funders leverage US courts and patents without oversight or transparency. Third-party litigation funding and, more broadly, litigation investment entities, have become prominent fixtures in the US legal landscape. These funders—including hedge funds, private equity funds, and even sovereign wealth funds—either pay for plaintiffs’ litigation costs with an agreement that they will receive a large portion of any eventual payment, or own shell companies that exist only to profit through litigation. Recent estimates put the US litigation funding market size at $13.5 billion with an additional $3.2 billion in new investments last year alone. Litigation investments disproportionately affect IP. Last year more than 20% of all new litigation financing capital commitments were directed toward patent litigation, following nearly 30% the prior year. Even more troubling than the growth of an industry that monetizes IP litigation and the courts is that the vast majority of investments go undetected. A few courts have introduced funding transparency requirements, but by and large, investment entities are able to direct lawsuits from behind the curtain, without ever revealing themselves. A November 2022 report from the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform captured the danger of this arrangement, pointing to the “clear path for foreign adversaries to undermine U.S. national economic and security interests through the infiltration of the American litigation system.” More specifically, by controlling litigation from overseas, foreign entities could damage the reputation of and drain resources from US competitors, while getting access to sensitive information during legal proceedings. The ILR report highlights TPLF in patent litigation as indicative of the litigation investment model’s risks, in general. Lawmakers are only just beginning to prioritize addressing the threat that litigation investment entities pose. A group of state attorneys general raised concerns in a letter to the Department of Justice “that TPLF is being used to harm our States and threaten our country’s economic and national security,” and “through strategic lending, foreign adversaries could threaten our economic and national security by weaponizing the U.S. judicial system.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) echoed this sentiment in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Chief Justice John Roberts where he stated, “Merely by financing litigation in the United States against influential individuals, corporations, or highly sensitive sectors, a foreign actor can advance its strategic interests in the shadows since few disclosure requirements exist in jurisdictions across our country.” If groups in the US recognize the vulnerability in our IP and legal systems, our adversaries certainly do as well. And foreign competitors, like China, have sent strong signals in recent weeks that they are ramping their focus on intellectual property. The Chinese National People’s Congress elevated the China National Intellectual Property Administration to a top-level agency as part of a plan to accelerate “the building of a powerful intellectual priority nation.” As China and others make greater investments in promoting and protecting their intellectual property, the US must do the same, or suffer the consequences. We need to assess the true scope of the problem if we are going to protect ourselves from ill-intentioned investment entities. Addressing this massive blind spot in our legal system will prevent litigation funders from manipulating US innovators and our IP system. A few courts proactively implementing transparency requirements for plaintiffs to disclose TPLF and ownership information is positive. But to be effective, transparency must be mandated across jurisdictions. Whether it is through congressional action or amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants, judges, juries, and lawmakers, need to know who is using our courts and IP, and for what purpose. The longer we wait to put a spotlight on litigation investment entities, the larger the threat grows, and the farther away we are from finding solutions. Greater transparency measures in our courts are a necessary first step to meet head-on the new dangers litigation investment entities pose to our security. This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners. Author Information Howard “Buck” McKeon is the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He served as a U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 2015.

1 0

MobileCoin, the Company Where Slain Tech Exec Bob Lee Worked
by professor rat 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

Moby dicks think collaborator cypherpunk is clever https://sfstandard.com/technology/what-is-mobilecoin-the-company-where-slai… Reposts not KYC/AML on-off ramps for ' cypherpunk ' and ' anarchist ' crypto-currencies

1 0

We want anarchy. We want freedom and autonomy for all without domination and borders!
by professor rat 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

Anarcho-anarchism, crypto-currencies and stronger AI TOGETHER now gain critical mass and unstoppable momentum. https://anarchistnews.org/content/germany-annual-chaotic-–-anarchist-meeting Welcome to the revolution!

1 0

Antiwar news from the front
by professor rat 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

Death of Russia means light and life for the world https://anarchistnews.org/content/update-russian-anti-war-direct-actions-pr… Reposts not hatefilled, direct attacks on this list from Nazi moron KARL SEMICH

1 0

Winklevoss Twins Lend $100 Million to Their Gemini Crypto Platform
by Gunnar Larson 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

You know, the 100M Gemini infusion figure is intriguing, given New York State's 100M deal with Coinbase. ----- Winklevoss Twins Lend $100 Million to Their Gemini Crypto Platform https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-10/winklevoss-twins-lend-10… Billionaires Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss dipped into their own pockets to support their crypto exchange Gemini Trust Co., which has faced numerous setbacks during the yearlong market downturn for digital assets.

1 0

Why Crypto Is Watching Ethereum’s ‘Shanghai’ Upgrade
by Gunnar Larson 10 Apr '23

10 Apr '23

Why Crypto Is Watching Ethereum’s ‘Shanghai’ Upgrade https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-07/why-crypto-is-watching-e… The Ethereum network is set to undergo a technical revamp on April 12 that will allow users to withdraw tens of billions of dollars of its native token, Ether. Known as the “Shanghai” upgrade, it’s a necessary step after the world’s most commercially important crypto platform shifted to a less power-hungry process for ordering transactions. Investors burned by recent turmoil in crypto markets will be wondering if, presented with their first opportunity to withdraw their tokens, some Ether holders will run for the hills.

1 0

First Republic Bank: Dark Pool Trading by "Rescuers" Exploded in Volume as FRC Tanked
by Gunnar Larson 10 Apr '23

10 Apr '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/04/first-republic-bank-dark-pool-tradin… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 10, 2023 Jamie Dimon Being Sworn In at House Financial Services Committee Hearing, May 27, 2021 Jamie Dimon Being Sworn In at House Financial Services Committee Hearing, May 27, 2021 Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has cranked up his public relations machine since March 16 to promote the narrative that he came to the “rescue” of the plunging regional lender, First Republic Bank. The so-called “rescue” consisted of 11 banks, including JPMorgan Chase, dumping a total of $30 billion in “uninsured” deposits into First Republic. But one of the bank’s key problems was that it already had too many uninsured deposits. (This was like seeing a house on fire and throwing 11 expensive martinis at it.) According to First Republic’s regulatory filings, as of December 31, 2022, it had total deposits of $176.25 billion, of which $119.47 billion (or 68 percent) were uninsured. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) caps federal deposit insurance at $250,000 per depositor, per bank. But banks such as First Republic, that cater to the very wealthy, have a significant number of customer accounts that dramatically exceed the $250,000 cap. In the digital age, those deposits can rapidly move elsewhere when a bank panic sets in. The stock market was unpersuaded that this Dimon rescue plan was anything more than a hastily thrown together p.r. stunt. First Republic Bank’s stock closed on March 16 – after the news about the $30 billion hit the wires – at $34.27. It has continued to move lower, hitting $14.03 by the closing bell on Friday. That’s a year-to-date decline of 90 percent – not exactly anyone’s idea of a “rescue.” S&P Global also wasn’t buying the idea of the “rescue” either. Three days after the p.r. news of the 11 banks tossing $30 billion of uninsured deposits at First Republic, it downgraded the bank’s credit rating by three notches, putting it deeper into junk territory. Wall Street mega banks have a long history of talking a good game while surreptitiously doing deceitful things behind a dark curtain. Let’s not forget that some of the biggest names on Wall Street, in the leadup to the financial crisis of 2008, were driving the U.S. housing market deeper into despair by shorting (making bets against) the residential mortgage bonds they had sold to their own customers as solid investments. Our suspicions about the “rescue” of First Republic Bank were aroused further last week when multiple news reports indicated that Morgan Stanley, one of the 11 Wall Street banks that chipped in for the $30 billion “rescue” of First Republic Bank, was now hiring some of its largest advisor teams and providing a home to the billions in assets managed by those teams. (See here and here.) We decided to take a look behind one of the darkest curtains on Wall Street – the trading that occurs in the Dark Pools owned by these wily mega banks on Wall Street. (See Related Articles below.) Dark Pools are effectively unregulated stock exchanges operating inside the largest trading houses on Wall Street. Wall Street’s self-regulator, FINRA, after public uproar, began releasing weekly aggregated totals for trading in Dark Pools in 2014. But the data is far from transparent. For example, a number of the Wall Street banks own more than one Dark Pool. There is no way to tell if a two-sided market is occurring between Dark Pools owned by the same parent. There is no hour-by-hour or day-by-day breakdown of trading, just data lumped together for each Dark Pool for an entire week. There is also a multiple-week delay in reporting the data. For example, the most recent data for Dark Pool trading in the shares of First Republic is for the week of March 20. Despite the Dark Pools continued ability to operate in the shadows, what we could discern from the FINRA Dark Pool data was that there was an absolute explosion in the quantity of shares of First Republic Bank traded by its “rescuers” in their Dark Pools as the bank was plunging in value in mid-March. The volume of shares traded by Dark Pools went from 2.8 million shares in a little more than 32,000 trades for the week of February 27, 2023; to 13 million shares in more than 123,000 trades for the week of March 6; to an explosion of 70.8 million shares traded in Dark Pools for the week of March 13 in a stunning 653,922 separate trades. Dark Pools owned by the “rescuers” of First Republic – including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch – were among the largest Dark Pool share traders of First Republic for the weeks of February 27 through March 13. And this is by no means the full story. As we previously reported, Goldman Sachs Is Quietly Trading Stocks In Its Own Dark Pools on 4 Continents. Related Articles: The SEC Is Allowing 5-Count Felon JPMorgan Chase to Trade Its Own Bank Stock in its Own Dark Pools A Massive Increase in Trading in GameStop by Dark Pools Owned by the Mega Wall Street Banks Coincided with the Spike in its Share Price After Charges of Running a Price Fixing Cartel on Nasdaq in the 90s, Wall Street Banks Are Now Trading Their Own Stocks in Darkness Dark Pools Traded 791% More Boeing Stock During Week of 737 Max Crash Another Wall Street Inside Job?: Stock Buybacks Carried Out in Dark Pools Should This Be Illegal – Banks Recommending a Stock to the Public then Secretly Trading It in their own Dark Pool? Shades of 1930 in Wall Street Banks’ Dark Pools?

1 0

The Bro (Brody) of Wall Street: Tell The Best Story If You Want To Win: Ideas About Structure And Characters
by Gunnar Larson 10 Apr '23

10 Apr '23

The Wolf of Wall Street drew an audience. The Bro (Brody) of Wall Street will do the same. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/life-sciences-biotechnology--nanotechno… "[T]ell a great story if you want to live." A newly minted screenwriter, on the verge of pitching his spy thriller to studio executives, was diagnosed with a serious medical condition. He shared this advice from his doctor friend: "The most important thing I could do to stay alive was to make sure my doctors remembered me...and the only way to do that was to make my story a lot more compelling than their other cases."1 We can recast this advice as—tell a great story if you want to win. The battle of stories at trial concludes with the more compelling narrative becoming the truth in the verdict.2 Last year in Pro Te, we interviewed a panel of our experienced trial attorneys. Two themes that emerged from that discussion were the necessity of pretrial workup that focuses on how the evidence will matter at trial and forming the jury's perception of this evidence by telling the best story.3 Humans have made meaning with our stories throughout history. Long before we wrote our stories, cultures around the world memorialized both sweeping epics and the mundane events of daily rituals in painted and carved pictures.4 Theatre was a primary storytelling venue that drew large audiences from all strata of society in Shakespeare's day.5 The nineteenth century marked a highwater point for the influence of the novel.6 Multiple golden ages of television have been proclaimed and debated.7 Watching stories on our electronic devices has expanded exponentially with Nielsen reporting that for the first time, in July 2022, streaming viewership exceeded both broadcast viewing and cable viewing.8 >From a legal perspective, the theory or theme of the case is the story that needs telling.9 We may know a good story when we hear it, but are there practical resources that lawyers can use to understand what envelopes an audience into a story? Screenwriters, attune to efficiency and profit, have created a sub-industry dedicated to analyzing how stories work. As lawyers, we can learn from these modern storytellers, screenwriters, as well as novelists and journalists. The same eighty-five percent of U.S. households who subscribe to streaming services10 are also our judges, juries, mediators, clients and opposing counsel. STORY STRUCTURE I. TO CONTROL CAUSATION, CONTROL CHRONOLOGY Causation is a crucial element in product liability litigation. Even when a plaintiff seeks to hold a company strictly liable and is not required to prove intent to harm, they must connect the product at issue, and often even more specifically its design and warnings defects, with her injury. Narratives create order out of disorder. In his lectures on the novel, E.M. Forster explored how the structure of a story's plot provides the route beyond the evidence, "truer than history," by "suggest[ing] a more comprehensible and thus a more manageable human race" by giving the "illusion of perspicacity [shrewdness] and power."11 Forster differentiated a "story" from a "plot," with the crucial distinction that a plot establishes why events happen, "the emphasis falling on causality."12 Attending to the plot or structure of a story allows us to plant the seeds of causation in the mind of the judge or jury. When given a series of events in a sequence, the inclination is to form connections between these events. Stories exploit a well-known logical fallacy blurring correlation with causation: The idea that because something occurs after something else, the former caused the latter is not only a common logical fallacy, it is of course the wellspring of narrative too. Narrative is cause and effect, linked into a chain; 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' [after this, therefore because of this] is storytelling.13 In our work defending product liability and pharmaceutical cases, we see this pervasive plaintiff tactic that follows a predictable pattern. The plaintiff uses the defendant's drug, medical device, or product. Subsequently, the plaintiff claims she experiences an injury. There is a company document discussing some aspect of the warnings or design of the device. This information is sequenced in a story that suggests causation regardless of whether the company's topics of discussion have any connection to the injury or establish any flaw in the product's design or warnings. To disrupt this narrative connecting a statement from a company employee with a particular injury, we can start by attending to chronology. Sequencing can be more subtle than direct argument. Even in motions practice, where tackling causation head-on is a path to summary judgment victory, we can control the chronology through both careful selection and favorable organization in the presentation of the facts. II. THE BEGINNING IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST PLACE TO START The beginning of a story may be just as important as the sequence of events for establishing the audience's focal point. Pause to consider the beginning of a favorite fictional story. Some stories run from birth to death, but most stories are much more tightly constructed to show characters changing: "Change is the bedrock of life and consequently the bedrock of narrative."14 Plaintiffs will work to tell a straightforward story about change in their lives before and after the use of the product and the resulting injury. But another way to describe this principle is that most stories tell how a problem is solved.15 Often, the literary means to achieve this is for characters to go on journeys, physically or metaphorically.16 For defendants, the journey of the story might begin with identifying and thoroughly explaining the reason that the product or innovation was created in the first place. In other words, explain the problem the product was designed to solve. If we can take this narrative out of our opponents' hands, we can capture the fulcrum on which the story of the litigation turns. Rather than misdirection, this is more like what legal writing instructor Ross Guberman describes as the "panoramic shot" frequently used in movie opening sequences to "create a similar bird's-eye-view-effect."17 Provide a broader vision, a more descriptive context, and a wider view of reality than the plaintiff's inevitable story portraying a profit-seeking company heedless of its customers' safety. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT I. FIND THE ANECDOTES HIDING BEHIND ADJECTIVES Lawyers should see those involved in a case as characters because this reminds us that it is our job to set the stage: "Nothing in the world is inherently interesting—that is, immediately interesting, and interesting in the same degree, to all human beings. And nothing can be made of interest to the [audience] that was not first of vital concern to the writer."18 Making real people believable differs from creating fictional characters, but both are about finding details that are memorable, specific, and even, at times, ironic. One technique discussed in James B. Stewart's guide to telling good stories in non-fiction involves substituting short stories for descriptions: "[W]henever you're considering the use of an adjective, it's worth pondering whether an anecdote exists that would make the same point more convincingly."19 This is a more specific version of the show-don't-tell principle. It can be useful in pretrial fact investigation to locate details without directly asking witnesses to come up with stories on command.20 Any writing in which we develop the facts—from briefs to expert reports to mediation statements—can invoke this principle. Start the process early of searching for anecdotes that illustrate the overarching trial narrative. II. FOCUS ON MAKING CHARACTERS ACTIVE Character development in stories centers around building empathy. A lesson from storytellers is that audiences do not empathize with characters because they are virtuous. Instead, audiences will follow an active and resourceful protagonist on almost any journey. If a character is passive, his goodness will not redeem him from the mortal sin of being boring.21 This principle can work in both directions in litigation. Focusing on the passivity of an opponent is more palatable than a direct attack. If the plaintiff is claiming a particular injury, but the timeline shows that the only time the plaintiff complained about it was when lawyers got involved, this characterization works even better. But the passivity characterization could also touch on areas not directly related to the heart of the matter and be a useful tool in making a plaintiff or witness less likable. Contrasted with passivity arcs for opponents, an active arc will be most effective when it highlights positives in the defense story. But lawyers should not neglect opportunities to emphasize growth, learning and development that can augment the portrayal of company witnesses and experts. If our client's story can capitalize on both an active arc for our side and a passive arc for our opponent, this juxtaposition ties into another characterization principle about how characters are most often understood through comparison. John Truby's screenwriting manual is a complex 22-step guide to creating stories that organically develop from characterization.22 While much of his paradigm is specific to his own craft, he includes illuminating discussion about how all characters in a story should form a web so that their interplay highlights the key features of the main protagonist.23 He recommends interconnection as both a characterization and an organization technique. CONCLUSION The stories we tell are about real companies and people and their problems and conflicts. Even so, considering these principles about structure and characterization used by fiction writers offers some insights into how compelling stories convince their audiences that they are worth the journey. Our goal is for our audiences—both before and during trial—to believe in our client's stories so that we can persuade them to follow us to the correct conclusions.

1 0

Re: Brody Larson
by Gunnar Larson 10 Apr '23

10 Apr '23

Thank you very much. Gunnar On Mon, Apr 10, 2023, 10:22 AM Erin Satterthwaite < Erin.Satterthwaite(a)aspca.org> wrote: > Hello Mr. Larson, > > > > I’m sorry for your loss. Someone will be in touch about getting Brody’s > ashes back to you in the next day or two. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Erin Satterthwaite, Esq. > > NYC Senior Counsel > > Legal Advocacy & Investigations > > > > > > *ASPCA®* > > The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® > > Ownership | Elevate | Commitment | Team | Impact > > > > erin.satterthwaite(a)aspca.org > > Cell : (347) 213-7459 > > Fax: (866) 211-0380 > > *aspca.org <http://aspca.org>* > > > > *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2023 10:19 AM > *To:* Erin Satterthwaite <Erin.Satterthwaite(a)aspca.org> > *Subject:* Re: Brody Larson > > > > Ms. Satterthwaite: > > > > Thank you for your call today. > > > > It breaks my heart that Brody has been put to sleep. > > > > Please let me know if I may collect his ashes. > > > > Gunnar Larson > > > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2023, 3:13 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > > Ms. Satterthwaite: > > > > I have left you a few voice messages and emails regarding my St. Bernard, > Brody. > > > > Do you have any updates? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Gunnar Larson > > > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2023, 12:35 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > > Hello Ms. Satterthwaite: > > > > My name is Gunnar Larson. Today, I received a letter from your office. > > > > You may have my dog Brody. He is a Saint Bernard. Please contact me as > soon as possible. > > > > Gunnar Larson > > 917-580-8053 > > > > Gunn > >

1 0