October 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Meta Platforms, Inc. Board of Directors - USPTO, Digital Assets and Moscow Exchange
by Gunnar Larson 19 Dec '24

19 Dec '24

Dear Meta Board of Directors: Please find the attached memo <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f_fq1GaKNaAUGEyztdm-oMtIuEW2yXj4C5aoN0G…> addressed to your attention. - Today’s correspondence is to kindly submit xNY.io’s overall concern of Meta Platforms, Inc. and Moscow Exchange mark similarities, specifically, both marks seemingly resemble a geometric design consisting of two loops and/orovals touching or intersecting. xNY.io kindly asks Meta’s Board to respond by Friday, March 25, 2022 at 5:00pm EST. Respectfully yours, Gunnar Larson -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 9

MIA Coin and POX Kleptocracy: CORRUPTION FIN-2022-A001 - SAR 38(m).
by Gunnar Larson 19 Dec '24

19 Dec '24

Dear FinCEN: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC thanks you for sending yesterday's advisory on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption. We have made 30 highlights to the FIN-2022-A001 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yF3qDQG19J-qN1vUPC36lQfVClq3HPXB/view?usp=…> advisory for reference. *The aim of today's memo is to learn FinCEN's insights into MIA Coin and the consensus algorithm Proof of Transfer (POX). xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is concerned about potential MIA Coin and City Coin kleptocracy that may be affecting our global enterprise. * *FinCEN may note that NYCCoin is illegal in New York State, given the BitLicense mandate. As such, we are not concerned with NYCCoin's legality given the clear BitLicense mandate. * - On February 4, 2022 we submitted a City of Miami records request for any and all correspondence between the City of Miami concerning CityCoins, MIA Coin and Stacks (STX). Additionally, any and all related correspondence concerning CityCoins, MIA Coin, Stacks (STX), Digital World Acquisition Corp and Harvard Management Company. - Today, April 15, 2022 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OyVUBq8PcG7SVZ5lUp_oWyL0IDAR5uTP/view?usp=…> we have yet to receive the 13, 092 records. Attached you will find our latest correspondence with Miami, notifying them of our intention to contact FinCEN concerning MIA Coin and POX. - Conducting independent marketplace research, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC established a premise to potential kleptocracy between the City of Miami and City Coins, of Iceland <https://who.is/whois/citycoins.co> international registration. Furthermore, MineMiamiCoin.com is registered in Germany <https://who.is/whois/minemiamicoin.com>. - Please find the City of Miami's resolution <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view?usp=…>approving gifts from City Coins ... Furthermore, City Coins suggests a $25,000 "reward" <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eb2Q-LZNApwQRyjbBcD5-_yEW0Id51QD/view?usp=…> (that may be confused as bribery) for Mayors who participate. MIA Coin is powered by POX <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wL2kN6aMfsyT-T7g01YJSBB8meMn2SWg/view?usp=…>, a computer protocol that may exploit the U.S. and international financial systems to launder illicit gains, including through the use of shell companies, offshore financial centers, and professional service providers who enable the movement and laundering. MIA Coin' POX protocol is a wealth extraction tool that unfairly rewards an inside group of miners, rewarding patronage networks that benefit his inner circle and regime. These practices harm the competitive landscape of financial markets and often have long-term corrosive effects on good governance, democratic institutions, and human rights standards. FinCEN, we are concerned Miami's City Coin <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view> resolution potentially confirms Miami leaders as kleptocrats, using their position and influence to enrich themselves and their networks of corrupt actors. Finally, we understand that MIA Coin and POX operations are powered by international data warehouses, located in Iceland, Germany and Hong Kong. For these reasons, given FinCEN's alert on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption we kindly seek guidance. Sending you the very best regards. Thank you, Gunnar Larson -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> - Bank.org <http://Bank.org>, PBC* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network < fincenupdates(a)public.govdelivery.com> Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:46 PM Subject: FinCEN Updates: FinCEN Issues Advisory on Kleptocracy and Foreign Public Corruption To: <g(a)xny.io> *You are subscribed to FinCEN Updates. The information below is available at Fincen.gov.* *FinCEN Issues Advisory on Kleptocracy and Foreign Public Corruption* The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued an advisory on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption, urging financial institutions to focus their efforts on detecting the proceeds of foreign public corruption — a priority for the U.S. Government as it continues to implement the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVy…>. The advisory provides typologies and potential indicators of kleptocracy and other forms of foreign public corruption, namely bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and the misappropriation of public assets. *News Release:* https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-advisory-kleptocrac… <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVy…> *Advisory: * https://www.fincen.gov/resources/advisories/fincen-advisory-fin-2022-a001 <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDIsInVy…>

1 8

Wednesday 8 May 2024 Debating Chamber - Peter Thiel - Cambridge Union Society (Video w/ Protests)
by Gunnar Larson 19 Dec '24

19 Dec '24

Wednesday 8 May 2024 Debating Chamber - Peter Thiel - Cambridge Union Society (Video w/ Protests): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-UzMRXxN5cy1rpUEa9Zn1tC1kSo-sI4a/view?usp=… Gunnar Larson

1 62

xNY.io - Bank.org | Memo #2 - JPMorgan Chase Board of Directors ESG Marketplace Manipulation
by Gunnar Larson 19 Dec '24

19 Dec '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxERzXknAFfVW3YsDpNB-GPlVoiLAeeBXUrxwOF… May 1, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Investor Relations Board of Directors, JPMorgan Chase & Co. 277 Park Avenue New York, NY 10172-0003 JPMCinvestorrelations(a)jpmchase.com Re: JPMorgan Chase Board of Directors ESG Marketplace Manipulation Dear Board of Directors: xNY.io - Bank.org recently contacted JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors to communicate our concern(s) that potentially JPMorgan Chase may be engaging in exploitation of more than $100B of ESG asset liabilities, across international regulatory arbitrage structures, while headquartered in Manhattan. Specifically, the duty to promote the success of the company is that a director must act in the way that she considers, in good faith, and would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. - Failure by a board to adequately consider ESG-related risks, particularly entity-specific compliance risks such as breach of securities laws, could serve as the basis for liability of individual directors or officers for breach of their fiduciary duties. Given JPMorgan’s five cout felonies, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned with your board of director governance in preventing ESG fraud. xNY.io - Bank.org’s assessment of JPMorgan’s board embraces fundamentals including liquidity risk and protecting New York ESG cross border innovation from marketplace manipulation. - According to JPMorgan’s August 2021 Sovereigns and ESG whitepaper, the bank states that governance carries the largest weight of the three ESG pillars across scores, as it is the most empirically relevant for asset prices. - JPMorgan notes that philosophically, the bank views good governance as a foundational pillar for positive ESG developments in other pillars. Today’s memo follows protocol suggested by the United States of America, in that JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors is responsible to xNY.io - Bank.org’s enterprise and the Department of the Interior, in connection with any action alleging a violation of the Endangered Species Act, by any person (“person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity) claiming the benefit of any exemption or permit under the Act, who shall have the burden of proving that the exemption or permit is applicable, or has been granted, and was valid and in force at the time of alleged violation. xNY.io - Bank.org has made 91 highlights to the Department of Interior’s Endangered Species Act for JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors reference. 1. xNY.io - Bank.org has reason to believe in the JPMorgan Chase board of directors’ engagement of ESG marketplace manipulation, risking your ESG portfolio’s future at the cost of New York digital asset innovation. 2. xNY.io - Bank.org references your 2021 Environmental Social and Governance Report, totaling $117B of ESG “development funding” transferred from New York to Caribbean and Eastern European accounts. 3. xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned of JPMorgan Chase board directors leveraged marketplace manipulation techniques in allocating ESG funds to engage in potential harassment (the term "harassment" means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance) of some of the world’s most precious endangered species protected by domestic and international governance. 4. JPMorgan Chase’s $2.3B ESG “wind farm” facility is characterized by the Washington Post as a potential misuse of ESG assets (and board policies) to fund probable violation(s) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Looking internationally, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned of further ESG marketplace manipulation structures, sacrificing endangered species, via JPMorgan Chase’s board directed ESG investments in the Caribbean (your largest ESG investment region). xNY.io - Bank.org signals that JPMorgan’s board of directors is party to the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Being clear, any violation of the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere … Requires xNY.io - Bank.org to consult JPMorgan Chase board members on ESG allocations that may be in conflict with construction, or other development projects, or other forms of economic activity. xNY.io - Bank.org asks JPMorgan Chase board directors to return the Secretary of Department of the Interior’s approval, confirming licensing and/or exclusion to the Endangered Species Act, with further authorization of “harassment” pursuant to exemption(s). Including (if available) a similar Environmental Protection Agency permit that is applicable and is valid and in force. - Due to the riskiness of ESG portfolio mismanagement in violation of the Endangered Species Act, ESG marketplace manipulation risk(s) may trigger causal shocks to New York State monetary and regulatory innovation. - According to JPMorgan’s sovereign fund ESG research, “A common complaint about ESG analysis is that data can be difficult to source. Some sovereign data is in fact more readily available than corporate data given the multitude of multinational organizations and NGOs – including the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations.” - The European Central Bank provides support to the eurozone sovereign debt market but has more restrictions on what and how much it can buy, so eurozone bonds can trade with more credit risk premium compared to other major developed market bonds. - Whatever the case may be, JPMorgan disclosures detail significant concern of lapse in board governance and ESG portfolio risk with potential violation of the Endangered Species Act, risking ESG portfolio default(s) in Europe and the United States risking ESG customer financial abuse. Forbes recently profiles JPMorgan Chase ESG investments as problematic, highlighting that your board of directors potentially are allocating ESG proceeds in competition with human rights at the expense of customers’ best interests while investing heavily in fossil fuels. A letter to JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors from ESG scholars (including, The Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Greenpeace, Amazon Watch, Revolving Door Project, Rainforest Action Network and the Center for International Environmental Law) suggests the bank would “...lock us into energy sources that are overly expensive and subject to wild price swings, and that exacerbate rather than ease global conflict.” xNY.io - Bank.org aims to protect ESG digital asset innovation and JPMorgan’s board should understand your proprietary ESG scoring matrix should signal seismic marketplace manipulation risk if directors are in potential violation of any Endangered Species Act covenant. - Head of Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) distribution at JP Morgan Asset Management says, “In Europe, we do not have a semi-transparent product – like the US and Australia – which would add further complexity to the trading. For example, the US has several models which make it harder for the AP to guess what the actual fund looks like and therefore the costs might be higher accordingly.” - Given, JPMorgan may potentially be in breach of United States Endangered Species Act provisions, similar risk of ESG asset failure(s) may include Europe, Middle East, Africa and Australia international law, as ratified by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. While directors and officers are likely to be particularly focused on the risk that they may be found personally liable for a breach of their duties, proper ESG compliance with fiduciary obligations requires acting to a higher standard. Given the defenses available to fiduciaries, and the difficulty in bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty, a director or officer found to be liable for such ESG breaches will generally have acted egregiously. This ‘sliding scale’ of the standards to which directors and officers should adhere. Following the Endangered Species Act, xNY.io - Bank.org kindly petitions JPMorgan’s board of directors, in connection with all ESG investments, claiming the benefit of any exemption or permit under the United States Department of the Interior’s Endangered Species Act … Shall have the burden of proving that an exemption or permit is applicable, or has been granted, and is valid and in force. - At JPMorgan’s earliest convenience (within 60 days of receipt of this memo) xNY.io - Bank.org kindly requests a certified copy of JPMorgan Chase’s approval by the Department of the Interior, being a license and/or exclusion to the Endangered Species Act and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - JPMorgan Chase suggests a commitment to anti-corruption compliance is central to the success of its business. Your board of directors stand to maintain that trust by promoting a corporate culture that encourages ethical business practices and compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the countries in which the JPMorgan conducts business. xNY.io - Bank.org’s research guidance from the United States Securities and Exchange Commision, supports the international community in taking actions to address ESG issues on a global basis, and those actions that can have a material impact on companies. Future correspondence concerning ESG innovation is at your board’s leisure. Respectfully yours with appreciation, Gunnar Larson | xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> - Bank.org <http://bank.org>, PBC MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107

1 15

492 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. ____________________
by Gunnar Larson 17 Dec '24

17 Dec '24

INTRODUCTION March 24, 2022 158 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=… 1. In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty. The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources - are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison. 2. Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy. 3. The scheme was conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level officials at the Clinton Campaign and the DNC—including ‘the candidate’ herself—who attempted to shield her involvement behind a wall of third parties.1 To start, the Clinton Campaign and the DNC enlisted the assistance of their shared counsel, Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep Democrat ties, in the hopes of obscuring their actions under the veil of attorney-client privilege. Perkins Coie was tasked with spearheading the scheme to find—or fabricate—proof of a sinister link between Donald J. Trump and Russia. To do so, Perkins Coie launched parallel operations: on one front, Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump Campaign and Russian operatives; on a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann headed a campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian-owned bank. 4. Marc Elias, in his mission to obtain derogatory anti-Trump ‘opposition research,’ commissioned Fusion GPS, an investigative firm, and its co-founders, Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson, and directed them to dredge up evidence—actual or otherwise—of collusion between Trump and Russia. Fritsch and Simpson, in turn, enlisted the assistance of Orbis Ltd. and its owner, Christopher Steele, to produce a series of reports purporting to contain proof of the supposed collusion. Of course, the now fully debunked collection of reports, known as the “Steele Dossier,” was riddled with misstatements, misrepresentations and, most of all, flat out lies. In truth, the Steele Dossier was largely based upon information provided to Steele by his primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko, who was subsequently indicted for falsifying his claims. Even more damning, Danchenko had close ties to senior Clinton Campaign official, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., who knowingly provided false information to Danchenko, who relayed it to Steele, who reported it in the Steele Dossier and eagerly fed the deceptions to both the media and the FBI. This duplicitous arrangement existed for a singular self-serving purpose – to discredit Donald J. Trump and his campaign. 5. At the same time, Michael Sussmann, in his hunt for damaging intel against the Trump Campaign, turned to Neustar, Inc., an information technology company, and one of its top executives, Rodney Joffe, a fervent anti-Trumper who had recently been promised a high-ranking position with the Clinton Administration, to exploit their access to non-public data in search of a secret “back channel” connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank. When it was discovered that no such channel existed, the Defendants resorted to truly subversive measures – hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump’s private apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House. This ill-gotten data was then manipulated to create a misleading “inference” and submitted to law enforcement in an effort to falsely implicate Donald J. Trump and his campaign.2 All of these acts were carried out in coordination with the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, at the behest of certain Democratic “VIPs.”3 6. While their multi-pronged attack was underway, the Defendants seized on the opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy. Indeed, the Clinton Campaign and DNC—admittedly on a “mission” to “raise the alarm” about their contrived Trump-Russia link4—repeatedly fed disinformation to the media and shamelessly promoted their false narratives. All the while, Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others did their best to proliferate the spread of those dubious and false claims through press releases, social media, and other public statements. 7. The fallout from the Defendants’ actions was not limited to the public denigration of Trump and his campaign. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—relying on the Defendants’ fraudulent evidence—commenced a large-scale investigation and expended precious time, resources and taxpayer dollars looking into the spurious allegation that the Trump Campaign had colluded with the Russian Government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The effects of this unfounded investigation were prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice and the FBI – James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. These government officials were willing to abuse their positions of public trust to advance the baseless probe to new levels, including obtaining an extrajudicial FISA warrant and instigating the commencement of an oversight investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. As a result, Donald J. Trump and his campaign were forced to expend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to defend against these contrived and unwarranted proceedings. Justice would ultimately prevail – following a two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller went on to exonerate Donald J. Trump and his campaign with his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia. 8. The full extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing has been steadily and gradually exposed by Special Counsel John Durham, who has been heading a DOJ investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy. To date, he has already issued indictments to Sussmann and Danchenko, among others, for proffering false statements to law enforcement officials. As outlined below, these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of the Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into the inner-workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on recent developments and the overall direction of Durham’s investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are forthcoming. 9. In short, 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. When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump was elected, the Defendants’ efforts continued unabated, merely shifting their focus to undermining his presidential administration. Worse still, the Defendants continue to spread their vicious lies to this day as they unabashedly publicize their thoroughly debunked falsehoods in an effort to ensure that he will never be elected again. The deception, malice, and treachery perpetrated by the Defendants has caused significant harm to the American people, and to the Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, and they must be held accountable for their heinous acts. ____________________ BACKGROUND September 8, 2022 190 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=… 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. (Counts II, IV, VI, and X–XVI). Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to distill it here. The short version: Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants “[a]cting in concert . . . maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1). The Defendants effectuated this alleged conspiracy through two core efforts. “[O]n one front, Perkins Coie partner Mark Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.” (Id. ¶ 3). To that end, Defendant Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and lawyers for the Campaign and the Committee allegedly hired Defendant Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele Dossier. (Id. ¶ 4). “[O]n a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman headed a campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian- owned bank.” (Id.). Clinton and her operatives allegedly hired Defendant Rodney Joffe to exploit his access to Domain Name Systems (“DNS”) data, via Defendant Neustar, to investigate and ultimately manufacture a suspicious pattern of activity between Trump-related servers and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin, Alfa Bank. (Id. ¶ 3). As a result of this “fraudulent evidence,” the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) commenced “several large-scale investigations,” which were “prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice”—Defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. (Id. ¶ 7). And while this was ongoing, the Defendants allegedly “seized on the opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy.” (Id. ¶ 6). As a result of this “multi-pronged attack,” Plaintiff claims to have amassed $24 million in damages.1(Id. ¶ 527). Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as “a series of disconnected political disputes that Plaintiff has alchemized into a sweeping conspiracy among the many individuals Plaintiff believes to have aggrieved him.” (DE 226 at 1). They argue that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff’s claims are both “hopelessly stale”—that is, foreclosed by the applicable statutes of limitations—and because they fail on the merits “in multiple independent respects.” (Id. at 2). As they view it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” (Id.). I agree. In the discussion that follows, I first address the Amended Complaint’s structural deficiencies. I then turn to subject matter jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by certain Defendants. Finally, I assess the sufficiency of the allegations as to each of the substantive counts. ____________________ BACKGROUND October 31, 2022 25 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=… PlaintifP’s pleadings and theories were obviously and fatally defective from the very inceptionof this action. Plaintiff's initial Complaint spanned 108 pages and S08 paragraphs. DE 1 (March 24, 2022). It named 28 individual defendants, as well as 10 John Does and 10 ABC Corporations. /d. Less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved to dismiss it with prejudice. DE 52 (Apr. 20,2022). Defendant Clinton’s motion identified manyofthe fundamentalfactual deficiencies and legal flaws that would ultimately lead this Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint: namely, (1) that Plaintifs claims were untimely on their face, DE 52 at 1-5; (2) that Plaintiff's own tweets confirmed his knowledge ofhis supposed claimsno later than October 2017, DE 52 at 2-3; (3) that Plaintiffs Complaint was replete with inadequate and conclusory allegations, DE 52 at 6; (4) that Plaintiff failed to allege a RICO enterprise, DE 52 at 7; (5) that Plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of theft of trade secrets based on DNS information, DE 52 at 8-9; (6) thatPlaintifffailedtoallege the predicate act ofobstructionofjustice in part because he identified no “official proceeding,” DE 52 at 9-10; (7) that Plaintiff failed to allege a patter of racketeering activity, DE 52 at 11-12; (8) that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege RICO standing because his supposed injuries were almostentirely undescribed, DE 52.at 12-14; (9) that Plaintiffs injurious falsehood claim was barred by the First Amendment, DE 52 at 15-17; (10) that Plaintiff failed to allege almost every necessary clementof injurious falsehood under Florida law, DE 52 at 17-18; (11) that Plaintiff failed to allege a malicious prosecution claim as to any official proceeding and, in particular, as to the properly predicated Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DE 52 at 19-20; and (12) that Plaintiff failed to allege a claim for “agency” because it is not an independent cause of action under Florida law. In response, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend the Complaint. DE 66 (Apr. 21, 2022). Defendant Clinton did not oppose counsel's request for an extension of time in whichto amend. See, e.g., DE 102 (Apr. 27,2022). In the intervening period, other Defendants joined Clinton's motion to dismiss and filed their own motions alertingPlaintiff and his counsel to additional fatal defects in the Complaint. See DE 124 (John Podesta), 139 (Peter Fritsch, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson); 141 (DNC Services Corporation, Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz); 143 (Perkins Coie); 144 (Nellie Ohr); 145 (Robby Mook): 146 (Michael Sussmann); 147 (Mare Elias); 149 (HFACC); 157 (Rodney Joffe); 159 (Igor Danchenko); 160 (Neustar, Inc.); 162 & 163 (Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr.); 165 (Jake Sullivan). With respect to each motion, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend in response to the motions, and Defendants did not oppose extensionsof time to allow them to do so. See DE 153 (May 17,2022). PlaintifP’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint approximately two months after receiving Defendant Clinton’s motion to dismiss and with the benefit of Defendants” additional motions in the interim. DE 177 (June 21, 2022). “But despite this briefing, PlaintifPs Amended Complaint failed to cureanyofthe deficiencies.”DE 267 at 63-64 (Sept. 8, 2022) (“0p.”). “Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims.” Op. at 64. The Amended Complaint is “193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs,” and “contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 *ABC Corporations’ identified as fictitious and unknown entities.” Op. at 4. ____________________ BACKGROUND November 10, 2022 66 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=… The Complaint. In March 2022, Charles Dolan was among 29 defendants initially sued by Mr. Trump. (DE 1). He was identified as a former chairman of the DNC, a senior official in the Clinton Campaign, and a close associate of and advisor to Hillary Clinton. The Complaint alleged that in April 2016, Mr. Dolan participated in discussions about the creation of a “dossier” to smear Mr. Trump and disseminate false accusations to the media (Compl. ¶ 79), and at the direction of Ms. Clinton assisted in preparation of the dossier (Compl. ¶ 81). According to the Complaint, an allegation contained within the dossier that Mr. Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity in a Moscow hotel was derived from Mr. Dolan. (Compl. ¶ 91). Mr. Dolan was sued for RICO conspiracy (Count II), conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood (Count IV), and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution (Count VI). The Warning Letter. On May 31, 2022, counsel for Mr. Dolan wrote the attorneys for Mr. Trump. They warned: 1. That Mr. Dolan had no role in any conspiracy related to the Steele dossier. 2. That Mr. Dolan was not a source for the allegations of sexual activity. 3. That Mr. Dolan had not been in contact with any defendant other than Igor Danchenko, and that Mr. Dolan’s contacts with Mr. Danchenko involved business interests and help for a conference in Moscow. 4. That Mr. Dolan had never been chairman of the DNC. 5. That Ms. Clinton was on record through a spokesperson as stating she had no recollection of Mr. Dolan. (DE 268-1). The letter requested that Mr. Dolan not be named as a defendant in any forthcoming Amended Complaint. The letter further warned that if he were to be named, or if he was not dropped from the original Complaint, Rule 11 sanctions would be sought. The Amended Complaint. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, as had been expected. It ballooned to 193 pages, 819 paragraphs and 31 defendants. With respect to Mr. Dolan, the allegations remained essentially the same. But in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Dolan was identified somewhat more vaguely as the former chairman of a “national Democratic political organization.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Elsewhere, he was described as a “senior Clinton Campaign Official.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Moreover, and somewhat inexplicably, Mr. Dolan was identified in the Amended Complaint as a citizen and resident of New York, despite a declaration that Mr. Dolan had provided to Plaintiff’s lawyers explaining that Mr. Dolan was a resident of Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20; DE 268-2). The Sanctions Motion and Memorandum. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Dolan served on Mr. Trump’s lawyers a motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. The motion pointed out that the change in Mr. Dolan’s purported title from “former chairman of the DNC” in the original Complaint to “former chairman of a national Democratic political organization,” in the Amended Complaint did not solve the problems identified in the warning letter because Mr. Dolan had never been the chairman of any such organization. The motion further explained that Mr. Dolan’s role in the Clinton Campaign was limited to knocking on doors as a volunteer. The motion also stated that Mr. Dolan had never been a resident of New York, that Mr. Dolan had told Plaintiff’s lawyers so, and that the allegations of the Amended Complaint to that effect demonstrated a lack of diligence over something easily checked. Mr. Dolan’s motion for sanctions went on to place the Trump lawyers on notice of a critical failure in their claims, warning them that the Danchenko Indictment referenced throughout the Amended Complaint not only failed to support their allegations against Mr. Dolan but contradicted them. That warning continues to be unheeded. ____________________ BACKGROUND January 19, 2023 53 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=… 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 hope of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 1 ¶ 9). The next day, Alina Habba, Mr. Trump’s lead counsel told Fox News’ Sean Hannity: You can’t make this up. You literally cannot make a story like this up . . . and President Trump is just not going to take it anymore. If you are going to make up lies, if you are going to try to take him down, he is going to fight you back. And that is what this is, this is the beginning of all that.1 She then explained on Newsmax: What the real goal [of the suit] is, is democracy, is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies. That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed justice. They continued the false narrative . . . This grand scheme, that you could not make up, to take down an opponent. That is un-American.2 On April 20, 2022, less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved for dismissal with prejudice. Her motion identified substantial and fundamental factual and legal flaws. Each of the other Defendants followed suit, pointing to specific problems with the claims against them. The problems in the Complaint were obvious from the start. They were identified by the Defendants not once but twice, and Mr. Trump persisted anyway. Despite this briefing and the promise “to cure any deficiencies,” Plaintiff’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. (DE 177). The Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the defects. See DE 267, Order of Dismissal (September 8, 2022). Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. (DE 267 at 64). The Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs, and contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 John Does described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 ABC Corporations identified as fictitious and unknown entities. On July 14, 2022, the United States moved pursuant to the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(i), to substitute itself as Defendant for James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith. (DE 224). On July 21, 2022, I granted the motion to substitute. (DE 234). On September 8, 2022, I dismissed the case with prejudice as to all Defendants except for the United States. 3 I issued a detailed and lengthy Order, which I incorporate by reference here. (DE 267). I found that fatal substantive defects which had been clearly laid out in the first round of briefing, precluded the Plaintiff from proceeding under any of the theories presented. I found that the Amended Complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading, that its claims were foreclosed by existing precedent, and its factual allegations were undermined and contradicted by the public reports and filings upon which it purported to rely. I reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions. Undeterred by my Order and two rounds of briefing by multiple defendants, Ms. Habba continued to advance Plaintiff’s claims. In a September 10, 2022, interview with Sean Hannity, the host asked her “Why isn’t [Hillary Clinton] being held accountable for what she did?” Ms. Habba’s response reiterated misrepresentations on which this lawsuit was based: Because when you have a Clinton judge as we did here, Judge Middlebrooks who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to, he was going to be impartial, and then proceeds to write a 65-page scathing order where he basically ignored every factual basis which was backed up by indictments, by investigations, the Mueller report, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, not to mention Durham, and all the testimony we heard there, we get dismissed. Not only do we get dismissed, he says that this is not the proper place for recourse for Donald Trump. He has no legal ramifications. Where what [sic] is the proper place for him? Because the FBI won’t help when you can do anything, obstruct justice, blatantly lie to the FBI, Sussmann’s out, he gets acquitted, where do you go? That’s the concern for me, where do you get that -- that recourse?4 She also indicated that, while Mr. Trump doubted the suit would succeed, she nevertheless “fought” to pursue it: You know, I have to share with you a story, Sean, that I have not shared with anybody. The recourse that I have at this point is obviously to appeal this to the 11th Circuit as Gregg said. But when I brought this case and we were assigned you know, this judge and we went through the recusal process, we lost five magistrates, including Reinhart [sic] who’s dealing with the boxes as we know. The former president looked at me and he told me, you know what Alina. You’re not going to win. You can’t win, just get rid of it, don’t do the case. And I said, no, we have to fight. It’s not right what happened. And you know, he was right, and it’s a sad day for me personally because I fought him on [it] and I should have listened, but I don’t want to lose hope in our system. I don’t. So, you know I’m deciding whether we’re going to appeal it.5 Defendants now move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and/or this Court’s inherent power. (DE 280 at 1). In Part II, I find that a sanction under this Court’s inherent power is appropriate. I do so by examining Plaintiff’s (and his lawyers’) conduct throughout this litigation. In Part III, I look to Plaintiff’s conduct in other cases. And in Part IV, I determine the reasonableness of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

1 26

Re: Inquiry
by Gunnar Larson 17 Dec '24

17 Dec '24

Okay. Thank you for letting me know. Gunnar On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 8:40 AM Roberta Kaplan <rkaplan(a)kaplanhecker.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, but I don't think we can help you on this. > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 23, 2024 8:28:27 AM > *To:* Roberta Kaplan <rkaplan(a)kaplanhecker.com> > *Subject:* Re: Inquiry > > You don't often get email from g(a)xny.io. Learn why this is important > <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > This email was sent from outside the Firm. > > Roberta: > > Thank you for your response. > > I wrote this LitigationFinanceJournal.com article back in 2022, now I am > on the other side of it all. > > It is my understanding that the FBI is harassing my business, saying I am > trying to use Donald Trump arguments against the Attorney General's office. > > That is simply not true. I am need to organize a personal attorney to > protect myself from these attacks. I thought it could be beneficial if we > worked together. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar > --- > > > https://litigationfinancejournal.com/rnc-funding-of-trumps-legal-campaign-u… > > > Litigation Finance Journal recently reported on a group of 14 state > attorneys general that have called for action from the Department of > Justice to review potential threats to U.S. national security from foreign > adversaries’ engagement of litigation investment. Litigation funders and > industry advocates have new ammo in response to the AGs’ claims, given > recent news of the RNC funding former President Donald Trump’s various > legal entanglements. > > > According to ABC News, RNC leaders earmarked $1.6M in legal funding to > support President Donald Trump’s defense over lawsuits brought by New York > Attorney General Letitia James. Meanwhile, the United States Chamber of > Commerce Institute for Legal Reform’s research has prompted 14 state > attorneys general to ask for the Justice Department to assess national > security risks of adversaries ‘undermining’ the United States by engaging > litigation funding and third party investment vehicles. > > The group of 14 state attorneys general are concerned about foreign > adversaries ‘weaponizing’ United States legal frameworks via litigation > investment, to attack critical national industry and infrastructure, such > as energy sectors. The group of 14 seeks the Department of Justice to > detail how a network of federal agencies could engage a blueprint for > defending United States independence from international litigation > investors, hostile groups, agencies or governments such as Russia and China. > > This latest attack on the industry, prompted by the U.S. Chamber of > Commerce, is simply another attempt to undermine the nascent and growing > litigation funding sector. It is ironic, given that in the case of Consumer > Legal Funding–which the Chamber specifically targets–the funding in > question does not go to support legal fees, but rather to finance > claimants’ livelihoods while they remain injured and unable to work. > > While the RNC’s funding of Trump’s legal battles does not constitute > foreign investment, it illustrates the acceptance of third party legal > funding across political lines, and should be noted by industry advocates > looking to respond to the negative publicity put forth by the U.S. Chamber. > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 7:02 AM Roberta Kaplan <rkaplan(a)kaplanhecker.com> > wrote: > > Happy to talk. What is the matter? > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 23, 2024 3:55:11 AM > *To:* Roberta Kaplan <rkaplan(a)kaplanhecker.com> > *Subject:* Inquiry > > You don't often get email from g(a)xny.io. Learn why this is important > <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > This email was sent from outside the Firm. > > Ms. Kaplan: > > My name is Gunnar Larson and I am a co-founder at xNY.io - Bank.org. > > I was wondering if I could schedule a time to talk with your office > concerning potentially working together on a developing matter. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar > -- > Gunnar Larson > > xNY.io | Bank.org > > MSc - Digital Currency > MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) > > G(a)xNY.io > > +1-917-580-8053 > > New York, New York 10001 > > ------------------------------ > This email and its attachments may contain information that is > confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work > product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended > recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, > or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy > all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. > > ------------------------------ > This email and its attachments may contain information that is > confidential and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, work > product or other applicable legal privilege. If you are not the intended > recipient of the email, please be aware that any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, > or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy > all copies of the message from your computer system. Thank you. >

1 20

Mayor Eric Adams NYCCoin Touting
by Gunnar Larson 17 Dec '24

17 Dec '24

Please find the attached memo with reference footnotes. -- March 10, 2023 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms. Camille Joseph Varlack Office of the Mayor of New York City City Hall Park, 260 Broadway New York, NY 10007 United States PressOffice(a)CityHall.NYC.gov Re: Mayor Eric Adams NYCCoin Touting Dear Ms. Joseph Varlack: Today’s memo is to kindly submit xNY.io - Bank.org's inquiry into Mayor Eric Adams' promotion of NYCCoin. 1. The federal securities laws are clear that any celebrity or individual who promotes digital assets must disclose the nature, source and amount of compensation they received in exchange for the promotion. 2. As a matter of ethics, risk and compliance associated with digital asset innovation, xNY.io asks if NYCCoin promotion by the Mayor of New York City damaged the market for the xNY digital asset (by, for example, devaluing it through parody or sealed via embossed criticism). 3. xNY.io - Bank.org concerns made above have evidentiary support to interlocking director and officer conflicts recognized by the Department of Justice as potential threats that stifle individual and corporate freedom. Ms. Joseph Varlack, as a matter relating to working at one of the world's most ethical companies, famous for risk management and corporate governance, and as an internationally recognized Blockchain Scholar, I must adhere to federal securities laws. - As such, I classify Mayor Adams as an individual who promoted the digital asset NYCCoin and must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation associated. A failure to disclose this information may violate the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. Mayor Adams' making these endorsements may also be liable for potential violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, for participating in an unregistered offer and sale of securities, and for acting as unregistered brokers. xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully requests the Office of the Mayor of New York City to respond to this request by Wednesday March, 15 2023 by Noon EST. Respectfully yours with appreciation, 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 +1-917-580-8053

1 112

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast
by Gunnar Larson 16 Dec '24

16 Dec '24

Check out a recent article Litigationfinancejournal.com article of mine: 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

Marianne Williamson LIVE in Melbourne, Australia | July 2022
by Gunnar Larson 14 Dec '24

14 Dec '24

Marianne Williamson LIVE in Melbourne, Australia | July 2022: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10GI5UDN7PVLcShqj0S_N7E28lpC-vkeC/view?usp=… Gunnar ✌️

1 50

Re: Morning Spam
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

> partial nice idea! sad that only partial >>> >>> the idea starts with context: some of us have the experience of being >>> manipulated by something like AI without regard to our wellbeing or >>> capacity, with no indication of how to communicate with where-ever the >>> influence comes from. >>> >>> so, then the idea: let’s train an influence AI on agents that have >>> _limited capacity_ and function poorly and then break if things that work >>> some in the short term are continued for the long term or excessively :D >>> >>> the AI would follow the familiar pattern of discovering influences that >>> work, and then using them, but then because we are doing the training we >>> would get to train it on the breaking period, and show it that it needs to >>> care for the agents for them to succeed, and nurture them to recover if it >>> broke them, and not repeat breaking any. >>> >>> one idea is then we could ask everybody to use the model as a baseline >>> to train other models! other ideas exist. >>> >>> but the idea of building comprehension of capacity and protection of >>> safety and wellness seems nice. sorry if it’s partial or stated badly :s >>> >>> i imagine an agent that has like a secret capacity float that reduces >>> when it does stuff, you could model it to different degrees, and when too >>> many things are influenced of it the capacity float reaches zero and the >>> agent breaks and can’t do things any more :/ >>> >>> a more complex model could involve the agent recovering capacity in ways >>> that the model has difficulty learning >>> >> >> there are a few ideas, mostly involving simple models, but disagreement >> around them. >> some like modeling non-recovering capacity and showing how the AI then >> maximizes reward by killing all the agents :s >> > > but! maybe we could do non-recovering capacity and teach the AI to engage > the agents slowly so their capacity lasts longer, by e.g. having the > capacity reduction be a function of recent use?? the project would need to > gently develop in order to help us in the long term, we’d need to include > the concept that we can succeed so that we use it to succeed in some > manner. because it’s an influence AI it could influence us, if it is > something we actually all like doing that. > mistake :/ some of my parts are maybe harmful to me and should be separated from helpful goals, unknown for certain >

2 60