March 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Video: Reid Hoffman Talks About Jumping Off Cliff
by Gunnar Larson 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

Video: Reid Hoffman Talks About Jumping Off Cliff: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2kY1R9Sz4c/?igsh=Ymtmc3g1b2hyYjlr

1 2

CFO.com Discusses Litigation Investment and Corporate Recovery - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 11 Apr '24

11 Apr '24

I wrote this article on April 20, 2022. xNY.io - Bank.org finds this helpful: "While firms are raising capital, exploring a merger/acquisition or in the process of going public, CFO.com underscores value in engaging ligation finance tools to maximize valuation." ----- https://litigationfinancejournal.com/cfo-com-discusses-litigation-investmen… Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) call for litigation expenses to be accounted for during month/quarter of incurrence. Similarly, GAAP holds future recoveries vacant on the balance sheet until award(s) are recovered, oftentimes years in the future. For companies self funding meritorious litigation, application of GAAP may produce a balance sheet that undervalues the firm’s worth. CFO.com suggests that maneuvering costs off balance sheet via litigation finance products and services is potentially a smart idea. CFO.com reports that with the bespoke nature of litigation investment agreements, chief financial officers are able to arrange scenarios to meet cash flow constraints. Corporate recovery, or affirmative action, can be a useful strategy for companies who develop a portfolio of pursuable claims. According to CFO.com, litigation finance allows firms to effectively boost net income line items on the balance sheet. More importantly, utilization of litigation investment vehicles drive the ability to pursue claims that normally would be avoided due to cost restrictions. While firms are raising capital, exploring a merger/acquisition or in the process of going public, CFO.com underscores value in engaging ligation finance tools to maximize valuation.

1 3

Video: Put the puck in the back of the net, Gunnar
by Gunnar Larson 07 Apr '24

07 Apr '24

Video: Put the puck in the back of the net, Gunnar https://www.instagram.com/p/C3VWQBasHan/?igsh=MXg0aTlseHN4b2UxNQ==

1 2

Fwd: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC | Memo #1 - The People’s Republic of China on ESG and D&O Innovation
by Gunnar Larson 07 Apr '24

07 Apr '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Wed, Jun 8, 2022, 2:12 PM Subject: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC | Memo #1 - The People’s Republic of China on ESG and D&O Innovation To: <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> Cc: Weber, Richard (DFS) <Richard.weber(a)dfs.ny.gov>, Weintraub, Cathy (DFS) <Cathy.Weintraub(a)dfs.ny.gov>, Alexi Anania <a(a)xny.io> June 8, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Superintendent, Adrienne A. Harris New York State Department of Financial Services One State Street New York, New York 10004 Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov Re: The People’s Republic of China on ESG and D&O Innovation Dear Madam Superintendent: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is proud to be under the esteemed oversight of your distinguished office. Today’s memo signals concern of recent ESG and D&O research published by Nanjing Audit University of the People’s Republic of China. The institution is operated under the auspices of the Jiangsu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiangsu> Provincial Government, the National Audit Office of China <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Audit_Office_of_China> and the People's Bank of China <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Bank_of_China>. Kindly find the attached memo <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1THKGP530wiMOKurCd79mHSFfW6GvCrOJsRzyA_J…> addressed to your honorable attention. Respectfully yours, 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 June 8, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Superintendent, Adrienne A. Harris New York State Department of Financial Services One State Street New York, New York 10004 Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov Re: The People’s Republic of China on ESG and D&O Innovation Dear Madam Superintendent: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is proud to be under the esteemed oversight of your distinguished office. Today’s memo signals concern of recent ESG and D&O research published by Nanjing Audit University of the People’s Republic of China. The institution is operated under the auspices of the Jiangsu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiangsu> Provincial Government, the National Audit Office of China <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Audit_Office_of_China> and the People's Bank of China <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Bank_of_China>. xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is concerned that the Nanjing Audit University and the People’s Bank of China potentially could be mis-representing intent related to ESG and D&O innovation, at the expense of our global enterprise. 1. According to the Council on Forign Relations, China is the world’s top emitter, producing more than a quarter of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. 2. Nanjing Audit University’s “theoretical analysis and hypothesis developments” suggest that the People’s Republic of China is embryonic in the enforcement of ESG and/or D&O mandates. Meanwhile, suggesting Bloomberg as a reputational capital. 3. xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC has collated 37 highlights to Nanjing Audit University’s ESG and D&O research for NY-DFS consideration. As a Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar and Blockchain Scholar holding international law distinction(s) My international graduate research has touched on Western profit of China’s water resources. xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks to protect pure New York State ESG and D&O innovation. Madam Superindnet, we attentively recognize you are the world’s most powerful regulatory leader in this regard. >From this humble perspective, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks to earn your respect and consideration to explore the New York False Claims Act as a potential channel. xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC hopes New York State welcomes this assessment at the liberty of your honorable office. Respectfully yours, 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 CC: Mr. Richard Webber

1 3

McAfee Founder?s Neighbor Dead in Belize After Dogs Poisoned
by Gunnar Larson 07 Apr '24

07 Apr '24

Subject: McAfee Founder’s Neighbor Dead in Belize After Dogs Poisoned McAfee Founder’s Neighbor Dead in Belize After Dogs Poisoned McAfee Founder’s Neighbor Dead in Belize After Dogs Poisoned https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-12/mcafee-founder-is-suspec… John McAfee, the founder of the popular anti-virus software maker, is considered “a person of interest” in the murder of U.S. citizen Gregory Faull and has yet to be located, Belize National Security Ministry spokesman Raphael Martinez said.

1 3

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 07 Apr '24

07 Apr '24

On March 24, 2024 ... 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. ____________________ 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 6

Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 07 Apr '24

07 Apr '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ajVVx6NGB9wd2GDXfLRftf0RVFpqjl8WWITvdNV… March 10, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1, Memo #2 and Memo #3 with our recent inquiry to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Deferred Agreement. Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery…> with the United States of America is in potential breach, with ethical enforcement being concerned. Memo #4 aims to associate the malfeasance in Malaysia with war crimes of aggression (in the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression), leveraging the world’s only military divided capital city Nicosia, Cyprus. 1. Additionally, Memo #4 aims to earn the DOJ’s assessment of New York State’s regulatory marketplace manipulation deriving the war crime against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. 2. In this case, the first challenge is to observe and consider the simple idea that the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs alone, through means of regulatory arbitrage naively fails to recognize the ‘cause and effect’ relationship at play at the inception of Memo #4’s assertion of war crimes. 3. Even with the best of intentions, perhaps unknowingly the DOJ may be amplifying the effect of potential war crimes by indirectly supplementing the root cause of the problem and financial model of the Deferred Agreement being self-policing. Mr. Marzulli, there has been an active United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since the 1964 Turkish military invasion and occupation of the northern third of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, while there is broad recognition that the ongoing military presence constitutes occupation of territories that are under Turkish military control. - The graduate education behind Memo #4 is a product of the University of Nicosia’s (UNIC) main campus, located adjacent to the United Nations Buffer Zone that separates the invaded Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, which joined the European Union in 2004. - Memo #4 is also a product of United Nations consultancy, based at its Manhattan headquarters, where (today, what is now xNY.io - Bank.org) was credited with increasing the breadth and accessibility of reference content from the world’s most important multinational organization. - Memo #4’s subject of war crimes has preeminent association with such projects as the Audio Visual Library of International Law. Over the following sections, Memo #4 will provide a detailed timeline that would constitute real concern of the war crime of aggression yielding the war crime against peace in active war conflict in the world’s only military divided capital, funded from Manhattan Island. The Bank of Cyprus and Illegal Short Selling Irregularities of Turkey’s Markets Mr. Marzulli, turn this matter as we will, and look at it from any side whatsoever, and it presents the appearance of a cross-border act of aggression. Goldman Sachs’ potential disrespect to the Deferred Agreement’s core values has cultivated new crimes that aim to manipulate cross-border war crime regulatory frameworks. - On April 02, 2021 the Financial Times reported that Turkey fined Goldman Sachs over alleged irregularities in short selling, just a week after foreign investors pulled $1.9B from the country’s stock and bond markets. Turkey’s Capital Markets Board said that Goldman Sachs was among 10 securities firms that had placed orders for short selling without proper notification, violating rules enacted previously that temporarily prohibited such transactions. - On April 20, 2021 the CyprusMail (Cyprus’ only English Language daily newspaper) reported Goldman Sachs International acted as Global Coordinators and Dealer Managers in a $330M bond issuance for the Bank of Cyprus. Given the active military conflict in Cyprus, Memo #4 notes that there is one place on the planet you are not supposed to do this sort of thing. Furthermore, the DOJ’s Deferred Agreement with Goldman Sachs may have been tainted with the potential war crime of aggression, risking international peace and the lives of United Nations peacekeepers, while jeopardizing the United States of America’s financial security. Concern of New York Prime Bank Instrument Fraud and Marketplace Manipulation The United States Department of the Treasury warns that Prime Bank Instrument Fraud schemes have attracted significant international attention, since individuals and organizations have lost billions of dollars worldwide. "Prime Bank Instrument Fraud" is the general term given to prime bank fraud schemes that go by many different names. During April 2021, Goldman Sachs could not in good faith (and, plausible deniability) make any reasonable claim of holding a pristine relationship with Turkey’s Central Bank or with Cyprus’ largest financial institutions, given the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and then pending Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States of America. - Memo #4 suggests that Goldman Sachs developed a Prime Bank Instrument Fraud program to level out yo-yo market dynamics caused by failed marketplace manipulation exercises in Turkey and Cyprus. - Systematic bank fraud and/or marketplace manipulation of any kind between Turkey and Cyprus could constitute the war crime of aggression. - Furthermore, Memo #4 argues that Goldman Sachs may have tried to bambooze governments in New York, Cyprus and Turkey through regulatory arbitrage loopholes, while Goldman seemingly may have not considered the totality of such actions as war crimes. Turkey has the highest inflation in Europe. It has the second-highest rate of inflation among emerging markets, just behind Argentina. It has the 13th highest inflation rate in the world, ranking it between South Sudan and Nigeria. After Goldman Sachs was fined for illegal stock and bond market short selling by the Turkish government, logic would argue further malfeasance potentially could have been avoided by the DOJ’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad investigation. - On April 15, 2021 CNBC reported that Goldman Sachs (note, the previous section’s milestones of April 02, 2021 and April 20, 2021) crucially removed its bias toward Turkey tightening interest rates. Goldman issued guidance highlighting the fact that the bank thought that, “…the removal of the tightening bias against rising inflation expectations suggests that the TCMB (Turkish Central Bank) now has a more dovish reaction function.” - On August 14, 2021 the CyprusMail reported serious concern among economists about data reporting from the Turkish Statistical Institute. Ahmet Takan, a former official with the office of the Turkish prime minister, acted as a whistle blower, warning that Turkey potentially was manipulating inflation data. - On September 1, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs hiked Turkish growth forecasts. Goldman economists issued guidance stating, "Overall, the Turkish economy has been able to grow faster than we thought without a deterioration in its external balances, as the pickup in foreign demand has been very supportive." - On November 30, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs trimed Turkey’s 2022 growth forecast. Goldman Sachs' Murat Unur stated, "We think that the GDP figures released today tell us little about the pace of economic activity going forward as the recent sell-off in the Lira is likely to impact economic activity significantly" Mr. Marzulli, the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs was signed on October 21, 2021. The timeline of events above do not coincide with terms and conditions of the Deferred Agreement mandated by the United States of America. Furthermore, as an international graduate scholars of the world’s only military divided capital on the planet, xNY.io - Bank.org should be protected from any association of crimes against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. War Crimes Against Humanity Mr. Marzulli, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned that potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement are impacting our global enterprise. Crimes against humanity can be committed in peacetime as well as during an armed conflict. Even a single act could fall under this exclusion ground provided it forms part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and the act is committed by any person (including a civilian) who had knowledge of the attack and the link of the act to the attack. 1. We are looking to learn more about the DOJ’s approach to assessing any potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement’s mandates as we determine New York State’s role in cross-border bank regulation and corresponding innovation beyond war crimes against humanity. 2. In order to establish whether a war crime or a crime against humanity has been committed, the case officer should consult the relevant international instruments and case law. 3. Crimes against humanity are fundamentally inhumane acts, committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack. Inhumane acts, which could reach this threshold when committed pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy (potentially, New York State bank regulation). 4. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. 5. Furthermore, we have made 28 highlights to the Deferred Agreement providing supporting reference to Memo #4’s overarching premise. xNY.io - Bank.org submits Memo #4 for DOJ consideration of other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Some crimes against humanity would require an additional specific intent, such as Goldman Sachs willfully disrespecting New York State and/or overall peace and security of the United States of America. Memo #1, Memo #2, Memo #3 and Memo #4 outline instances that correspond with the associated definitions of the potential war crimes abroad and jeopardize the future of bank innovation from New York, at great sacrifice to the Homeland. We hope to learn the DOJ’s approach to comment on Memo #4’s subject matter or, without delay refer these concerns to the International Criminal Court and/or International Court of Justice for comment. Respectfully yours with anticipation, Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> | Bank.org <http://bank.org>MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107

1 1

S&C Advises Robinhood in $2.275 Billion Secured Revolving Credit Facility | Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
by Gunnar Larson 01 Apr '24

01 Apr '24

https://www.sullcrom.com/About/News-and-Events/Highlights/2022/April/SC-Adv… S&C Advises Robinhood in $2.275 Billion Secured Revolving Credit Facility April 18, 2022 Robinhood Securities, a clearing broker-dealer entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, entered into an agreement in which a syndicate of banks led by JP Morgan Chase will provide Robinhood with a secured revolving credit facility of up to $2.275 billion.

1 2

Re: Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request FOIL-2023-095358-021587 - Robinhood BitLicense Records Appeal - NY-DFS
by Gunnar Larson 01 Apr '24

01 Apr '24

Dear Ms. Mazza: This is a friendly reminder xNY.io - Bank.org will not rest until we conclude the BitLicense RICO concern. Can we please receive an update on our dignified Robinhood records request appeal? Have a great day. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8053 On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 6:43 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Ms. Mazza: > > The five day deadline has passed. > > This is very important particular to xNY.io - Bank.org's concern of a > crypto RICO derrived out of the BitLicense. > > Ms. Mazza, when can xNY.io - Bank.org expect a response on the Robinhood > records? NY-DFS' records response to Coinbase was extremely helpful. > > Have a great day. > > 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 > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 2:21 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > >> In accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4), xNY.io - Bank.org elects >> to appeal this determination to withhold the Robinhood BitLicense Records. >> >> Turn this matter as we will, any side whatsoever appears to require >> obstruction of justice. >> >> We further demand NY-DFS send xNY.io - Bank.org an update on the >> aforementioned appeal within five (5) business days. >> >> Reserving all rights, xNY.io - Bank.org is seeking relevant relief in >> California on Robinhood. >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Gunnar >> >> ---- >> >> SENT VIA EMAIL >> Email: G(a)xny.io >> February 21, 2024 >> Mr. Gunnar Larson >> xNY.io – Bank.org >> 406 West 25th Street >> New York, NY 10001 >> Re: Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Tracking No. 2023-095358 >> Dear Mr. Larson, >> I write in response to the FOIL request that you submitted to the New >> York State Department of Financial Services >> (“Department”), which has been assigned the above-referenced tracking >> number and reads as follows: >> Dear Madam or Sir: On August 2, 2022 the Superintendent of Financial >> Services Adrienne A. Harris >> announced that Robinhood Crypto, LLC (“RHC”) would pay a $30 million >> penalty to New York State >> for significant failures in the areas of bank secrecy act/anti-money >> laundering (“BSA/AML”) >> obligations and cybersecurity that resulted in violations of the >> Department’s Virtual Currency >> Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 200), Money Transmitter Regulation (3 NYCRR >> Part 417), Transaction >> Monitoring Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 504), and Cybersecurity Regulation >> (23 NYCRR Part 500). >> xNY.io - Bank.org would like to >> 1. receive any and all records related to NY-DFS' investigation of >> Robinhood Crypto. Including (but >> not limited to) records concerning the bespoke Supervisory Agreement >> Robinhood Crypto has with >> the Department of Financial Services mentioned here: >> https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202208021 >> . >> 2. In addition, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks any and all records concerning >> New York's approach to >> Robinhood Crypto and Goldman Sachs compliance programs mandated by the >> United States >> Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Money >> Laundering and Asset >> Recovery Section mentioned here: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r- >> m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=drivesdk. >> 3. Finally, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks records concerning New York's >> regulatory approval of >> Robinhood Crypto engaging a fine of $30M to implement heightened controls >> and additional >> procedures and policies relating to electronic surveillance and >> investigation, due diligence on >> transactions or clients and the use of third-party intermediaries across >> business units; and enhancing >> anti-corruption training for all management and relevant employees. >> To the extent the request is reasonably described, the Department >> construes the request as seeking the records, >> correspondence, and work product exchanged between Robinhood and the >> Department in accordance with the Department’s >> August 1, 2022 Consent Order (“responsive records”). >> The records that you seek relate to an ongoing Department investigation. >> Accordingly, your request is denied >> pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i) (the “law enforcement >> exemption”), which excepts from disclosure records >> that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and that, if disclosed, >> would interfere with law enforcement investigations. >> The purpose behind the law enforcement exemption is to protect an >> agency’s investigative process from being compromised >> by revealing the scope and nature of an agency's investigation before an >> investigation is complete. See Matter of Pittari v. >> Pirro, 258 A.D.2d 202 (2d Dep’t 1999). It also bears noting that the law >> enforcement exemption applies to both civil and >> criminal investigatory files. See Madeiros v. Dep’t of Educ., 30 N.Y.3d >> 67 (2017). In this instance, releasing the requested >> records would interfere with the Department’s investigative process. >> Thus, the Department is not disclosing the records that >> you request pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i). >> Moreover, in addition to withholding the responsive records pursuant to >> Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i), the >> Department also is withholding the responsive records pursuant to Public >> Officers Law § 87(2)(a), which specifically >> exempts from disclosure records exempted by a state or federal statute. >> The applicable statutory provision is N.Y. Banking >> Law (“Banking Law”) § 36(10), which states, in pertinent part, that >> reports of examinations and investigations and >> correspondence and memoranda concerning or arising out of such >> examinations and investigations are confidential and shall >> not be made public. The statute fosters open communication between the >> Department and its regulated institutions, a >> necessity for effective regulation of financial institutions, by ensuring >> that records transmitted to the Department in >> connection with its supervision of a financial institution are protected >> from disclosure. >> The responsive records that were transmitted between Robinhood and the >> Department in connection with the >> Department’s supervision of Robinhood as a licensed money transmitter >> pursuant to New York Banking Law, constitute >> correspondence and reports concerning and arising out of an investigation >> and are, therefore, required to be kept confidential >> and exempt from disclosure under Banking Law § 36(10). The expectation >> that records transmitted to the Department will >> remain confidential is essential to encouraging candor and open >> communications between the Department, its regulated >> entities, and the entities undergoing regulatory review that submit such >> records. Release of such sensitive records, albeit >> responsive records, may have a chilling effect on the willingness of >> regulated entities to share information and cooperate >> with supervisors to resolve issues, and thus confidentiality is critical >> to the Department’s ability to perform its regulatory >> mandate and purpose. Accordingly, the exemption set forth in Public >> Officers Law § 87(2)(a) via Banking Law § 36(10) >> covers the responsive records. >> In accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4), you may appeal this >> determination to withhold the records within >> 30 days by sending an email to FOIL.Appeals(a)dfs.ny.gov. >> Very truly yours, >> Stephanie Mazza >> Associate Attorney >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: <Stephanie.Mazza(a)dfs.ny.gov> >> Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 1:26 PM >> Subject: Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request >> FOIL-2023-095358-021587 >> To: <G(a)xny.io> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Larson: >> >> Attached please find the Department's determination regarding the >> aforementioned FOIL request. Because your request has been answered, your >> request is now closed. >> >> Tracking Number:FOIL-2023-095358-021587 >> >

1 2

RUIN: Money, Ego and Deception at FTX
by Gunnar Larson 31 Mar '24

31 Mar '24

RUIN: Money, Ego and Deception at FTX https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-10-26/ruin-money-ego-and-decepti…

1 0