April 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

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

12 May '24

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast <https://litigationfinancejournal.com/hong-kong-and-singapore-litigation-inv…> International arbitration has experienced an uptick in activity over the past decade, with litigation finance driving increased accessibility to quality arbitration outcomes. Hong Kong and Singapore have both passed regulations to authorize third party funding in each jurisdiction. New research sponsored <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, led by faculty of law professor Can Eken profiles Hong Kong and Singapore’s regulatory environment in granular detail. Eken compares and contrasts nuances between both markets, while asking what innovations Hong Kong and Singapore may embrace to further expand third party funding engagement across the international arbitration spectrum. Governments in Hong Kong and Singapore overwhelmingly embrace a ‘soft touch’ approach to litigation finance regulation. Forecasting the region’s growth prospects signal both Hong Kong and Singapore are in competition to be Asia’s arbitration capital, supported by friendly third party funding regulation. Eken suggests that with the high cost associated with international arbitration, viability is often framed by financial capacity. With such need, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as having pioneered international arbitration regulation, legalizing the use of third party funding agreements. As an added bonus, we have included 36 highlights <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> to Eken’s 23 page essay for your general reference. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 2

140 Highlights to BY ELECTRONICMAIL Jorge Dopico, Esq. Chief Attorney Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor New York, New York 10038 AD1-AGC-newcomplaints@nycourts.gov RE: Complaint by Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Against Attorney General Letitia Ann James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq.
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

LONG LIVE BRODY! Gunnar ---- 140 Highlights to BY ELECTRONICMAIL Jorge Dopico,Esq. Chief Attorney Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor New York, New York 10038 AD1-AGC-newcomplaints(a)nycourts.gov RE: Complaint by Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Against Attorney General Letitia Ann James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOzEmOpxCBNfThWYqPPDaV0evqGFVFTd/view?usp=… A. INTRODUCTION. I am the 56th Governor of the State of New York and write to bring to the Attorney Grievance Committee’s (“Committee”)attention certain professional misconduct by New York Attorney General LetitiaAnn James (“AGJames” or the “Attorney General”),and two Special Deputies to the First Deputy Attorney General appointed by AG James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq., to assist in an investigationof allegations of sexual harassment against me.1 The Complaint arises from the Office of the Attorney General’sinvestigationand related August 3, 2021“Report of InvestigationIntoAllegationsof Sexual HarassmentBy GovernorAndrewM. Cuomo” (the “Report”). A copy of the Report is attachedhereto as “ExhibitA.”

1 5

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 12 May '24

12 May '24

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 1

SpaceX Interlocking Directors? Intent to Manipulate Markets
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 5:19 AM Subject: Fwd: SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets To: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> This message will go down in history. Still no response yet. Have a great day! ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 12:52 PM Subject: Re: SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets To: <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov> Cc: <ir(a)twitter.com>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>, <district3(a)council.nyc.gov>, Reader, Shaun <sreader(a)curtis.com> Dear Madam Attorney General James: xNY.io - Bank.org kindly seeks a response from your office concerning the message below. Today in Manhattan, the FTX case will soon be sent for jury deliberation. According to NPR, "... FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is accused of orchestrating one of the largest financial frauds in history." Additionally, today Donald Trump's civil fraud trial continues in New York City. Attorney General James, as you are aware xNY.io - Bank.org has an ongoing dialog with your office concerning a 'RICO.' The New York State Department of Financial Services records office has responded with a memo concerning the "Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement" here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1reLapm-6C0QJZhPKIPtN5HZGbYhTxZMh/view?usp=… . This memo aims to execute N.Y. Executive Law, Article 15 § 297. Procedure 1. Additionally, § 298-a. Application of article to certain acts committed outside the state of New York, (Israel Crisis). Kind regards, 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 Sat, Jun 18, 2022, 4:44 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Attorney General Letitia James: > > xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks to earn your esteemed approval to engage the > New York False Claims Act under urgent pretences. > > Today's correspondence marks the first time in history, a self-titled > "mafia" (aka, the "PayPal Mafia '') is compelled to answer publicly the > decision to manipulate both the New York False Claims Act and the Martin > Act against one another. > > - Madam Attorney General, your leadership approach has historical > context > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/exxon-climate-lawsuit-new-york.h…> > to logic and ultimate Exxon Mobil vs. New York State > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nLp9RIYw8mAh1SRG8E9PMEK94SV-viUN/view?usp=…> case > precedent. > - xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC research and development notes our hawkish > approach to ESG, D&O and LBO innovation. > - xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC sees this not a democrat vs. republican > concern as Mr. Elon Musk (CEO, SpaceX and Tesla) claims. False pretense to > protect free speech are now being debated as party to a $200B pryamid > scheme. > > Ms. James, on May 21, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS…> > contacted the SpaceX Corporation with reasonable concern of CEO Musk's > intent behind the $44B Twitter LBO. The Orlando Police Pension Fund shared > similar concerns to the intent behind Twitter's LBO as illegal. > > Since, market forces suggest that SpaceX and Tesla directors are part of > interlocking directorate, self proclaimed the PayPal Mafia. The racket > could waterfall to problem(s) at the New York State Department of Financial > Services with Superintendent association to D&O insurance regulation. > > Ms. James, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks your office's urgent assessment of > this matter. We aim to earn approval to explore the New York False Claims > Act to confront SpaceX as a racket. > > *Like a house of cards, the PayPal Mafia racket could risk a waterfall of > D&O interlocking directorate insolvencies. In summary: * > > 1. xNY.io - Bank.org's May 21, 2022 memo to SpaceX questioned intent > behind baseless claims pioneered by SpaceX's CEO, branding ESG a scam via > Exxon Mobil. Obviously, Exxon Mobil vs. New York State > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nLp9RIYw8mAh1SRG8E9PMEK94SV-viUN/view?usp=…> alludes > Mr. Musk party to a false claim. > 2. SpaceX has failed to establish a preponderance of evidence and > burden of proof not a racket. > 3. SpaceX has failed to prove that Twitter's LBO is not false claim to > free speech protection. > 4. True social innovation cannot sponsor a fake news racket that could > jeopardize space exploration and war. > 5. Twitter's LBO dealmakers (Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase) > company balance sheets, financial statements and other corporate records do > not impact xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC holding a racket accountable to false > claims. > > The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla leveraging Exxon Mobil as an ESG > securities scam does not preclude the PayPal Mafia's intent to engage false > claims at the sacrifice of New York State's financial future. > > Madam Attorney General James, we hope to hear from your esteemed office > and learn assessment of best next steps. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar > > -- > *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 > > On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 9:34 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > >> May 21, 2022 >> >> BY ELECTRONIC MAIL >> >> SpaceX Corporation >> Board of Directors >> One Rocket Road >> Hawthorne, California >> 90250 >> Sales(a)SpaceX.com >> >> Re: Potential SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate >> Markets >> >> Dear SpaceX Board of Directors: >> >> From our New York headquarters, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC embodies the >> notion that rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change and >> innovation is like a slide. >> >> Today’s memo aims to notify the SpaceX Corporation of concern of >> potential market manipulation that could impact cross-border digital asset >> innovation, free speech in the United States of America, the global ESG >> economy and Moon exploration. >> >> Please find the attached memo >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS…> >> addressed to SpaceX's board of directors. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Gunnar Larson >> >

1 2

Re: Your Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) Request FOIL-2024-097305-022021
by Gunnar Larson 06 May '24

06 May '24

Dear Idel Lendoff: NY-DFS has delayed answering if there are any Superintendent recusal records mentioned by New York Magazine several times. xNY.io - Bank.org today kindly petitions New York State Department of Financial Services' esteemed action against any worry of public corruption concerning recusal records of the current Superintendent. Given the history of NY-DFS Superintendent durability, especially given the previous NY-DFS Superintendent, it would seem that New York Magazine's mention of NY-DFS Superintendent recusals is evidently prudent for follow-up by xNY.io - Bank.org. Being clear, it was not xNY.io - Bank.org who first mentioned NY-DFS Superintendent recusals, it was New York Magazine. NY-DFS' latest response of delaying response of any recusal records until May 10, 2024 sparks further worry of public corruption (similar to that of Superintendent Lacewell). Simply, can NY-DFS answer if there are any Superintendent recusal records by 5:00pm Monday April 15, 2024? After Monday, we will need to confirm with New York Magazine if their reporting is correct. We cannot assume these recusal records away. Warm regards, Gunnar 2024-097305: 3/11/24: Dear Madam or Sir: On March 30, 2022 New York Magazine published a profile of NY-DFS Superintendent Adrienne Harris titled "Crypto’s Most Powerful Regulator Is Here Adrienne Harris, New York’s financial watchdog, has enormous sway over the industry’s future" ( https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/adrienne-harris-is-cryptos-most-pow…) The profile of Superintendent Harris quotes "... that she would recuse herself from any dealings with companies she has conflicts with." xNY.io - Bank.org seeks access to any and all records specific to Superintendent Harris' recusal(s) as of February 1, 2024. 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 -- 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 Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 2:53 PM <Idel.Lendoff(a)dfs.ny.gov> wrote: > Good afternoon, > > Attached please find correspondence from the NYS Department of Financial > Services, pertaining to your FOIL request. > > > > Thank you. > > Tracking Number:FOIL-2024-097305-022021 >

1 9

Calif. AG Charges A Top LA Prosecutor Over Cop File Access
by Gunnar Larson 03 May '24

03 May '24

Calif. AG Charges A Top LA Prosecutor Over Cop File Access <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1829563?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Dorothy Atkins California Attorney General Rob Bonta has unveiled criminal charges accusing a top Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office prosecutor and adviser to DA George Gascón of illegally accessing nearly a dozen confidential sheriff's deputy files in 2021. Complaint attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1829563?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1829563?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 1

Feds Accused Of 'Outrageous' Misconduct In Ozy Media Case
by Gunnar Larson 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

Feds Accused Of 'Outrageous' Misconduct In Ozy Media Case <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1829998?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Rose Krebs Ozy Media and the defunct startup's founder want a New York federal judge to toss a criminal fraud case against them, accusing the government of prosecutorial misconduct and violating attorney-client privilege protections. 2 documents attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1829998?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1829998?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

Banks Have Won Syndicated Loan Battle, But Not The War
by Gunnar Larson 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

Banks Have Won Syndicated Loan Battle, But Not The War <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1826217?nl_pk=abe82add-2a33-…> Though the U.S. Supreme Court's recent denial of certiorari in Kirschner v. JPMorgan preserves the status quo that syndicated loans are not securities, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's discomfort suggests that the underlying issues have not been fully resolved, say attorneys at Crowell & Moring. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1826217?nl_pk=abe82add-2a33-…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1826217?nl_pk=abe82add-2a33-…>

1 0

Smollett Atty Wants Sanctions Over Missing Therapy Records
by Gunnar Larson 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

Smollett Atty Wants Sanctions Over Missing Therapy Records <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1830704?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Celeste Bott An attorney for Jussie Smollett has asked an Illinois federal judge for another round of sanctions after two brothers who allegedly helped stage a hate crime against the actor failed to turn over discovery, saying they've refused to turn over records or answer questions in the defamation suit pertaining to their mental health treatment. Memorandum attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1830704?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1830704?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0

JPMorgan Remains the Second Largest Money Market Fund Manager, Despite Needing Billions in Money Market Bailouts from the Fed in 2020
by Gunnar Larson 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/04/jpmorgan-remains-the-second-largest-… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 30, 2024 ~ The Office of Financial Research (OFR), the federal agency created after the financial crash of 2008 to keep federal banking regulators on top of threats to financial stability, has posted an interactive chart showing the largest managers of Money Market Mutual Funds in the U.S. Alarmingly, the parent of the largest and riskiest bank in the United States – JPMorgan Chase – is also the second largest Money Market Mutual Fund manager. According to the OFR, as of March 31, 2024, JPMorgan was managing $657.9 billion in money market funds, second only to Fidelity, which on the same date was managing $1.3 trillion in money market funds. The data comes from Securities and Exchange Commission Form N-MFP2. JPMorgan’s federal regulators have failed to stem the bank’s growth despite the fact that JPMorgan Chase has been tapping massive bailouts from the Federal Reserve since the last quarter of 2019, as well as being charged with nonstop crimes. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Fed created an alphabet soup of emergency lending programs, one of which was the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF). When the Fed finally released the granular details two years later of which firms tapped the emergency facilities, it showed that 10 of JPMorgan’s money market funds needed to borrow a combined $8.97 billion on the MMLF’s very first day of operation. The $8.97 billion represented 32 percent of the $27.15 billion in funds loaned that day by the Fed’s MMLF. JPMorgan money market funds’ liquidity problem on March 23, 2020 appears to have centered on JPMorgan’s tax-free money market funds holding billions of dollars in New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) short-term revenue notes. Those were prominent among the instruments submitted as collateral to the Fed for loans from the MMLF. The MTA notes apparently could not be sold by JPMorgan to meet redemption requests without causing the money market fund to break the buck. Money market mutual funds are expected to trade at a stable $1.00 per share. It is known as “breaking the buck” when money market funds trade for less than $1.00 per share. Breaking the buck occurred at several money market funds during the financial crisis of 2008 and increased the financial panic occurring at the time. To stem the run on money markets in 2008, the U.S. Treasury was forced to take the unprecedented step of guaranteeing money market mutual funds. Why JPMorgan’s money market funds had such concentrated exposure to one municipal issuer’s notes should warrant the attention of its regulators. JPMorgan was also an outsized user of the Fed’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility. The transaction data released by the Fed showed that at the end of the first 11 business days of operation of the PDCF, on April 3, 2020, the Fed had an outstanding balance in the PDCF of $49.5 billion and the trading unit of JPMorgan had borrowed $14 billion of that, or 28 percent of the total. JPMorgan’s need to tap the emergency repo loans from the Fed, which began on September 17, 2019 – months before there were any reported cases of COVID-19 anywhere in the world – was also deeply alarming. According to the quarterly data releases by the Fed for its emergency repo loans (after a delay of two years), the trading unit of JPMorgan (J.P. Morgan Securities) borrowed $2.59 trillion in term-adjusted cumulative repo loans in the fourth quarter of 2019 (see chart below) and another $3.6 trillion in the first quarter of 2020. Fed's Repo Loans to Largest Borrowers, Q4 2019, Adjusted for Term of Loan When the Fed released the shocking details showing that a unit of the largest bank in the United States needed enormous sums of emergency cash in the fall of 2019, it should have made front page headlines in every newspaper in America. Instead, there was a complete news blackout among mainstream media and the major business press.

1 0