May 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [spam][crazy][fiction][random] Non-Canon MCBoss Spinoffs
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 18 Oct '24

18 Oct '24

traffick boss and cyborg torturer are pulling daisies, in carts, to daisy festivals cyborg torturer: “we hope your hearts are as excited as these flowers seem to be to bloom!” traffick bo— — 1956 in — T_T we asked the same old question on reddit and got the same old answer “if this stuff is triggering for you do grounding exercises” it came from a super mind controlled survivee! honestly there is no good answer to “my group/experience prepped me for all the current grounding techniques” (although you are expected to get a better answer if you say that) but something is missing :s :s :< :> abababa bababa i should relax because s— 1959 baba bag(a) i am sorry that i am your mind, your karl, and i do not make sense. i am sorry for this! it is because (?parens added after: there is a part of me that is preventing it! it is a describable part. but it only describes (when the describing is happening, kind of).)

1 406

Coinbase Scores Victory with Supreme Court Ruling on Federal Arbitration Act - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '24

18 Oct '24

Check out my new article: https://litigationfinancejournal.com/coinbase-scores-victory-with-supreme-c… Coinbase Scores Victory with Supreme Court Ruling on Federal Arbitration Act - Litigation Finance Journal Litigation Finance Journal recently reported that Coinbase became the first US-based cryptocurrency company to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. The June decision has been announced, and with a 5-4 majority in favor of Coinbase, the high court ruled “that an interlocutory appeal about one matter (arbitrability) bars the district court from proceeding on another (the merits).” CoinDesk says the ruling is a distinct legal victory for Coinbase, one that could impact future lawsuits against all companies in the United States. For over a century, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has been part of user agreements to protect corporations from risk and expense associated with court battles to resolve customer claims. The decision does not represent any high-court conclusions on cryptocurrencies, outside of Coinbase being one of the associated parties. A lower court decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Coinbase’s arbitration agreement approach. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit denied Coinbase’s motion to halt hearings while appeal is in progress. The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Coinbase effectively stays any trial proceedings while appeal is in progress.

1 3

Binance and Coinbase vs. the SEC - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '24

18 Oct '24

Check out my recent article: https://litigationfinancejournal.com/binance-and-coinbase-vs-the-sec/ On June 5, 2023, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, for allegedly misleading investors and regulators while operating an unregistered exchange. One day later, the SEC sued the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States, Coinbase, for similar allegations. Now, litigation financiers around the globe look on as top law firms organize to defend Binance and Coinbase against the SEC. Bloomberg Law reports that Binance and Coinbase have tapped some of the United States’ top law firms to defend their future to exchange nearly $120B in cryptocurrency token assets. The SEC claims that most of these tokens sum up to unregistered securities. Binance and Coinbase deny any wrongdoing. Agencies such as Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Milbank, Latham & Watkins, Wilmer Hale and Sullivan & Cromwell are among those said to bank upwards of $50M – $100M in legal fees for Binance’s and Coinbase’s defense against the SEC’s recent actions. Sullivan & Cromwell is reported to have billed over $80M in fees associated with the FTX Chapter 11 bankruptcy litigation, according to court documents. The SEC says that unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency violate US investor protection laws. Yet, former SEC leaders have joined Binance’s defense team. Richard Grime (of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher) has been hired by Binance. Mr. Grime formerly served as assistant director of the SEC’s enforcement division. William McLucas (of Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr) formerly served as the SEC’s enforcement director. Mr. McLucus has been hired by BAM Trading Services, the operator of Binance.US. What does all of this mean for the litigation finance industry? Experts suggest that private actions could be explored by litigation investors and their clients in the wake of the SEC’s approach to cryptocurrency tokens being exchanged as unregistered securities. However, collectability remains a pertinent issue for litigation investors, as they consider whether to pursue crypto litigation funding.

1 1

Pending US Supreme Court Decision is a Coinbase Class Action Cliffhange - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '24

18 Oct '24

Check out my new article: https://litigationfinancejournal.com/pending-us-supreme-court-decision-is-a… Coinbase’s business has been seminal to the legacy of cryptocurrency innovation. As the global digital asset marketplace continues to mature, Coinbase is tiptoeing between a group of class action lawsuits. Now, the United States Supreme Court is deliberating if Coinbase should be protected by mandatory arbitration. Benzinga reports that in March 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared uncertain regarding whether to allow Coinbase to move to arbitration over class actions which had been launched against the firm. Executives at Coinbase argued that private arbitration is a win for business. The June decision by the Supreme Court will spell a new dynamic for cryptocurrency sector litigation. Some digital asset scholars predict that a lack of mandatory arbitration may devastate business dynamics at Coinbase. Allowing class action lawsuits to continue is an expensive proposition that would inevitably impact the pace of cross-border crypto innovation. Meanwhile, U.S. and global regulatory uncertainty is stoking new legislation that could fuel litigation well into the future. The efficient nature of digital asset technology is at a crossroads. The Coinbase decision, commingled with upcoming regulatory requirements worldwide, will shape business dynamics for enterprise crypto software and the entrepreneurs behind future sector innovation.

1 1

Four Highlights to REPORT OF INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES
by Gunnar Larson 04 Oct '24

04 Oct '24

Today Gunnar got out of bed and realized he has to stage a Pershing Square type of success out of the Middle East: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=49778. AG James, once human rights start paying for themselves, everything changes. What was happening in Chelsa during this investigation is being hid from New Yorkers just like the Steele Dossier but WORSE. Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson must keep his integrity Mr. Mayor Adams. And my situation is far more impactful than sneaking into first class... AG James, can you please confirm that the current Superintendent is not up to worse to the four highlights here? Gunnar ---- Four Highlights to REPORT OF INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZCy-8lHFc0AAihuWP8UpXg0LC4CkLnw_/view?usp=… EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We, the investigators appointed to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, conclude that the Governor engaged in conduct constituting sexual harassment under federal and New York State law. Specifically, we find that the Governor sexually harassed a number of current and former New York State employees by, among other things, engaging in unwelcome and nonconsensual touching, as well as making numerous offensive comments of a suggestive and sexual nature that created a hostile work environment for women. Our investigation revealed that the Governor’s sexually harassing behavior was not limited to members of his own staff, but extended to other State employees, including a State Trooper on his protective detail and members of the public. We also conclude that the Executive Chamber’s culture—one filled with fear and intimidation, while at the same time normalizing the Governor’s frequent flirtations and gender-based comments—contributed to the conditions that allowed the sexual harassment to occur and persist. That culture also influenced the improper and inadequate ways in which the Executive Chamber has responded to allegations of harassment.1 ---- Executive Assistant #1’s Hesitation to Report Governor Cuomo’s Conduct Executive Assistant #1 repeatedly testified that she felt she had to tolerate the Governor’s physical advances and suggestive comments because she feared the repercussions if she did not.183 She did not feel she could tell anyone, including her colleagues and her direct supervisors.184 In addition, the Governor had specifically told her—with respect to the selfie they took together—that she was not to share it or tell anyone about it other than Ms. McGrath.185 Executive Assistant #1 testified that she needed the income (including the overtime pay received from working on weekends), particularly as she was going through a divorce and was focused on not risking losing her job.186 Executive Assistant #1’s hesitance to report the Governor’s conduct was also informed by her observation of the Executive Chamber’s reactions to other women’s allegations against the Governor. In mid-to-late December 2020, Executive Assistant #1 personally witnessed what she felt were the Executive Chamber’s efforts to discredit the allegations of Ms. Boylan against the Governor, including by repeatedly describing Ms. Boylan as “crazy” and by trying to get Ms. Boylan’s personnel files to the press.187 Executive Assistant #1 recalled that Ms. DeRosa, Richard Azzopardi (the Senior Deputy Communications Director and Senior Advisor to the Governor at the time), and at times Linda Lacewell (the Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services) would be in Ms. DeRosa’s office during that period.188 They described Ms. Boylan as crazy and having a political agenda, and talk about shutting down Ms. Boylan’s allegations quickly.189 On or around December 13, 2020,190 while Executive Assistant #1 was assisting the Governor at the Capitol, she observed that Mr. Azzopardi was asked to retrieve a box from Beth Garvey, Senior Counsel and Senior Advisor to the Governor at the time, which Executive Assistant #1 helped carry from the Counsel’s Office to the Front Office in the Capitol.191 From the context of the discussions happening around that time, Executive Assistant #1 understood that the box contained documents relating to Ms. Boylan.192

1 4

Linda A. Lacewell
by Gunnar Larson 04 Oct '24

04 Oct '24

Subject: Linda A. Lacewell https://new.mta.info/people/linda-lacewell Recommended by: Governor Appointed on: June 20, 2019 Term expired: January 1, 2023 Committee assignments: B&T (Chair), NYCT-MTA Bus, Finance, Corporate Governance, Diversity Linda A. Lacewell currently serves as Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. Lacewell previously served as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Governor. In that role, she oversaw Executive Chamber operations, as well as ethics and law enforcement matters. Before that, Lacewell was Executive Director of a cancer foundation initiative in Culver City, California. Lacewell also served as Chief Risk Officer and Counselor to Gov. Cuomo, where she built and implemented the first statewide system for ethics, risk, and compliance in agencies and authorities. Lacewell was formerly Special Counsel to the Governor, as well as the architect of OpenNY, a state-of-the-art open data initiative. She also served as special counsel to Attorney General Cuomo, where she oversaw the public pension fund pay-to-play investigation and the out-of-network health insurance investigation, both of which led to nationwide systemic reform. Lacewell spent nine years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, including two years on the Enron Task Force, and received the Henry L. Stimson Medal and the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service. Lacewell earned her B.A. from New College of the University of South Florida and her J.D. with honors from the University of Miami School of Law. She clerked for a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Lacewell serves as an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law, teaching ethics in government, and previously served as an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University School of Law, teaching international criminal law.

1 3

Entrapment
by Gunnar Larson 01 Oct '24

01 Oct '24

Hello: I have been under entrapment most of the day. The agents have been rude and I have asked them multiple times to operate under proper decorum. Gunnar Larson

1 3

Sonic Weapons Affect St. Bernard
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

Brody, the most wonderful St. Bernard on the Planet running around with Havana Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome Honestly, I really respect this technology. It is super cool. I just do not think they thought it would affect a big, beautiful boy like Brody.

3 5

Havana Syndrome, Sonic Weapons - INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INNOVATION
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

Cognitive liberty is not currently recognized as a human right by any international human rights treaty.[11] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-Bublitz_and_Mer…> While freedom of thought <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought> is recognized by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights> (UDHR), freedom of thought can be distinguished from cognitive liberty in that the former is concerned with protecting an individual's freedom to think *whatever* they want, whereas cognitive liberty is concerned with protecting an individual's freedom to think *however* they want.[29] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-29> Cognitive liberty seeks to protect an individual's right to determine their own state of mind and be free from external control over their state of mind, rather than just protecting the content of an individuals’ thoughts.[30] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-Boire,_Part_II-…> It has been suggested that the lack of protection of cognitive liberty in previous human rights instruments was due to the relative lack of technology capable of directly interfering with mental autonomy at the time the core human rights treaties were created.[21] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-Boire,_Part_I-21> Havana Syndrome bred by Sonic Weapon technology more or less is lazyly playing in regulatory arbitrage loopholes related to cognitive liberty. Recently, we went to the SEC for guidance on consolidation of an ILO (Intiatal Legal Offering). As we await engagement with the SEC on the ILO prospect, ILO’s resemble Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), but rather than raising money for a new coin, app, or service, they’re used to fund specific litigation. Think micro-investing for lawsuits. In an ILO, investors receive tokens entitling them to shares of potential recoveries, an economic right converted to a digital asset. If cases fail, they lose their investments. We are exploring an ILO at the international level (International Criminal Court <https://www.icc-cpi.int/>, International Court of Justice <https://www.icj-cij.org/en>), to solidify the right of Cognitive Liberty. Likely, the broader public will overwhelmly support their individual right to free thinking and systems and processes associated with thinking freely. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is a pioneer in engaging sonic weapon technology <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon>, An NYPD officer stands ready with the LRAD 500X at an Occupy Wall Street protest on November 17, 2011 near the city hall. The NYPD conducts experiments and other cutting edge innovation strategies as being America's Best Urban Police Force. It should be considered that the NYPD properly file logs of such technology engagement (aka ... what, when, where, why, how) as xNY.io strives to liberate the semantics related to cognitive thinking liberty. Moreover, while the NYPD pioneers new crowd control technology, other private firms have abused the technology for their own selfish agendas. Keeping all this in mind, one of xNY.io's active engagements is closing the semantic loophole related to cognitive liberty. The SEC likely will provide associated guidance in the coming 2022 year. Happy New Year World! Thank you, Gunnar -- *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

4 7

City Settles Lawsuit From Protesters Who Accused NYPD Of Firing Sound Cannon At Them
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

https://gothamist.com/news/city-settles-lawsuit-protesters-who-accused-nypd… The City has agreed to pay $748,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Black Lives Matter protesters who said the NYPD illegally targeted demonstrators with Long Range Acoustic Devices [LRAD] in 2014. Under the settlement, the NYPD will also ban the use of the LRAD’s powerful “deterrent tone” and, for the first time, generate a written policy governing the use of the devices. The suit stems from a demonstration in December of that year, when a group was marching in midtown Manhattan to protest a grand jury’s refusal to indict the officer who killed Staten Island resident Eric Garner using a banned chokehold. As part of an effort to disperse the crowd, two police officers repeatedly used the powerful tone generated by their LRAD. Some of the journalists and protesters who were in close range at the time complained afterwards of pain, ringing in their ears, and migraines that lasted for days afterwards. The LRAD was initially developed for the U.S. Navy after terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, using a small boat laden with explosives. Like its successors, the original LRAD served a dual function, on the one hand serving as a public-address system capable of communicating ship-to-ship over very long distances, and on the other hand capable of creating a cone of noise so loud and painful that it could deter anyone from approaching. Police forces soon realized these dual functions could be used in policing protests, and began adding them to their arsenals. The NYPD used its first LRAD to address protesters during the 2004 Republican National Convention, though it wouldn’t begin regularly deploying LRADs to protests until 2014. Less frequently, police have also used the device’s piercing sound-weapon function against protesters. The NYPD devices are capable of producing sound as loud as 137 decibels, well over the threshold that can cause pain and lasting damage to human ears. In 2012, Captain Anthony Raganella, the commander of the NYPD’s Disorder Control Unit, requested the department replace his unit’s LRADs with new models: a truck-mounted 500X LRAD at $23,000, and two handheld 100X LRADs at $7,680 each. (The request was included in a larger proposal that included $30,000 for pepper spray and pepper-ball weapons, thousands more for rubber pellet grenades and chemical irritant grenades, and $16,000 for orange crowd-control netting.) In an internal email explaining to the NYPD grants unit the necessity of his request, Raganella cited the threat posed by the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “The requested equipment would be used to train and ensure the readiness of the Department to respond to any civil unrest caused by these terrorist groups,” Raganella wrote. Today’s settlement brings final resolution to a landmark case first filed five years ago, but the City’s legal defeat dates back to a judge’s 2017 ruling. The de Blasio administration had argued that police couldn’t be held liable for excessive force in using an LRAD because they never actually touched anybody. “The officers' creation of a sound that plaintiffs happened to hear cannot be considered 'physical contact,’” City lawyers claimed. “the LRAD is not an instrumentality of force, but a communication device.” Judge Robert Sweet rejected the argument, ruling, “This is force, and the kind that could be used excessively.” The de Blasio administration appealed the decision, but in 2018 the 2nd Circuit affirmed it, forcefully rejecting the City’s argument that subjecting people to dangerously loud sound isn’t a use of force. “Even though sound waves are a novel method for deploying force,” the court wrote in its opinion, “the effect of an LRAD’s area denial function is familiar: pain and incapacitation.” The 2nd Circuit also reaffirmed that just because there isn’t case law governing a new technology for hurting people, that doesn’t give police a blank check to use that technology however they want. “Novel technology,” the court wrote, “does not entitle an officer to qualified immunity.” Still unwilling to concede the point, the de Blasio administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 to overturn the lower courts’ rulings, but the court declined to hear the request. Notwithstanding courts’ repeated findings that the deployment of LRADs could constitute use of force, current NYPD training takes pains to assert that the LRAD is not a weapon. “The LRAD is not any of these,” reads one slide from an LRAD training program for the Disorder Control Unit: “Sound Cannon; Sound Gun; Wave Gun; Sonic Weapons; Active Denial System.” “The tone does not create a sonic wave, blast or have the ability to cause physical injury like a weapon,” one training presentation reads, explaining that NYPD officers may use the tone “to help gain attention of individuals” in bursts of up to three seconds separated by at least a second. In settling the suit, the City does not concede that police officers using the LRAD broke any laws or violated anyone’s rights. But under the terms of the settlement, the NYPD commits to update its administrative guide and its officer training to ban the use of the deterrent tone altogether, and require police using LRADs to “make reasonable efforts to maintain minimum safe distances between the LRAD and all persons within its cone of sound.” Officers who fail to do so “may be subject to such further discipline as deemed appropriate.” The City will also pay the five plaintiffs in the case a total of $98,000, as well as $650,000 in fees for their lawyers, Gideon Oliver, Elena Cohen, and Michael Decker, all affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild. Annika Edrei, the lead plaintiff in the case, was a journalism student in 2014 when she found herself caught in the LRAD’s cone of sound, and suffered migraines for a week afterwards. The experience, she said, discouraged her from attending protests for years. “I actually gave up on a major part of my photography career,” she said. Speaking of the settlement, she said, “I hope that protesters in the future are more protected because of our actions.” “The City could have and should have decided to make policy change and pay our clients for their injuries much earlier,” said Oliver. “But instead of doing that, they fought tooth and nail for years in this case, and so in addition to damages and policy change, the city has to pay attorneys’ fees that are much higher than they would have been.”

2 8