June 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

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 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

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

1 1

FOIL Request No. 2022-090560 - Larson (NY-DFS Apple Card Investigation)
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 7:44 AM Subject: Fwd: FOIL Request No. 2022-090560 - Larson (NY-DFS Apple Card Investigation) To: <Scheduling_schumer(a)schumer.senate.gov> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> Dear Honorable Senator Schumer: My name is Gunnar Larson, I am a co-founder at xNY.io - Bank.org. Today's memo seeks your office's esteemed help resolving a NY-DFS records access case from October 12, 2022. On November 2, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org elected to appeal NY-DFS' records access decision. NY-DFS responded to xNY.io - Bank.org on July 25, 2023 with the attached memo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19g7NvXjwCwD7859N1DDx8JS9WTvrEU7I/view?usp=… . Senator Schumer, as of today (January 12, 2024) xNY.io - Bank.org has not received the request records. NY-DFS has responded several times suggesting our request is under review. We are concerned New York State could be suggesting a delay in records access given the sensitive nature of the former Governor and NY-DFS Superintendent. Senator, given your senior position in New York State government we seek any relevant relief in accessing the corresponding records. Sending you the best from Chelsea. Thank you for your service, 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 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomczak, Christine (DFS) <christine.tomczak(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Wed, May 10, 2023, 4:58 PM Subject: RE: FOIL Request No. 2022-090560 - Larson (NY-DFS Apple Card Investigation) To: g(a)xny.io <g(a)xny.io> Cc: JeanBaptiste, Pascale (DFS) <Pascale.JeanBaptiste(a)dfs.ny.gov>, cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> Dear Mr. Larson, I am getting back to you to apologize for the delay and assure you that your appeal is under review and you will receive a response in the near future. Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel New York State Department of Financial Services 1 State Street, New York, New York 10004

1 3

HSBC Hit With Swiss Restrictions After Compliance Breaches
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

HSBC Hit With Swiss Restrictions After Compliance Breaches <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1848998?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Alex Davidson Switzerland's financial regulator said Tuesday that HSBC's Swiss private bank had breached anti-money laundering requirements in banking transactions with two high-profile individuals, restricting its new business relationships until it completes reviews overseen by a monitor. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1848998?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1848998?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 0

Serco Settles Landmark Shareholder Dispute Mid-Trial
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

Serco Settles Landmark Shareholder Dispute Mid-Trial <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1849014?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Eddie Beaver Serco settled a landmark shareholders' claim on Tuesday with investors who sued the outsourcing giant for compensation over an overbilling scandal that caused its share price to nosedive. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1849014?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1849014?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 0

UK - Crime - New Guidelines On Perverting The Course Of Justice – On The Path To More Clarity?
by Gunnar Larson 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/crime/1478758/new-guidelines-on-perverting-the-co… New Guidelines On Perverting The Course Of Justice – On The Path To More Clarity? PP Peters & Peters MORE The Sentencing Council introduced new guidelines for perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation in England and Wales, aiming to ensure consistency and clarity in sentencing. These guidelines are expected to provide a structured approach and address variations in previous case law. UK Criminal Law Photo of Diana Czugler Photo of Arunn Thiruchelvam AUTHORS The concept of 'perverting the course of justice' might commonly feature in televised series, where crooked cops tamper with evidence for money or baddies interfere with witnesses, but before HBO and Netflix came on the scene, it had a long-established history as an offence in the common law of England and Wales. In October 2023, the Sentencing Council introduced new guidelines for sentencing offenders convicted of perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation in England and Wales. These aim to provide consistency and clarity across all cases, whereas before a wide range of case law had to be relied on to devise the correct type or length of sentences based on the individual circumstances of each case. We look at how the guidelines, which have now been in force for just over six months, will likely impact sentencing going forward in less severe cases. This is of particular interest at a time when the offence is once again in the limelight, following a recent high-profile boiler room fraud case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which has resulted on 7 May 2024 in an individual receiving a custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice. An old offence The current interpretation of the doctrine was crafted in 1891, when Justice Pollock B considered whether the defendant's attempt to fool arbitrators in a dispute about the quality of grains amounted to a fraud or cheat against the administration of public justice. In R v Vreones, he offered the dictum that "the real offence... is the doing of some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration of public justice". Since this dictum, the law around perverting the course of justice has been used and developed to assist the courts in a wide range of situations, such as: – discontinuing a criminal prosecution in return for payments; – making false statement to police officers investigating an offence; – making a false retraction of a true allegation of rape; – doing an act calculated to assist another to avoid arrest; – interfering with a witness or a juror; or – the whole gambit of potential scenarios that would make for good crime cop drama. Perverting the course of justice has remained a serious offence: it is indictable only, with maximum life imprisonment and an offence range between a community order and seven years in custody. Long-standing principles thrown into question Before the new guidelines were introduced, practitioners relied on the long-standing principle that custodial sentences should be imposed in all but the most exceptional cases. Indeed, before the guidelines came out, the courts considered, in R v Abdulwahab [2018] EWCA Crim 1399, that conduct intended to pervert the course of justice almost invariably called for a custodial sentence; the idea being that deterrence was necessary. In this case, the appellant, a young man with no previous convictions, had given a false account of events when interviewed under caution. His friend had used his leased car to deal drugs. The appellant claimed that he had left it at a car park for his friend to collect, when in fact, his friend had driven the car to the car park himself. Drugs were found in the car, and the friend and two other men were arrested for intent to supply Class A and Class B drugs. The appellant voluntarily attended the police station a few days later to collect the car and was interviewed under caution when he gave the false account. The police had CCTV evidence contradicted his account. On reviewing the 15-month custodial sentence that he had received, and giving full credit for his guilty plea, the appeal judge observed that there was a "clear, deliberate, and focused lie told by the appellant with intent to pervert the course of justice" by either providing his friend with a defence or by weakening the prosecution case against him. However, he also observed that "there does not appear to have been any evidence pointing unequivocally to this appellant having gone to the police station always intending to put forward that lie...". In the Court of Appeal, the appellant submitted that his lie not been elaborate or well thought out, it did not exonerate the friend from suspicion, it was put forward only during the interview under caution and, although it was maintained throughout the interview, it was not repeated on other occasions, and the false account did not in fact obstruct the course of justice to any significant extent and did not adversely affect the police investigation. The judgment further explored that there was "no Definitive Sentencing Guideline for offences of this nature". However, a number of relevant principles could be drawn from another case, R v Radcliffe [2016] 1 Cr App R(S) 65, and other decisions of the Court of Appeal. These included that: 1. conduct which tends and intends to pervert the course of justice striking "at the heart of the administration of justice and almost invariably calls for a custodial sentence"; 2. the appropriate sentence depends on the particular circumstances of each case and these can vary widely and therefore only limited assistance can be derived from considering previous decisions in other cases; 3. in assessing the seriousness of any particular offence of perverting the course of justice, the seriousness of the underlying offence, the nature of the deceptive conduct, the period of time over which it was continued, whether it cast suspicion on or led to the arrest of an innocent person, and the success or otherwise of the attempt should also be considered; and 4. the offender's previous character and any personal mitigation must be taken into account. New structure The sentencing guidelines offer a step-by-step approach for reaching a conclusion on sentencing which broadly reflects the common law approach previously relied on. As per all sentencing guidelines issued under the Sentencing Code, step 1 involves "determining the offence category". This requires assessing the seriousness of the offence to provide a starting point for sentencing. The seriousness of the offence is determined by assessing culpability and harm, based on three categories: A – high culpability, B – medium culpability, C – lower culpability. Some demonstrable behaviour for each category includes: – high culpability: conduct over a sustained period of time and sophisticated and/or planned nature of conduct, as well as seriousness of underlying offence; – medium culpability: factors present in A and C which balance each other out and/or the offender's culpability falls between the facts described in A and C; and – lower culpability: unplanned and/or limited in scope and duration, unsophisticated nature of conduct, involved through coercion, intimidation and underlying offence not serious for lower culpability. A hypothetical review If we were to hypothetically review Abdulwahab with the help of the sentencing guidelines, the first step would also be to assess the young man's culpability. Here, it may be argued that he was of medium/low culpability. Although the underlying offence was "serious", all other factors, such as the lack of sophistication in the lie, the fact that he did not attend the police station with a plan to lie, and that the lie was not repeated, point towards low culpability. Next, the level of harm should be assessed. This is also divided into three categories: – Category 1: where there has been serious consequences or distress for an innocent party, a serious impact on the administration of justice, and a substantial delay caused to the course of justice. – Category 2: where suspicion was cast on an innocent party and there has been some, distress, some impact, and some delay. – Category 3: limited distress, limited impact, limited delay. In our hypothetical review, a judge may find that the young man had caused a category 3 level of harm: no innocent party was involved, the impact on the administration of justice and the delay caused to the course of justice were limited (although bearing in mind that had it not been for the CCTV the police already had in their possession, the impact would have been more significant). Once the level of culpability and the level of harm have been assessed and a prognosis has been reached, step 2 of the sentencing guidelines calls for both to be used to identify the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within a category range. The guidelines provide a table to help assess the starting point and category range, which specifies "the starting point applied to all offenders, irrespective of plea or previous convictions". Should our hypothetical appellant be a B3, i.e. someone of medium culpability (category B) with low level of harm (category 3), the starting point would be nine months' custody and the category range between six months' and one year's custody. Once the starting point has been reached, the sentencing guidelines provide additional considerations to be considered in relation to community orders and custodial sentences. Steps 3 to 8 can then be used to arrive at an appropriate sentence. These are not considered in detail here, but include: – Step 3: consider any factors which indicate a reduction for assistance to the prosecution. – Step 4: reduction for guilty pleas. – Step 5: totality principle. – Step 6: compensation and ancillary orders. – Step 7: reasons. – Step 8: consideration for time spent on bail. All of these considerations are usually taken into account for the conviction of criminal offences, which the judge considered in Abdulwahab. Time will tell In Abdulwahab, the Court of Appeal accepted that the 15 months' custodial sentence that had been handed down was too long and that 11 months were more adequate. In his judgment, the judge accepted the appellant's submissions finding that "the sentence after trial which the learned judge had in mind was manifestly excessive in length... [he] had therefore erred in taking too high a starting point for sentence after trial". In the context of our hypothetical review, this updated sentence would fall within the range of the guidelines, albeit at the higher end of the category range. The guidelines have been in place for only a few months, so their effectiveness and how they will affect the sentencing landscape remain to be seen. However, their introduction is likely to be positive, and it is very much hoped that they will offer consistency and clarity for all involved, from lawyers, their clients and the courts. What remains crystal clear is that notwithstanding the introduction of the guidelines, serious wrongdoing will continue attracting sufficiently severe punishment. This is apparent from the recent 18-month custodial sentence handed down by Southwark Crown Court in a prosecution brought by the FCA for a relatively sophisticated and premeditated attempt at perverting the course of justice (the forging of documents), which was committed in the context of broader, serious offending by finance professionals (who ended up receiving lengthy custodial sentences of their own for fraud offences). It was undoubtedly considered an aggravating feature in the case that the forged document was provided to FCA investigators to mislead them. The individual – who was not found to have played any part in the boiler room fraud scheme itself – pleaded guilty but was nonetheless sentenced to 18 months in prison. Originally published 20 May, 2024. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

1 1

BREAKING: NY High Court Denies Trump's Gag Order Appeal
by Gunnar Larson 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

BREAKING: NY High Court Denies Trump's Gag Order Appeal <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1849139?nl_pk=ab5ce197-c1fb-4d8e…> By Frank G. Runyeon New York state's highest court on Tuesday denied Donald Trump's rapid appeal of the gag order that limited his speech during his criminal hush money trial, finding it did not raise serious constitutional issues. 1 document attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1849139?nl_pk=ab5ce197-c1fb-4d8e…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1849139?nl_pk=ab5ce197-c1fb-4d8e…>

1 0

Crypto Trading Firm Nabs NY BitLicense
by Gunnar Larson 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

Crypto Trading Firm Nabs NY BitLicense <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1848893?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Aislinn Keely Crypto trading firm and liquidity provider Cumberland DRW announced Monday that the New York Department of Financial Services has granted it a BitLicense, which allows it to operate a crypto business within the state. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1848893?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1848893?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

The Senate Race in Ohio Is the Sickest in U.S. History in Terms of Billionaire Money from Outside the State
by Gunnar Larson 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/06/the-senate-race-in-ohio-is-the-sicke… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: June 18, 2024 ~ Senator Sherrod Brown Senator Sherrod Brown Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat and life-long Ohioan, is running for his fourth term in the U.S. Senate, after more than 17 years of proving consistently with his voice and actions that it’s the working class of Ohio that he stands up for in Congress. It would seem that Brown’s reelection should be an easy win. Instead, it will be one of the most expensive Senate races in U.S. history with the outcome dependent on just how vile and vicious the attack ads funded by out-of-state billionaires are against Brown. According to AdImpact.com, outside groups have reserved $92.8 million in ads they plan to run supporting Brown’s Republican challenger, Bernie Moreno, a man who has bragged about his early “lower-middle-class status,” but whom the New York Times describes as being “born into a rich and politically connected family” in Bogotá, Columbia. How did Senator Brown end up with a target on his back? It comes down to two things. Republicans need to oust Brown to grab majority control of the U.S. Senate; and Brown is the Chair of the powerful Senate Banking Committee where key Presidential nominees need to get confirmed. Putting a right-wing Republican in the Chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee would grease the skids for a MAGA agenda. The Club for Growth Action Super PAC played a major role in making sure Moreno won the Republican primary so he could go head-to-head with Brown in the general election. The billionaire-supported PAC ran ads during the primary touting Trump’s endorsement of Moreno while stating that “Bernie will stand up to liberal nut jobs.” See one of those ads here. According to Federal Election Commission data, Club for Growth Action has raised $46.29 million from January 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024. Two billionaires are responsible for two-thirds of that money. Neither of those billionaires live or vote or work in Ohio, and yet their money could sway the outcome of the Senate election in Ohio. The Club for Growth has pushed for things that the majority of Americans are against: the privatization of Social Security; the destruction of workers’ rights and unions; and the deregulation of dangerous industries. The largest donor to Club for Growth Action is Jeff Yass, a billionaire who resides in Pennsylvania. From January 1, 2023 to June 7, 2024, Yass has donated $20.5 million to the Club for Growth Action Super PAC. The second largest donor is Richard Uihlein, who has chipped in $10.26 million. Yass is Co-Founder of Susquehanna International Group (SIG), a hedge fund and global quantitative trading firm. In 2022, the nonprofit investigative news site, ProPublica, reported that Yass has “avoided $1 billion in taxes while largely escaping public scrutiny. He’s now pouring his money into campaigns to cut taxes and support election deniers.” Richard Uihlein is an heir to the Schlitz brewing fortune. He and his wife, Elizabeth, founded Uline, a shipping supplies company. According to The Hill publication, the 2022 midterms marked Uihlein’s largest ever donations to political campaigns – a staggering $80.7 million. But it’s not just right-wing Super PACs that Senator Brown is up against. According to FEC records, Moreno’s own primary campaign account, “Bernie Moreno for Senate,” is seeing a huge influx of donors who reside in New York, Florida, Texas, Virginia, and, peculiarly, Minnesota, many of whom have maxed out their individual donations to Moreno of $3300 for the primary and another $3300 for the general election. Notable among this group are people employed by private equity firms such as Blackstone, Goldman Sachs (which owns a private equity arm), Elliott Management, Lone Star Funds, Fortress Investment Group and numerous others. Private equity and hedge funds enjoy a craven tax break called “Carried Interest,” where billionaires can end up paying a lower tax rate than teachers, plumbers and factory workers in Ohio. What Ohioans can do to outwit the swamp creatures in this election is to line up 10 neighbors or friends who were planning to sit out this election and drive them to the polls on November 5.

1 0

Calif. Becomes Last State To Ink Deal Over Blackbaud Breach
by Gunnar Larson 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

Calif. Becomes Last State To Ink Deal Over Blackbaud Breach <https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1848956?nl_pk=6422bbc2-a823-4be5-9a9…> By Allison Grande Blackbaud Inc. has agreed to pay $6.75 million to resolve data security claims brought by California's attorney general, who was the only one to sit out a nearly $50 million settlement that the software provider reached last year with every other state over a 2020 ransomware attack that affected thousands of its customers. 2 documents attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1848956?nl_pk=6422bbc2-a823-4be5-9a9…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1848956?nl_pk=6422bbc2-a823-4be5-9a9…>

1 0

SEC Alleges Texas Man Offered Virgin Sham $200M 'Lifeline'
by Gunnar Larson 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

SEC Alleges Texas Man Offered Virgin Sham $200M 'Lifeline' <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1848867?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…> By Gina Kim Securities regulators sued a venture capitalist and his investment firm in Texas federal court Monday, accusing the firm of making a bogus offer to invest $200 million into Virgin Orbit last year despite having less than $1 in its bank account and causing stock prices to swell before plummeting when the deal collapsed. Complaint attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1848867?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1848867?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…>

1 0