August 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

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

Havana Syndrome, Part 2: How a dog's brain may help solve the mystery of Canadian diplomats' Cuban nightmare
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

Right now, I am under entrapment (again) and Brody (my beautiful 13 year old St. Bernard) is nervous. Here is research on dogs getting nervous under such conditions: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/havana-syndrome-part-2-how-a-dogs… Could a dog’s brain offer any clues to the mysterious concussion-like syndrome affecting Canadian and American diplomats who were posted to Cuba? That is one of the many threads being pulled in an effort by researchers and scientists — and those affected — to better understand the condition referred to as Havana Syndrome, which has been blamed for debilitating some Canadian diplomats and their families. Little is known about what could have caused the symptoms shared by some diplomats who were posted in Cuba, although U.S. investigators have ruled out sonic weapons, according to the Washington Post. A doctor who examined some of the Canadian and U.S. diplomats has suggested the damage stems from a microwave weapon. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Previous Slain Eganville mom Lisa Sharpe spent years seeking help for troubled son TRENDING Lisa Sharpe, 48, was killed last week in her Eganville home. Her son, Trey Gagnon, has been charged with second-degree murder. (Photo courtesy The Eganville Leader) Ukrainians raise questions about Ottawa charity as allegations swirl around donations TRENDING Ukrainian journalist Olga Khudetska (right), who now provides tactical medical training to Ukrainian troops, raised concerns about equipment donated by Mriya Aid. Suspect arrested after man stabbed to death in south Ottawa overnight, police say TRENDING Ottawa Police are investigating the stabbing death of a man at an apartment in the 2700 block of Saratoga Place in Ottawa Tuesday morning. Ottawa firefighter denies choking comrade TRENDING Eric Einagel's lawyer says his client is "devastated" by the charges levelled against him. 'Far beyond' reasonable: Federal union wants 47 per cent compensation increase over three years TRENDING The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) headquarters in Ottawa. The TBS says the union’s demands for its 120,000 employees would cost nearly $10 billion over the next three years.Next Breadcrumb Trail Links Politics National Local News Havana Syndrome, Part 2: How a dog's brain may help solve the mystery of Canadian diplomats' Cuban nightmare Author of the article:Elizabeth Payne Published Feb 27, 2019 • Last updated Feb 28, 2019 • 5 minute read Join the conversation Andrew King sketches of Elizabeth Payne's Havana Syndrome series. PHOTO BY ILLUSTRATION BY ANDREW KING /Postmedia Article content Could a dog’s brain offer any clues to the mysterious concussion-like syndrome affecting Canadian and American diplomats who were posted to Cuba? Advertisement 2 STORY CONTINUES BELOW This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content That is one of the many threads being pulled in an effort by researchers and scientists — and those affected — to better understand the condition referred to as Havana Syndrome, which has been blamed for debilitating some Canadian diplomats and their families. The brains of those diplomats and their spouses are being tested at Dalhousie’s Brain Repair Centre. Officials there were unavailable for interviews, but one of the diplomats involved told this newspaper that early findings have amazed researchers. Little is known about what could have caused the symptoms shared by some diplomats who were posted in Cuba, although U.S. investigators have ruled out sonic weapons, according to the Washington Post. A doctor who examined some of the Canadian and U.S. diplomats has suggested the damage stems from a microwave weapon. Still others have suggested the sounds being reported were actually crickets and that the symptoms are psychosomatic or a form of mass hysteria, hypotheses that anger those living with the after-effects. Dr. Michael Hoffer, a professor of otolaryngology and neurological surgery at the University of Miami, who examined 25 people linked to the diplomatic community in Havana, is frustrated by suggestions that the harms done to some of the diplomats are not real. Hoffer was the lead author of a paper that found all of the diplomatic personnel complaining of dizziness, ear pain and tinnitus suffered from an otolithic abnormality (affecting inner ear organs related to balance) and cognitive dysfunction. Such injuries could result in other symptoms such as cognitive difficulties and exhaustion, he said. “Here is the thing: These people did have an injury. I don’t know who injured them. I don’t know what injured them. But I am impatient with the fact that a lot of people are saying it was crickets or an infectious disease. “These people did have an injury. I don’t know who injured them. I don’t know what injured them. But I am impatient with the fact that a lot of people are saying it was crickets or an infectious disease. “Something happened to them. These findings of the inner ear disorder cannot be faked,” he said. “It is not hysteria. It is not crickets.” The suggestion that the symptoms could be psychosomatic has added to the frustration of affected Canadian diplomats. According to documents obtained through access to information by the National Post, a federal government official suggested early on that the symptoms could be psychosomatic. When contacted by this newspaper, one of those diplomats was wary about people questioning the syndrome. That diplomat, who uses the pseudonym Diplomat Allen, is among 15 Canadian diplomatic staff and their families suffering from Havana Syndrome. They are suing the federal government for $28 million, citing lack of support, information and treatment, among other things. He and his family began experiencing mysterious symptoms now associated with the syndrome when they were living in Havana in 2017. Allen and his family left Havana in the fall of 2017 after a series of unexplained events, including a screeching metallic sound in the middle of the night that left them with a variety of symptoms including nausea, uncontrolled nosebleeds, headaches and cognitive difficulties. During the summer of 2017, before the family returned to Ottawa, their three Shih Tzu dogs were behaving strangely, said Allen. Almost every night, the dogs would run to the corner of their yard backing on to a house where American diplomatic staff lived and bark frantically, for no apparent reason. “There was nothing there.” The dogs were shipped back to Ottawa after the family returned. One of them, a seven-year-old, subsequently began behaving strangely — suddenly biting at non-existent flies, arching its back and lying on its back and putting its feet in the air. A veterinarian diagnosed seizures and told the family there was something wrong with the dog’s brain. The vet recommended the dog be euthanized. Allen passed the information to a medical official at Global Affairs who asked if they could arrange for a necropsy on the dog. The necropsy (similar to an autopsy but performed on an animal) was conducted in Kemptville, where the University of Guelph has a campus. Later, Allen and his wife, along with other Canadian diplomats from Havana, travelled to Halifax where they are being assessed and studied at Dalhousie University’s Brain Repair Centre. Doctors there obtained a sample of the dog’s brain, said Allen. In December, researchers at Dalhousie told Allen they had found “something significant” in the dog’s brain and needed more samples. “It could be related,” Allen was told. Any links may help fill in the many blanks surrounding the mysterious syndrome. Researchers at Dalhousie are continuing to study the Canadian diplomats and spouses. Allen said he has been told “they were amazed” at what they found through MRIs of the diplomats’ brains and other tests. “All of us have brain bleeds that we shouldn’t have — and our thought processes are slower than people our age,” he said. MRIs show bleeds coming from small capillaries in their brains, he said, which are completely different from the control group. “For us, this is the concrete evidence we needed that this was real.” Canadian diplomats and families have also been diagnosed with vestibular and vision disorders, cognitive disorders and other issues. There is a small sense of relief at seeing some concrete evidence, but for Allen and others, that does little to allay fears about the future. Those with young children are particularly worried about how they might be affected in the long term. Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said the affected diplomats have Canada’s “utmost sympathy and support.” Meanwhile, there are more questions than answers about how and why the damage occurred. Were Canadians collateral damage or targets? What kind of weapons were used? And why? Daniel Livermore, a former foreign service officer who is a senior fellow at uOttawa’s department of public and international affairs, said there is little more than speculation about the source of the mysterious injuries to diplomats — one is that Havana Syndrome resulted from some sort of eavesdropping device gone awry, another is that the injuries are the result of targeted weapons. Cuba, which has always had good international relations with Canada, is not considered to be behind the attacks, if that is what they were. Russia and China are both considered possible suspects if there were attacks with weapons. As to what kind of weapons, there are still more questions. “I don’t know how this is being weaponized,” Livermore said of speculation that the damage was done with microwave weapons. “I don’t even know what the motivation would be. I don’t see a motive,” he said.

1 6

Litigating Universal Cognitive Liberty
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

https://litigationfinancejournal.com/litigating-universal-cognitive-liberty/ Litigating Universal Cognitive Liberty Freedom of thought is recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Interestingly,, cognitive liberty is not recognized as an international human right. Some want to change that, making the argument that humanity has the right to be free to think whatever they want (freedom of thought). The Ottawa Citizen reports <https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-leaders-saw-…> that the Canadian armed forces have launched ‘psychological operations’ as an experiment in government propaganda to counter civil disobedience. International human rights scholars are quick to point out that the lack of protection of cognitive liberty in such instances is due to the relative lack of technology capable of directly interfering with mental autonomy at the time the core human rights treaties were created. Similar to a ransomware attack, the technology behind such operations can be abused. Canada is said to have exploited advanced technologies without the authority to do so. Even worse, it is alleged that Canada forcefully abused technology in the unsanctioned production of reports that appeared to be aimed at cognitive activities of Canadians. - Other reports highlight similar technologies being explored by the New York City Police Department. - In 2021 <https://gothamist.com/news/city-settles-lawsuit-protesters-who-accused-nypd…>, members of the National Lawyers Guild won $650,000 in litigation financed fees from abuse of the technology in New York. The semantics empowering freedom of thought as a human right hold new opportunities for modern international recognition of the right to cognitive liberty.

1 12

An Open Letter to Bloomberg on Modern BitLicense Logic
by Gunnar Larson 27 Sep '24

27 Sep '24

Dear Bloomberg: Thank you for pioneering innovation spanning all facets of global finance. For the last 15 years, Bloomberg has served as a wise friend offering daily, quality inspiration. Interviewing Mayor Mike Bloomberg on occasion as a young journalist and advancing to become a global executive and regular Bloomberg Breakaway attendee has fostered a dream of learning from top global business idols. Forever inspired by Bloomberg’s pioneering contributions to the culture of New York and global financial innovation, today’s memo highlights our now eventful journey to fundamentally modernize New York's BitLicense and global regulatory logic. - Our global team <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3hI4G7QYR7PmlKlc7oQHhl4RnroLYF-/view?usp=…> is comprised of seasoned professionals who cumulatively represent decades of industry experience across various fields and disciplines. - Our strategic partnerships <https://news.bitcoin.com/ternio-joins-visas-fast-track-program-as-new-enabl…> with the world’s leading financial, healthcare services <http://mydr.co/> and mobile payments providers support the key aim of our endeavor: to attain the legitimate financial inclusion and economic prosperity of all the excluded, under-privileged and under-served, offering financial inclusion and global citizenry. Pioneering global virtual currency innovation is in part due to pedigree responsibility as a “Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar,” (UG) a “Blockchain Scholar” (GR) and a principle creator of “United Nations AudioVisual Library on International Law <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BweeaClFZ8c0dDNDWGFveVFTXzlOTjhXY2tKS2FZN2…>.” Humble scholars and UN esteem are indeed supportive. However, our working example of success is modeled on Bloomberg's business of international excellence, pioneering many of the world's greatest financial systems and technology frameworks out of New York. *The New York BitLicense vs. Global Regulatory Arbitrage* The 2015 BitLicense mandate was envisioned as synonymous with New York’s leadership of next-generation global innovation. New York’s contemporary virtual currency innovation rests with a modern BitLicense with cross-border logic (similar to New York human rights law <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a>). 1. Today many New York firms have various legacy regulatory arbitrage frameworks. 2. The utility concept behind virtual currency is in its cross-border appeal. 3. Modern European regulation shares this logic. New York’s BitLicense does not, therefore creating a virtual currency “Crypto Bank” regulatory arbitrage loophole between Europe and New York. New York banks’ traditional engagement of regulatory arbitrage has overflowed the BitLicense and correspondingly is responsible for global virtual currency marketplace manipulation. Circumnavigating this problem is key to modern BitLicense logic. Given the inherent universal cross-border nature of virtual currencies, there is no real good reason for New York firms under the BitLicense mandate to manipulate other global markets via regulatory arbitrage. Engaging the New York Department of Financial services’ new “Conditional BitLicense” framework as a vehicle, we have signed our clear intent to win the Superintendent's Conditional Approval and other necessary regulatory approvals of modern virtual currency logic. - BitLicense members today should not be surprised by New York wasting no time issuing modern logic and that virtual currency regulatory arbitrage is a lawless New York rights concern affecting <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a> over 1 billion people. - European regulation has allowed our team to build these concepts which are theoretically illegal in New York, thus creating global loopholes. - Africa is the most concerning “virtual currency regulatory arbitrage market” directed outside of New York and Europe jurisdictions. African consumers are being manipulated most. United States consumers also are affected at various levels. European consumers have a favorable environment, but do not have the “dynamism” New York affords. Working in New York, European and African jurisdictions as “Blockchain Scholars,” we tested the concept of our Modern BitLicense Logic at our “sister” University in Africa <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3hI4G7QYR7PmlKlc7oQHhl4RnroLYF-/view?usp=…>, and interestingly Goldman Sachs out of New York was a lead investor. The key observation is that New York banks “own,” or lead investment in, the European and African marketplace leaders. At every level, New York’s BitLicense is the most significant hurdle to the global virtual currency industry. Given our own experience in these markets, we have found that Goldman Sachs has fine tuned global virtual currency regulatory arbitrage. To be fair, we have reported on various other Silicon Valley firms leveraging the BitLicense, given that Valley firms like Robinhood <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> use New York banks, like Goldman Sachs, as a key actor. Note, as some of the industries top “real global scholars” we understand it would be a mistake to be adversarial to the current New York environment. Like Boomberg, we aim to be very impressive in terms of successfully shepherding/persuading meaningful New York innovation. *The Art of Diplomacy* Rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change is like a slide, and Modern BitLicense Logic is necessary. As a matter of New York law, there is no other option. The process of filing complaints or legal mediation is sub-par. Furthermore, if virtual currency firms want to game regulatory markets they honestly should forfeit the prestige of New York’s BitLicense. 2020 will go down in history as New York banks continued to profit heavily under regulatory arbitrage frameworks while virtual currency reached global proportions. New York’s newly announced “Conditional BitLicense” framework offered our group the perfect opportunity to earn a “Conditional License” and suggests advancing the BitLicense mandate with “modern logic.” - The interests ensured through interpretations of specific provisions in the existing national and supra-national legal framework (civil law, securities law, bankruptcy law, international human rights law) call for New York to clarify the rights of the public and obligations of BitLicense members engaged in the global virtual currency economy. - BitLicense regulation must preserve a technology-neutral, principle-based, non-discriminatory framework for the next generation of modern New York virtual currency public policy, naturally to support innovation within the limits imposed by overriding international public interests. As a proud New Yorker, the only option is to be a “real scholar,” and the job would not be complete without New York regulator approval and campaign for cross-border modernization of the BitLicense logic in any way possible. *Vast Undue Economic Hardship* Bloomberg has championed actions to promote an inclusive economy -- one in which people have the chance to move themselves and their families out of poverty, one in which systemic racism does not limit opportunities and one in which all people can fully participate. Without this inclusivity, the global economy will not be able to live up to its full potential and people will suffer. As we have reported <https://thecapital.io/article/new-yorks-raging-regulatory-arbitrage-racket-…>, virtual currency fraud is a serious problem for such a developed country as the United States, whose bank regulators have drawn attention to the increase of these crimes. Having discovered that an unregulated virtual currency sphere (such as in Africa, or other developing markets) is very popular among virtual currency fraudsters <https://www.americanbanker.com/news/jpmorgan-chase-warns-of-upcoming-fine-o…>, the New York State Department of Financial Services concluded that this kind of regulatory fraud was threatening US national security. Research on the social importance and credibility <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> of good institutional design from an organizational perspective seeks to prevent undue hardship requiring significant expense or difficulty (including a significant interference with the safe or efficient operation of international operations due to the seniority system of New York banks who are playing global markets). - Factors to be considered in determining whether an undue economic hardship exists shall include, but not be limited to, special requirements or conditions that are imposed upon an applicant or class of applicants in circumstances where similar requirements or conditions are not imposed upon other applicants. - Consumer protection is an umbrella term covering a group of laws and organizations that protect the rights of consumers and foster the free flow of accurate information in the marketplace. Consumer protection laws are designed to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or unfair practices, to protect individuals from scam artists, and to identity thieves and crooks. - A New York State resident or corporation is in violation if found to have contributed to an act committed outside New York State against a resident of this state or against a corporation organized under the laws of this state (or authorized to do business in this state) that would constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice if committed within New York State. - If the New York State has reason to believe that a non-resident person or foreign corporation has committed or is about to commit outside of this state an act which if committed within this state would constitute an unlawful practice, such act is in violation. Speaking generally, at least during its 2015-2020 implementation phase, the BitLicense has likely contributed to increased cross-border virtual currency market manipulation. Specifically, we reference our individual hardship example in New York, Europe and Africa with concern to Goldman Sachs’ cross-border manipulation as a violation of New York Human Rights law. *New York Human Rights Law* Our analysis of the factors that drive cross-border differences in the implementation of BitLicense reform link the resulting heterogeneity to cross-jurisdictional arbitrage. In this manner we identify New York in a “virtual currency regulatory crisis” – to the extent that the BitLicense is unevenly implemented – as a source of new and unchecked global financial risk. Given the nature of traditional regulatory arbitrage, it is key to differentiate the BitLicense and understand New York’s universal nature <https://dhr.ny.gov/law#HRL298a> of Human Rights Law. - The science of pure virtual currency design and human rights are universal movements to end ins <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation>titutionalized <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation> discrimination and disenfranchisement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States>, and to offer quality consumer financial product access without cross-border regulatory segregation. - We trust that virtual currency regulatory arbitrage can be addressed via BitLicense modernization and that New York regulators share our logical provisional interpretation of cross-borders with respect to human rights. Our experience in Europe and Africa points to the necessity to work with New York regulators directly without BitLicense member interference. This approach is not to purposely irritate the esteemed Superintendent or rock the boat that is New York State and risk disrupting the system that guarantees our future. *Conditional BitLicense Approval* Modern BitLicense Logic’s opportunity is to meet a new global standard for virtual currency regulatory innovation while protecting market integrity by stringent standards applicable to all law-abiding business enterprises. In our case, a few approvals are necessary and are proposed via a hybrid model under the supervision of the Superintendent. Following this desire, we have navigated the five step process for Conditional review. 1. *Inform*: Applicants inform NYDFS of the intent to collaborate with a specific BitLicensee and provide a copy of the draft agreement between the applicant and the BitLicensee. 2. *Submit: *Applicants submit information on the expected type of business and the perceived risks, among other things. 3. *Review: *NYDFS begins its substantive review after all of the requested documentation has been submitted. 4. *Contract: *NYDFS and the applicant enter into a supervisory agreement defining the scope of the applicant’s business, shared responsibilities with its sponsor BitLicensee and NYDFS’ level of oversight. 5. *Approve:* If NYDFS approves the application, a Conditional BitLicense is issued. Every day of delay in ambiguity of Modern BitLicense Logic poses a problem for those who want to offer additional products and services at international scale while staying within the letter of the law. Currently, we believe that our Conditional application is ready to enter stage four and seek to begin negotiation of the supervisory agreement. Bloomberg as the prime example of global prestige and success fuels our desire to be best in class in providing global virtual currency financial services out of New York. Warm regards, *Gunnar Larson* Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar | Blockchain Scholar Conditional BitLicense Applicant (Global Team Lead) New York, New York 10001 -- *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

New York AG Letitia James Seeks New Crypto Regulatory Powers for AG's Office and NYDFS: Report
by Gunnar Larson 25 Sep '24

25 Sep '24

As an African American who was arrested for NYCCoin touting ... Mayor Adams' corruption at Coinbase is NYCCoin Insider trading. What is astonishing, is compliance at Coinbase is regulated by an African American. Superintendent Harris continues to play deleft to Mayor Adams' new loan program with Goldman Sachs and Ones Million Black Women. I am black and so are they but Gunnar Larson has carried a major financial loss ... One Million Black Women will be a project I plan to engage both the Mayor and Superintendent on. Meanwhile, at Coinbase both black Harris and Adams are profiting from her willful non compliance on things like child sex trafficking according to Coindesk. ---- https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/05/05/new-york-attorney-general-seeks-… “The lack of transparency plaguing the crypto industry causes immense harm to countless investors, especially low-income New Yorkers and people of color who carry a disproportionate share of the losses,” New York City Comptroller Brad Lander said.

1 2

Re: Regulations on the Administration of Network Data Security (Draft for Comment)
by Gunnar Larson 24 Sep '24

24 Sep '24

Dear Cyberspace Administration of China: It has been over one month since our inquiry, and I am kindly following up on the message below. Please note, the question concerning Proof of Transfer is critical to determining any degradation to the Bitcoin blockchain's software purity. As such, it would be ideal to determine Hong Kong's approach to Network Data Security <http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-11/14/c_1638501991577898.htm> (Draft for Comment) issued by your office. Furthermore, this correspondence is to also reference autonomy between xNY and e-CNY (given several obvious factors). Sincerely yours, Gunnar Larson -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> | Bank.org <http://bank.org/>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 2:08 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Sir or Madam: > We seek clarification to the recent notice of the Cyberspace > Administration of China on Public Comments on the Regulations on the > Administration of Network Data Security > <http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-11/14/c_1638501991577898.htm> (Draft for > Comment). > > The Cyberspace Administration of China > <http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-11/14/c_1638501991577898.htm> (and Hong Kong) > issued new guidance on third-party products and services that cause damage > to users. According to the Cyberspace Administration’s guidance, users can > request Internet platform operators to pay compensation in advance for data > violations. > > Hong Kong is the data hub for Stacks (STX), where internet platform > operators shall assume data security management responsibilities for > third-party products and services connected to their platforms. Hong Kong > mandates clarity of data security responsibilities for third parties > through contracts and other forms, and urges third parties to strengthen > data security management, and adopt the necessary data security protection > measures. > > - Stacks’ strong third-party presence in Hong Kong extends to China. > One of Stacks’ board members has served as a leader of a Shanghai based > incubator. > - The looming question is if Proof of Transfer (PoX) Stacks’ extension > to Proof of Burn (PoB), where miners compete by ‘burning’ (destroying) a > Proof of Work (PoW) from an established blockchain, is allegedly illegal in > Hong Kong, under the Cyberspace Administration’s new guidance. > > PoX, when used for participation rewards (Such as with MIA Coin, NYCCoin > and STX), could lead to miner consolidation. Because miners that also > participate as holders could gain an advantage over miners who do not > participate as holders, miners would be strongly incentivized to buy the > new cryptocurrency and use it to crowd out other miners. In an extreme > case, this consolidation could lead to a centralization of mining, which > would undermine the decentralization goals of the public blockchain. > > China, along with Hong Kong, has outlawed various forms of threats to > international peace and security. > > We seek the Cyberspace Administration of China's guidance if the Proof of > Transfer > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wL2kN6aMfsyT-T7g01YJSBB8meMn2SWg/view?usp=…> > is a legal or legal consensus software algorithm in China and Hong Kong? > Sending you the very best regards. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar Laron > -- > *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 3

Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.)
by Gunnar Larson 16 Sep '24

16 Sep '24

Dear Mr. Mazur: Thank you for your email. I was not arrested by the NYPD and am a model New York City resident with a clean record. Are you suggesting that someone else associated to NYCCoin was arrested and that is why the footage is sealed? Mr. Mazur, your letter proclaims, "Accordingly, all associated records related to an arrest which has been sealed under Criminal Procedure Law Section 160.50 are exempted from disclosure; and, absent a notarized authorization from the accused/arrested person, or an unsealing order from the court, any records associated with this incident may not be disclosed." The NYPD has no standing to ask for a notary in exchange for my body camera footage. Please provide the requested body camera footage by May 13, 2024 or it possibly will be essential to seek injunctive relief in California. Warm regards with appreciation, Gunnar Larson ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: FOIL APPEALS <FOILAppeals(a)nypd.org> Date: Fri, May 3, 2024, 2:43 PM Subject: RE: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Appeal determination attached. Respectfully, [image: Signature New] *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, use or disclosure of it or its contents is prohibited and may violate laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this communication. Please treat this and all other communications from the New York City Police Department as** LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.* *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> *Sent:* Thursday, May 2, 2024 9:30 AM *To:* FOIL APPEALS <FOILAppeals(a)nypd.org>; IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> *Cc:* letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov; Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>; Reader, Shaun <sreader(a)curtis.com>; cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org *Subject:* Re: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) You don't often get email from g(a)xny.io. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Dear Madam or Sir: The notarized waiver is non-executable to the NYPD given a forged notary matter the FBI is aware of. Furthermore, contact was made with the office of the Attorney General on the forged notary concern. The NYPD has no standing to ask for a notary in exchange for my body camera footage. Please provide the requested body camera footage by May 13, 2024 or it possibly will be essential to seek injunctive relief in California. Warm regards with appreciation, Gunnar Larson On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 7:33 AM FOIL APPEALS <FOILAppeals(a)nypd.org> wrote: The records responsive to your request are specifically exempted by state or federal statute [§87(2)(a)] in that they have been SEALED pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law §160.55. Please provide a notarized waiver (see attached). Respectfully, [image: Signature New] *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, use or disclosure of it or its contents is prohibited and may violate laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this communication. Please treat this and all other communications from the New York City Police Department as** LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.* *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:49 AM *To:* FOIL APPEALS <FOILAppeals(a)nypd.org> *Cc:* letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov; Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>; cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org *Subject:* Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) You don't often get email from g(a)xny.io. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Hello: This body camera footage is being requested by the individual who is subject to the footage. As such, I am appealing this decision. Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8053 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <donotreply(a)records.nyc.gov> Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2024, 9:42 AM Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Closed To: <g(a)xny.io> The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has *closed* your FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-15960 <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960> for the following reasons: - In regard to the document(s) which you requested, I must deny access to these records on the basis of Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(b) as such information, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. - Your request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) is denied because the records you requested are exempt from disclosure under FOIL because they are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute. Public Officers Law sec. 87(2)(a). - Your request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) is denied on the ground that the records you requested are exempt from disclosure under FOIL because disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Public Officers Law secs. 87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b). You may appeal the decision to deny access to material that was redacted in part or withheld in entirety by contacting the agency's FOIL Appeals Officer: foilappeals(a)nypd.org <foilappeals(a)nypd.org?subject=FOIL-2023-056-15960%20-%20Appeal> within 30 days. On Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 2:59 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: Dear Honorable Senator Gillibrand: My name is Gunnar Larson and I am a co-founder at xNY.io - Bank.org. Today I contact your esteemed office seeking assistance with retrieving the NYPD body camera footage mentioned below. The FOIL request was filed with the NYPD on July 14, 2023. The NYPD responded on July 16, 2023, noting a potential delivery date of the body camera footage by end of November 2023. As of today, January 12, 2024 xNY.io - Bank.org has not heard from the NYPD on receiving the body camera footage. Senator Gillibrand, I am concerned delay in receiving this body camera footage may disrespect your #MeToo zero tolerance policy. Humbly, the FBI should be able to confirm with your office if this is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" matter. Ultimately, I am concerned this matter should not impact the pure interests of your Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act. The FBI should be able to be honest with your office concerning your Bloomberg Crypto Summit interview with Senator Lummis on the Responsible Financial Innovation Act. It is my understanding that the NYPD body camera footage could have been staged politically, given xNY's approach to NYCCoin. Senator Gillibrand, your office could offer anyone the opportunity to engage the new SDNY program here to protect honest integrity of the NYPD: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-attorney-in-manhattan-launches-program-to-… . Thank you Senator Gillibrand. Sending you the very best 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 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Gunnar Larson* <g(a)xny.io> Date: Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) To: IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>, ethics.sm.records <records(a)ethics.ny.gov>, < ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov>, <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>, <PressOffice(a)cityhall.nyc.gov>, Reader, Shaun < sreader(a)curtis.com>, <district3(a)council.nyc.gov> Good morning NYPD: Thank you for your Jul 16, 2023 response. xNY.io - Bank.org did not hear from you on November 29, 2023 as promised. Given the emerging situation in USA cryptocurrency markets, we are going to need to follow up with the NYPD every 10 days until we receive the NYCCoin touting body camera footage. Can you please update xNY.io - Bank.org on the status of the footage? We have received various replies from the City of New York on Mayor Adams' 'first checks in Bitcoin' mentioned here: https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/041-22/mayor-adams-receive-fir… . Have a good day. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Mon, Jan 1, 2024, 6:41 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: Good morning: Happy New Year 2024 to you. Can we please have an update on this matter? Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 3:51 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: Hello: Thank you for your Jul 16, 2023 response. xNY.io - Bank.org did not hear from you on November 29, 2023 as promised. Can xNY.io - Bank.org please receive the NYPD body cam footage for NYCCoin Touting by December 31, 2023? Warm regards, Gunnar Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Larson - xNY.io - Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 11:11 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: Hello: Any updates on the body camera footage mentioned below? Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8093 On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 7:10 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: Dear Madam or Sir: I am just confirming that the NYCCoin body camera footage is still on track for November 29, 2023 delivery. Can you confirm as such please? The matter was recorded late March 2023. And xNY.io - Bank.org must close our EOY-23 books. Any further delay of the body camera footage could be a challenge to N.Y. Executive Law, Article 15 Human Rights Law, § 296. Unlawful discriminatory practices: 14. ... whether or not accompanied by the person for whom the dog is being trained. 16. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency, bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any political subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about, whether in any form of application or otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the individual involved, any arrest or criminal accusation of such individual not then pending against that individual which was followed by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding in favor of such individual, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.50 of the criminal procedure law, or by an order adjourning the criminal action in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55, 170.56, 210.46, 210.47, or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, or by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the criminal procedure law or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to section 160.59 or 160.58 of the criminal procedure law, in connection with the licensing, housing, employment, including volunteer positions, or providing of credit or insurance to such individual; provided, further, that no person shall be required to divulge information pertaining to any arrest or criminal accusation of such individual not then pending against that individual which was followed by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding in favor of such individual, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.50 of the criminal procedure law, or by an order adjourning the criminal action in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55, 170.56, 210.46, 210.47, or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, or by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to section 160.58 or 160.59 of the criminal procedure law. An individual required or requested to provide information in violation of this subdivision may respond as if the arrest, criminal accusation, or disposition of such arrest or criminal accusation did not occur. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the licensing activities of governmental bodies in relation to the regulation of guns, firearms and other deadly weapons or in relation to an application for employment as a police officer or peace officer as those terms are defined in subdivisions thirty-three and thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law; provided further that the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to an application for employment or membership in any law enforcement agency with respect to any arrest or criminal accusation which was followed by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to section 160.58 or 160.59 of the criminal procedure law. For purposes of this subdivision, an action which has been adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55 or 170.56, 210.46, 210.47 or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, shall not be considered a pending action, unless the order to adjourn in contemplation of dismissal is revoked and the case is restored to the calendar for further prosecution. Thank you, Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8053 n, Jul 16, 2023, 11:03 AM IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> wrote: Mr. Larson, The FOIL request you requested was acknowledged and a response will be on or about Wednesday, November 29, 2023. They will follow-up with your request. If the request is denied, and you would like to file a complaint, we will assist you. Have a good day. *COMMAND CENTER, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU* This e-mail message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the person and/or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete/destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately. Please treat this and all other communications from the New York City Police Department as LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. NO REPORT OR SEGMENT THEREOF MAY BE RELEASED TO ANY MEDIA SOURCES. ------------------------------ *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2023 10:56 AM *To:* FDSHelpDesk(a)ethics.ny.gov <FDSHelpDesk(a)ethics.ny.gov>; ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov <ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov>; IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> *Cc:* letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov>; cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>; Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> *Subject:* Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged *CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER* *STOP WHEN UNSURE.* Never click on links or open attachments if sender is unknown, and never provide user ID or password. *Suspicious?* Please report to this email address: reportphishing(a)nypd.org Dear New York Ethics Team: I am concerned that the FOIL below is subject to obstruction of justice. The FOIL request is for access to NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting. Ethics Team, I am concerned that the Chief of your office is also the Chief of the City Mayor's office. The body cam footage should have an agreeable time for delivery. I am concerned that the Mayor is retaliating against NYCoin and the NYPD may be aware of this. The video would or would not delineate any form of unnecessary force. The NYPD may be aware of this. Obviously, xNY is very protective of digital asset innovation. Ethics is a serious matter and the body cam footage would be helpful concerning NYCCoin. Sincerely yours, Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 917-580-8053 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <donotreply(a)records.nyc.gov> Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 12:25 PM Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged To: <g(a)xny.io> The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has *acknowledged* your FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-15960 <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960>. You can expect a response on or about Wednesday, November 29, 2023. Additional Information: Your request has been assigned to PAA Quagliano (646-610-5296) Please visit FOIL-2023-056-15960 <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960> to view additional information and take any necessary action.

1 6

morning spam / first draft reboot 3? 4? 5?
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 15 Sep '24

15 Sep '24

this is a parallel thread for the morning spam thread, alongside: - morning spam - morning spam reboot (where is this? from when message history got corrupt) - mind controlled utopia - hybrid mcboss this is still book 1 first draft.

1 16