August 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [crazy][fiction] Second Draft B traffick boss sequel mc dissociation soap
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 14 Sep '24

14 Sep '24

“when you moisturize an itching area and your body responds by itching unbearably all over everywhere else like crazy, you know you didn’t give yourself enough comfort and safety after the last bout of torture flashbacks”

1 2

Re: FOIL Request No. 2022-090560 - Larson
by Gunnar Larson 08 Sep '24

08 Sep '24

Good morning: We would like to appeal this decision. “We would like to receive any and all records, relating to NY-DFS' 2021 Apple Card Investigation. This is one part of a broader discussion we must have about equal credit access. On March 23, 2021, Ms. Linda Lacewell published NY-DFS' Findings on Apple Card and its Underwriter Goldman Sachs Bank. As the former Superintendent of NY-DFS, Ms. Lacewell's stone faced propaganda assured that Apple Card did not discriminate against women, while under Goldman Sachs management. The red flags started to appear when an authorized user drew attention to the following: A person who relies on a spouse's access to credit, and only accesses those accounts as an authorized user, may incorrectly believe they have the same credit profile as the spouse. We recently collated 61 highlights to the Report on Apple Card Investigation from March 2021: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xH16OKyuXzB-MVqIznMWDE9w8RRdmZCw/view The Apple Card investigation was to assess women's access to equitable finance. The integrity of the Apple Card investigation must be rationally considered as flawed. We would like to receive any and all records of Ms. Linda Lacewell's (emails, texts, and similar) involvement with the 2021 Apple Card report. We would like to receive any and all records to NY-DFS association to evaluating Ms. Linda Lacewell's ability to score a report specific to the Apple Card's core subject of credit access for women. Finally, we would like to receive any and all records related to NY-DFS guidance on Interlocking Directorates ( https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/banks_and_trusts/other/Permission… rlocking_Directors_and_Officers), specific to Apple's Board of Directors and Goldman Sachs' Board of Directors.” Please forgive my candor, but if DFS actually conducted an 'Apple Card Investigation' ... There would be some records relating to the investigation. Warm regards and thank you, Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-454-9107 On Wed, Oct 12, 2022, 9:17 PM JeanBaptiste, Pascale (DFS) < Pascale.JeanBaptiste(a)dfs.ny.gov> wrote: > Dear Gunnar Larson: > > > > Please see the attached determination in response to your FOIL request. > Thank you. > > >

1 2

UK: The Scrutiny Of Celebrity Influencers' Social Media Endorsements May Help To Reduce Financial Fraud Scams
by Gunnar Larson 08 Sep '24

08 Sep '24

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1238238/… Financial fraud continues to rise year on year, the cost of living crisis will drive even more people to look for ways of enlarging their income and inevitably fall for fake investment opportunities presented to them. As the regulating authorities and law enforcement introduce measures to obstruct the methods fraudsters use to target victims, the fraudsters adapt their scams accordingly. The vehicle of social media has given the fraudulent brokers a platform where they can present their scams to thousands of people via Instagram through the practice celebrity endorsement where well-known celebrities or influencers promote a particular product or investment opportunity, often leading their followers to believe that the celebrity has a full understanding of the product or investment they are endorsing. Such endorsement may become less appealing following the fine of $1,26 million delivered to Kim Kardashian by the US Securities and Exchange Commission <https://www.sec.gov/> (SEC) for failing to divulge to her 225 million Instagram followers that she was paid $250,000 for promoting the crypto asset Ethereum Max. Ms. Kardashian made it clear that she was not providing financial advice but went on to say that her friends were telling her about Ethereum Max tokens. The SEC Chair Gary Gensler pointed out that "...investing public shouldn't confuse the skills of celebrities <https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/business/kanye-west-gap-termination> with the very different skills needed to offer appropriate investment advice..." *Joanna Bailey, <https://www.mondaq.com/redirection.asp?article_id=1238238&company_id=24606&…> head of the banking and financial fraud litigation department, commented "the public recognise and trust the celebrities that endorse investment schemes and think that they have real involvement and understanding of the investment they are promoting." Joanna further pointed out "Kim Kardashian is not the only celebrity to have promoted investments, Katie Price unwittingly endorsed a Forex scam. Urging members of the public who have no understanding of Forex or crypto markets to consider such investments is inappropriate and often leads them into financial scams resulting in losses"* Our lawyers in the banking and financial fraud litigation department <https://www.mondaq.com/redirection.asp?article_id=1238238&company_id=24606&…> keep ahead of the scams and the methods used to defraud unwitting investors. Giambrone & Partners now leads the field following our recent groundbreaking case where the High Court of England and Wales granted permission to serve notice of proceedings on persons or persons unknown in connection with two digital wallets over blockchain by a non-fungible token (NFT). The case was the second case in the world and the first case in Europe to serve Court papers as an NFT through blockchain and is particularly significant with regard to crypto scams due to the fact that the perpetrators are often anonymous. This method of service avoids the need for identity. The challenging economic climate currently being experienced will almost certainly lead to more people seeking out "get rich quick" investment schemes. Our lawyers in the banking and financial fraud litigation department strongly recommend resisting the temptation and point out that if you are told that you must take action immediately or the opportunity will go, it is almost certainly a scam. Joanna Bailey frequently leads the litigation against financial institutions involved in Forex/binary trading disputes, as well as cryptocurrency issues and regulatory investigations and has some considerable success in retrieving the funds lost in fraudulent investment schemes. Joanna has developed a range of strategies both to find the assets of the individuals perpetrating the fraudulent schemes and restore the funds to our clients. As well as recognising culpability in the organisations facilitating (but not associated with the fraud), by failing to undertake adequate due diligence. She is highly experienced in high-value out-of-court settlement negotiations and has in-depth knowledge of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as English common law. *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

Ex-NBA Agent Avoids Prison For Forging Player's Signature
by Gunnar Larson 08 Sep '24

08 Sep '24

Forged notaries are a felony offense and still waiting to hear from the FBI on the two notaries I was sent forged. What I think is they assumed I would not catch the forgery... But I did by looking up the numbers in New York State's notary verification database. FBI, where are we with the NBA Outfitters because I heard that you know what I am talking about at EthereumMax. ---- Ex-NBA Agent Avoids Prison For Forging Player's Signature <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1803943?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Pete Brush A Manhattan federal judge on Friday allowed a former basketball agent from Texas to avoid prison after he admitted forging an unnamed NBA player's signature in a fraudulent scheme to obtain a $1 million loan from the player. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1803943?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1803943?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 1

Ripple SEC Law.com Story
by Gunnar Larson 03 Sep '24

03 Sep '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 2:52 PM Subject: Ripple SEC Law.com Story To: <pbantz(a)alm.com> Mr. Bantz: My name is Gunnar Larson. I saw your Law.com story related to Ripple and the SEC <https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2022/01/14/ripple-general-counsel-stu-alder…> . *Perhaps there is some added reporting necessary on your part, as a supplement to your story: * - Would like to learn your perspective on Ripple's customer list by Country: *https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pmz0RF_WvKKE_rRmoG_ksx0OCShmT9Zg/view?usp=drivesdk <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pmz0RF_WvKKE_rRmoG_ksx0OCShmT9Zg/view?usp=…>* - Note, as of 2020, Ripple's top four customers are Chinese banks - Ripple's General Counsel seems to be talking about both sides of his mouth, related to the SEC. Law.com seems to be supporting this theme with your story The SEC perhaps is not being totally transparent with their Ripple case? The top customers seem to be the focus? What are your thoughts? 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

1 2

Re: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Fwd: Complaint Referral Form Internet Crime Complaint Center - New York State's Notary Verification System
by Gunnar Larson 03 Sep '24

03 Sep '24

Dear FBI Public Information Officer: The FOIA allows requesters to file an administrative appeal with the agency for any information that was denied in response to a FOIA request. Can you please advise if thr FOIA request should be appealed one of the following reason(s): - the refusal to release a record, either in whole or in part - the determination that a record does not exist or cannot be found - the determination that the record you sought was not subject to the FOIA - the denial of a request for expedited processing the denial of a fee waiver request. Thank you, Gunnar Larson On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 2:15 PM FOIPAQUESTIONS(a)FBI.GOV <FOIPAQUESTIONS(a)fbi.gov> wrote: > The Record/Information Dissemination Section is not an investigative > section of the FBI and only processes Freedom of Information/Privacy Act > (FOIPA) requests. > > > > To report criminal activities please access the FBI’s homepage on the > internet at http://www.fbi.gov/. Option 1-Access the ‘CONTACT US’ link > at the top and then select the “Submit a Tip on Crime/Terrorism”. The > direct link is: http://tips.fbi.gov/. Option 2-Access the ‘CONTACT US’ > link at the top and then select the “Report Internet Crime” link, which > connects to the ‘Internet Crime Complaint Center’. The direct link is: > http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx. > > > > You also have the option of contacting the FBI’s local field office in > your area and their contact information is available on the FBI’s homepage > which is listed above. > > > > Public Information Officer > > FBI - Information Management Division > > 200 Constitution Drive > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+Constitution+Drive?entry=gmail&sourc…> > > Winchester, VA 22602 > > O: (540) 868-4593 > > E: foipaquestions(a)fbi.gov > > > > Do you have further questions about the FOI/PA process? Visit us at > http://www.fbi.gov/foia > > > > Please check the status of your request online at > https://vault.fbi.gov/fdps-1/@@search-fdps Status updates are > performed on a weekly basis. > > > > Note: This is a non-emergency email address. If this is an emergency, > please call 911 directly. If you need to report a tip for immediate > action, please contact FBI Tips at http://tips.fbi.gov/ or reach out to > your local field office. > > > > *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:52 AM > *To:* FOIPAQUESTIONS <FOIPAQUESTIONS(a)FBI.GOV> > *Cc:* cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Fwd: Complaint Referral Form Internet Crime > Complaint Center - New York State's Notary Verification System > > > > Dear Madam or Sir: > > > > My name is Gunnar Larson and I am a co-founder at xNY.io - Bank.org. > > > > On November 3, 2022 I personally made a complaint to IC3 concerning forged > notaries (below). > > > > The FBI has not responded to this matter. > > > > Today I would like to request all FBI records associated with this IC3 > complaint, investigation and/or any records of entrapment associated. > > > > Sending you the very best. > > > > 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 > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Gunnar Larson* <g(a)xny.io> > Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 7:02 AM > Subject: Complaint Referral Form Internet Crime Complaint Center > To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> > > > > [image: Image removed by sender. IC3 logo] > Complaint Referral Form > Internet Crime Complaint Center > > *Thank you. Your complaint was submitted to the IC3. Please save or print > a copy of your complaint before closing this window.This is the only time > you will have to make a copy of your complaint.* > > Victim InformationName: Gunnar LarsonAre you reporting on behalf of a > business? NoBusiness Name: Is the incident currently impacting business > operations? Age: 30 - 39Address: 406 West 25th StreetAddress > (continued): Suite/Apt./Mail Stop: 1RECity: New YorkCounty: Country: United > States of AmericaState: New YorkZip Code/Route: 10001Phone > Number: 6464549107Email Address: g(a)xny.ioBusiness IT POC, if > applicable: Other Business POC, if applicable: Financial > Transaction(s)Transaction Type: OtherIf other, please specify: Notary > FraudTransaction Amount: 2400.00Transaction Date: 10/6/2022Was the money > sent? No > ------------------------------ > > Victim Bank Name: Victim Bank Address: Victim Bank Address > (continued): Victim Bank Suite/Mail Stop: Victim Bank City: Victim Bank > Country: Victim Bank State: Victim Bank Zip Code/Route: Victim Name on > Account: Victim Account Number: > ------------------------------ > > Recipient Bank Name: Recipient Bank Address: Recipient Bank Address > (continued): Recipient Bank Suite/Mail Stop: Recipient Bank City: Recipient > Bank Country: Recipient Bank State: Recipient Bank Zip > Code/Route: Recipient Name on Account: Recipient Bank Routing > Number: Recipient Account Number: Recipient Bank SWIFT Code: Description of > IncidentProvide a description of the incident and how you were victimized. > Provide information not captured elsewhere in this complaint form.Hello: I > was hired as a contractor for a online drop shipping company. The firm sent > packages to my home address. The shipping manager asked me to retrieve a > package by providing a notorized authorization letter. Upon reviewing the > authorization letter and searching New York State's notary verification > system, it appeared the notary was forged. A copy of the letter may be > accessed here: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hqzatqez7yWs7ZZq76RBYy2zzi6NiDw9/view?usp=… > Below, you will find the exchange with the shipping manager. On October 31 > the firm denied payment for employment and has 'gone missing.' Given my > personal and professional association with xNY.io - Bank.org I am concerned > about being associated with felony notary Fraud. Furthrtmore, xNY.io - > Bank.org is party to the Clayton Act and/or an entrapment exercise. Thank > you Gunnar Larson 646-454-9107 Which of the following were used in this > incident? (Check all that apply.)☑ Spoofed Email☑ Similar Domain☑ Email > Intrusion > > ☐ OtherPlease specify: > > Other InformationIf an email was used in this incident, please provide a > copy of the entire email including full email headers. ---------- Forwarded > message --------- From: Dorothy Berry <dorothy.berry(a)dvlemail.com> Date: > Fri, Oct 7, 2022, 2:44 PM Subject: Re: 290283 To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> > I will coordinate with our Legal team regarding this. The authorization > letter was given by the customer. --- Kind regards, Dorothy Berry | Manager > Shipping Department Direct number:(475) 330-3037 DELTA VISION (DVS > Logistics US) 45 Ruby St #3 Norwalk, CT 06850 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/US)+45+Ruby+St+%233+Norwalk,+CT+06850?en…> > (888) 559 9329 Mon-Fri 09:00AM-06:00PM EST Sat-Sun Closed ---- On Fri, 07 > Oct 2022 14:33:19 -0400 Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote --- No. I won't go > present an authorized letter to anyone with a fake notarized stamp on it. > Please advise. On Fri, Oct 7, 2022, 1:48 PM Dorothy Berry < > dorothy.berry(a)dvlemail.com> wrote: Did you try picking up package and > show Authorization letter to them? --- Kind regards, Dorothy Berry | > Manager Shipping Department Direct number:(475) 330-3037 DELTA VISION (DVS > Logistics US) 45 Ruby St #3 Norwalk, CT 06850 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/US)+45+Ruby+St+%233+Norwalk,+CT+06850?en…> > (888) 559 9329 Mon-Fri 09:00AM-06:00PM EST Sat-Sun Closed ---- On Fri, 07 > Oct 2022 08:56:52 -0400 Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote --- Ms. Berry: I > am having trouble verifying the authentication of the notarized document.. > I just left you a message. Please advise best next steps. Thank you, Gunnar > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 4:33 PM Dorothy Berry <dorothy.berry(a)dvlemail.com> > wrote: Good day! Please find the attached file. Thanks. --- Kind regards, > Dorothy Berry | Manager Shipping Department Direct number:(475) 330-3037 > DELTA VISION (DVS Logistics US) 45 Ruby St #3 Norwalk, CT 06850 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/US)+45+Ruby+St+%233+Norwalk,+CT+06850?en…> > (888) 559 9329 Mon-Fri 09:00AM-06:00PM EST Sat-Sun Closed Are there any > other witnesses or victims to this incident?Yes.If you have reported this > incident to other law enforcement or government agencies, please provide > the name, phone number, email, date reported, report number, etc.[No > response provided]Check here if this an update to a previously filed > complaint: ☐Who Filed the ComplaintWere you the victim in the incident > described above? Yes > > Name: Business Name: Phone Number: Email Address: > > Digital Signature > > By digitally signing this document, I affirm that the information I > provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand > that providing false information could make me subject to fine, > imprisonment, or both. (Title 18, U.S.Code, Section 1001) > > Digital Signature: Gunnar Larson > > Thank you. Your complaint was submitted to the IC3. Please save or print a > copy of your complaint before closing this window. > *This is the only time you will have to make a copy of your complaint.* >

1 1

Fwd: FOIL #2023-095446 Appeal Response - Blockstacks (STX), the virtual currency of Coinbase Custody Trust Company
by Gunnar Larson 02 Sep '24

02 Sep '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024, 2:55 PM Subject: Fwd: FOIL #2023-095446 Appeal Response - Blockstacks (STX), the virtual currency of Coinbase Custody Trust Company To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> There is one footnote at the bottom of the page: 1 I note that the City of Miami’s Legislation Resolution R-21-0337 which you provided as an example does not seem to be related to the approval of STX for custody services, only authorizes the city manager to accept gifts from CityCoins and does not mention STX, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, or any other custody services. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024, 2:39 PM Subject: Fwd: FOIL #2023-095446 Appeal Response - Blockstacks (STX), the virtual currency of Coinbase Custody Trust Company To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomczak, Christine (DFS) <christine.tomczak(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024, 1:46 PM Subject: FOIL #2023-095446 Appeal Response To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Dear Mr. Larson, See attached letter. Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel New York State Department of Financial Services 1 State Street, New York, New York 10004 July 15, 2024 Transmitted by Email to g(a)xny.io Mr. Gunnar Larson xNY.io – Bank.org New York, NY 10001 Re: Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Request No. 2023-095446 August 8, 2023 Appeal of the NYS Department of Financial Services’ August 3, 2023 Determination Dear Mr. Larson: I write in response to your correspondence dated August 8, 2023 (“2023 FOIL Appeal”), in which you appeal the August 3, 2023 determination (the “2023 Determination”) of the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “Department”), which denied your FOIL request as duplicative. The 2023 Determination did not deny you access to any agency records, but instead advised you that since your request was duplicative, there is no basis for appeal. As a reminder, a denial of access to records is the basis for filing an appeal under Public Officers Law (“POL”) § 89(4)(a), which states that “any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial….” As further explained below, your 2023 FOIL Appeal is deemed moot. I. Background Your FOIL request dated July 11, 2023 (the “2023 FOIL Request”) stated the following: Dear Madam or Sir: On July 22, 2022 NY-DFS denied xNY.io - Bank.org records access STX custody in New York. NY-DFS' memo to our attention suggests STX records were held as secret given a current investigation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xfUJA26SBOn_RYIVyo6QefIWy5HgKTH/view?usp=d rivesdk. Today, xNY.io - Bank.org renews our records access request and/or all NY-DFS correspondence regarding approval of Stacks (STX) custody in New York State: https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/virtual_currency_businesses/appro… es/num ber”. Such records may include the approval letter sent by the Department regarding Blockstacks (STX), the virtual currency of Coinbase Custody Trust Company LLC (the “Requested Record”). Furthermore, we seek to learn if NY-DFS has a "confidential and shall not release" mandate relating to the STX and NYCCoin relationship similar to the Office of the Mayor of New York City. NY-DFS should be open to sharing STX records, as the City of Miami has here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view?usp=… ivesdk. As noted in your 2023 FOIL Request, this is duplicative of your previous FOIL request made on February 11, 2022 (the “2022 FOIL Request”). The Department denied the 2022 FOIL Request by letter dated July 1, 2022 (“2022 Determination”) as the responsive record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL § 87(2)(a) by way of New York Banking Law (“NYBL”) § 36(10), which provides that reports of examinations and investigations of companies supervised or chartered under the Banking Law, and correspondence and memoranda concerning or arising out of such examinations and investigations, are confidential and shall not be made public. Following the 2022 Determination, you submitted an appeal on July 1, 2022, and your appeal was denied on July 22, 2023 (“2022 Appeal Determination”). The 2022 Appeal Determination reiterated that the record you requested is required to be kept confidential and exempt from disclosure under NYBL § 36(10) because it arose out of the Department’s examination and investigation of STX for custody services. Over a year later on July 11, 2023, and without any change in circumstances, you submitted a duplicate FOIL request, which is the subject of your 2023 FOIL Appeal. By email dated August 3, 2023 (“2023 Determination”), in response to your 2023 FOIL Request dated July 11, 2023, the Department issued the 2023 Determination advising you that your 2023 FOIL Request was denied as duplicative. Subsequently, you submitted the 2023 FOIL Appeal to the Department stating, “We kindly elect to appeal this determination on STX records access.” It is noted that the 2023 FOIL Appeal does not include any legal analysis or argument as to why the 2023 Determination is in any way incorrect. II. Discussion At the outset, I note that your 2023 FOIL Appeal does not specify any grounds or assertions upon which you base your appeal. You simply write that you “elect to appeal this determination.” As noted above, POL § 89(4)(a) provides for an appeal when a person has been denied access to an agency’s records. Specifically, POL § 89(4)(a) states, in pertinent part, that “any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial.” After reviewing this matter, I find that the 2023 Determination was not a denial and advised you that your 2023 FOIL request was duplicative of your 2023 FOIL Request, to the Department has already issued a final determination, and a determination on appeal. As explained in the 2023 Determination, an agency is not required to address duplicative FOIL requests where the agency has already made its final determination as to the records sought, and there has been no change of circumstances that would result in a different response. See, e.g., Matter of Walker v. Roque, 137 A.D.3d 643 (1st Dep’t 2016) (finding that petitioner’s 2012 FOIL request was duplicative of his 1992 FOIL request seeking essentially the same materials pertaining to the same criminal case, notwithstanding that the prior request was more detailed than the instant request); Garcia v. Div. of State Police, 302 A.D.2d 755 (3d Dep’t 2003)(finding that petitioner’s 2000 FOIL request was nearly identical to a September 1999 request, which, in turn, was a more specific list of a 1993 FOIL request, and therefore that the Supreme Court has properly determined that the Article 78 proceeding was an improper attempt by petitioner to relitigate his prior Article 78 proceeding and respondent’s prior denial of his FOIL request); see also Matter of Zarvela v. Banks, 117 A.D.3d 1070 (2d Dep’t 2014), leave to app. denied, 24 N.Y.3d 906 (2014); Pennington v. Clark, 1 A.D.3d 912 (4th Dep’t 2003). Here, your 2023 FOIL Request is duplicative of your previous 2022 FOIL Request for which the Department has made a final determination. Additionally, I find that there has been no change of circumstances since the Department issued its 2022 Determination or the 2022 Appeal Determination. The responsive record remains exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL § 87(2)(a) via BL § 36(10). Finally, to the extent that you argue the Department should consider waiving any such exemptions, similar to the City of Miami, that request is outside the scope of FOIL and this appeal determination is limited to addressing only the matters pertaining to the Department’s determination denying your FOIL request as duplicative. 1 III. Conclusion Accordingly for the reasons stated about, your 2023 FOIL Appeal is deemed moot. Sincerely, Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel cc: NYS Committee on Open Government One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650 Albany, NY 12231 Stephanie Mazza Associate Attorney

1 1

Re: [spam] Non-Canon Traffick Boss Spinoffs Reboot 3
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 01 Sep '24

01 Sep '24

I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:12 PM Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > a pool at the entrance to a cavern > > 12/24

1 95

Web Archive
by zeynep＠keemail.me 31 Aug '24

31 Aug '24

Hi everyone I've been unable to access the website & archive for a while now. Is everything OK? Sincerly Z.A

2 1

You Don't Need To Be Obnoxious': Ch. 11 Hearing Gets Rowdy
by Gunnar Larson 31 Aug '24

31 Aug '24

'You Don't Need To Be Obnoxious': Ch. 11 Hearing Gets Rowdy <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/1874699?nl_pk=a34c25b5-…> By Daniel Connolly A California bankruptcy judge on Thursday slammed an attorney for what he called her "obnoxious" courtroom behavior, while the lawyer argued that a proposed liquidation plan for a defunct law firm could enrich the professionals managing the case and leave little for claimants. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/1874699?nl_pk=a34c25b5-…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/1874699?nl_pk=a34c25b5-…>

1 0