- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

United Nations LBO (The Failing United Nations)
by Gunnar Larson 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

Our team at Bank.org is leveraging international graduate research profiling Elon Musk's Twitter LBO ... A good case study for the failing United Nations. “If you look at U.N. innovation, you don’t find many people who have actually innovated, or even started a company. It’s mostly run by U.N. bureaucrats,” he said. “However, a bigger surprise is that the U.N. work culture is fear based, which pushes the U.N. away from solving problems.” NOV. 25, 2022 BY WILLIAM WORLEY <https://t.devex.com/Njg1LUtCTC03NjUAAAGITaRYKWy_OJZsmONZR-C-Pb-dTc9P-t6ThJf…> The saga of little-known but highly controversial United Nations agency UNOPS has a new chapter. We have the latest on all the juicy details — including allegations of fraud, abuse of power, and a “culture of fear.” *Also in today’s edition:* Afghanistan’s development outlook, and a deal on Zambia’s debt relief wavers. Damning portrait You may recall Devex broke the story <https://t.devex.com/dc/kyXVoDpAY__Vu56MNr4POkrZ218GcgnHX2hd2Dfy8uBkRHv7Kwcs…> in April about irregularities in a multimillion-dollar investment initiative spearheaded by the United Nations Office for Project Services, or UNOPS. Well, an independent probe by auditing giant KPMG has now found *“indications of fraud” and a massive breakdown of financial oversight*, my colleagues Colum Lynch and Shabtai Gold reveal <https://t.devex.com/dc/kyXVoDpAY__Vu56MNr4POnwnnKj46o8s7W33hgH10jHonFmy6-2j…> . KPMG’s Finland office paints a “damning portrait of managerial dysfunction by top managers” at UNOPS as it expanded its role into the “high-stakes, and lucrative, world of impact investing,” writes Colum, after he and Shabtai waded through multiple draft reports. “A culture of fear created an environment that allowed for management override of controls,” according to one of the two KPMG reports. “The way of working by top management *further indicates an abuse of power.”* <https://t.devex.com/dc/kyXVoDpAY__Vu56MNr4POnwnnKj46o8s7W33hgH10jHonFmy6-2j…> As part of its shift toward impact investing, UNOPS created an initiative called Sustainable Investments in Infrastructure and Innovation initiative, known as S3i. It was run by Vitaly Vanshelboim — who was placed on administrative leave during a U.N. oversight investigation into “possible misconduct” — and aimed to secure private financing to build 1.3 million affordable homes over the next decade in Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and across the Caribbean. The reports allege that *UNOPS officials ignored numerous “red flags”* that trouble was brewing, including from a whistleblower who claimed contracts were overwhelmingly going to a single partner without competitive bidding or a proper vetting system. In response to the reports, UNOPS issued a statement saying it “takes all findings extremely seriously and is committed to address all recommendations under the direction of the Executive Board.” *Scoop:* Review slams 'culture of fear' and other failings at UNOPS <https://t.devex.com/dc/kyXVoDpAY__Vu56MNr4POnwnnKj46o8s7W33hgH10jHonFmy6-2j…> *Recap:* What went wrong with UNOPS’ ambitious impact-investing initiative? <https://t.devex.com/dc/kyXVoDpAY__Vu56MNr4POkrZ218GcgnHX2hd2Dfy8uBkRHv7Kwcs…> *And:* A Devex explainer giving you an inside look at the UNOPS scandal <https://t.devex.com/dc/kyXVoDpAY__Vu56MNr4POlJNH-zgYN4uLQ2vyaWxF-yHimX8n4NX…> .

1 0

jewnazis keep attacking black people
by punk 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

the jewnazis at coindesk fired Isaiah Jackson, black, for telling the truth about the jewnazis at 'ftx'. "Look up the religious affiliation of everyone involved in the FTX collapse. Kanye was right" http://web.archive.org/web/20221112230534/https://nitter.it/bitcoinzay/stat… of course you'll hear nothing about this coming from jewnazi US government agent grarpamp(a)gmail.com

2 2

UN expects 350M more people worldwide to get legal identity by 2025 | Biometric Update
by Gunnar Larson 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202208/un-expects-350m-more-people-worldwid… With the United Nations obviously failing, Earth_ID is an obvious win: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m7_GLK32LJmox0JCfVeYd9YC04dJgHPd/view?usp=…

1 0

Gramps can just kiss my black-flag
by professor rat 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

Its the globalized, anarchist political-economy, stupid Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system they wish to abolish Republicans would abolish the monarchy, Secularists would abolish or disestablish the Church, Socialists would (or used to) wish to abolish the apparatus of exploitation; pacifists would abolish the Army. Anarchism is unique in wishing to abolish all. The only true definition of an Anarchist is one who wishes to believes it desirable to abolish all; who believe it possible to abolish all, the sooner the better; and who works to bring such abolition about. There are many, usually on the left, who think it desirable but impossible, many on the right who think it only too probable but undesirable. Others may be sympathetic to Anarchism as both desirable and possible but refrain from action in its favour. To borrow a phrase from another part of the forest, they may be fellow travelers of Anarchism. The Police are the cornerstone of the State (though sometimes, in extreme cases, the Government of the day needs to use the armed forces in lieu of, or in addition to the police — in some countries this has led to replacement or control of the Government by the army so long as the officers are tightly in control). Only Anarchism believes in abolition of the Police. No more police in the USA and El Salvador and no one can protect Gramps propertarian hallucinations. SAD! Then life goes on without you Gramps.

1 0

Burn your passports day
by professor rat 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

Burn your passports day is everyday since May 2005 now we have a networked global quorum to act as the UN ( United Networks ) Stateless people of the world are now a networked and dangerous threat to world peace - ’ cryptoanarchism ’ for short! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nansen_passport Cypherpunk passports just say " Fuck all govts, but especially the USA and El Salvador " STAMPED ( Fuck you Gramps )

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Crypto's Libertarian Truth Counters Regulators and Nonsense Gibberish
by grarpamp 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

SBF vs. Erik Voorhees: How Do We Regulate Crypto? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytaa_5liwMA https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1582835426116575235 https://www.moneyandstate.com/blog/response-to-sbf A debate between two crypto titans on how to regulate crypto. Whether to regulate crypto? Where do we draw the line? Study and remember this one anon. "Watching SBF debate @erikvoorhees is fantastic and wild. Even trying to control for my bias (knowing the last two weeks of history), SBF had nothing useful to say. No analysis. Binary contrast with Erik V." "Fight against the ill-virtued morally deficient State." "SBF's brain is barely even online, def comes across as weasel kissing regulators to preserve his own cefi biz against the coming defi... instead of for crypto freedom." "Crypto: Governments must leave Free Sovereign Individuals alone to interact economically as they will, like the country was supposed to be founded on..." "SBF: Oversight by a human based regulator in Government... Crypto: Why do we want to invite that!" "SBF is a child who displays no knowledge of history of the foundations of crypto thought, nor any time in it." "SBF: Let's fight a war by showing and giving up what we stand for on day one. Forget Sun Tzu much, lol." "SBF dodged the whole convo"

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Money and State, Sophistry, Saviour, Law of Code
by grarpamp 25 Nov '22

25 Nov '22

https://www.moneyandstate.com/blog/sophistry-and-the-savior Money and State Sophistry and the Savior Nov 11 “The safe, regulated way to buy and sell Bitcoin and other digital assets.” This has been the catchphrase underpinning FTX’s advertising campaigns for months. FTX had become a poster child of the “responsible” and “compliant.” FTX operated within the laws, it was “safe and regulated.” Its leader, Sam (SBF), was given the opportunity to speak with Congress and various regulators on responsible crypto legislation. He played ball with DC, and was the second largest donor to the Democratic Party, behind George Soros. FTX put its name on the Miami Heat stadium, and cozied up with Tom Brady and Gisele. A wholesome, compliant American exchange trusted by politicians and celebrities. Check this clip out. Welcomed eagerly by the establishment, SBF continued to be involved in shaping upcoming crypto legislation, and as noted by CoinDesk, “[SBF] was a vocal proponent of the DCCPA bill that would create a brokerage-like licensing system for decentralized finance and argued against financial privacy.” SBF in Washington The Safe, Regulated CEO Only a few weeks go, SBF conveyed some of his regulatory suggestions to the community. I responded the next day, and this sparked a conflagration within the community. A week later, we were both invited on the Bankless podcast to debate this very topic in depth: to what degree is crypto regulation appropriate, and specifically how should defi be treated (and should it be treated at all) in the context of the DCCPA? That debate received an overwhelming response from the community, which (rightly) was concerned that Sam was inviting licensing restrictions to be born down on defi, so long as it enabled the DCCPA to pass this year in the manner he wished (a goal for which, presumably, he’s been donating towards). Sacrificing defi (or at least the web front-ends, which is how everyone uses defi) was “worth the cost” he said, to get a good bill done. Pretty impressive that 221 regulators tuned in! While the public overwhelmingly resonated with the message of freedom and a defense of that formerly core tenet of Western law, the presumption of innocence, naturally those supportive of tradfi and the US regulatory structure were eager to dismiss my points as “idealistic” or “unrealistic;” the immature rantings of an extremist libertarian viewpoint which has no place in proper society. “Of course the Federal Government ought to surveil and centrally control our financial markets. 1st Amendment be damned. 4th Amendment be damned. Statue of Liberty and the entire founding ethos of America be damned. More regulation (or “clarity,” as we euphemize it) is always appropriate.” -Patriotic Architects of the Status Quo SBF was the pragmatist who towed that line and “knew how to get things done in Washington.” Getting frustrated by the community’s belligerent response to his suggestions (aka their adherence to moral principle), he passive-aggressively taunted those who—unlike him—weren’t actually in DC having productive bribes conversations with regulators. IMAGE 2022-11-09 10:19:50.jpg IMAGE 2022-11-09 10:19:54.jpg FhH90dsWAAEPW5f.jpeg Then, on Nov 9 all hell breaks loose because the “safe, regulated way to buy and sell Bitcoin and other digital assets” was apparently insolvent to the tune of billions of dollars. Funds were not safu. But how can a spot exchange be “insolvent?” Don’t they just take in user deposits, let those users trade, and if all users want to withdraw, they do so? No problem. It’s not like FTX was operating as a fractional reserve bank. Except that they were… a new financial intermediary mirroring the old, just without any taxpayer backstops. This safe, regulated exchange seems to have lent out billions of dollars in customer deposits to its sister company, Alameda Research (the other arm of SBF’s former empire). Alameda went bust on speculative bets, couldn’t pay back the money, and the house of cards fell apart after Binance announced it was selling its pile of FTT token (which comprised a large portion of the FTX balance sheet). If it sounds too familiar, this is similar to what nuked that other safe, regulated custodian, Celsius, earlier this year (what a year!). Celsius was loaning/leveraging customer deposits for its own gains. And in both cases, this was not being disclosed to the users of these platforms. Billions lost, but hey, at least they were doing KYC so they have the ID’s and home addresses of everyone they fucked. The sparkling shimmer of regulation is much like that little light on the end of the angler fish, alluring not just to hapless victims who can’t think for themselves and so look to politicians thousands of miles away for protection, but just as alluring to those politicians, for in its glow they see themselves as saviors. Alas, my view is just that of a radical minority. Surely others reading this think, “This is actually an obvious case of not-enough-regulation, ser. Let’s get a new bill together and solve this with the fine scalpel of Federal oversight. A committee shall be formed, or better yet, several committees. Hearings shall be heard! America will demonstrate its leadership with a resolute commitment to consumer protection.” I can see the lawmakers salivating over more lawmaking. I can imagine the appropriate title of the pending 400-page diktat that emerges: “The Freedom Bill for Responsible American Financial Oversight and Also for Less Inflation.” The bi-partisan TFBRAFOALI Bill. Only an anarchist that doesn’t care about people, and probably isn’t even vaxed, would oppose such proactive legislation. A Humble Plea to Washington in the wake of FTX If any regulators end up reading this piece… Remember in 2008 when your system went down the shitter and hundreds of billions of dollars had to be taken from taxpayers (honestly through taxes or dishonestly through inflation) to bail out the heavily regulated financial institutions that nearly brought down the world economy and sent tens of millions into poverty and despair? Well, the builders of the crypto industry, without a dollar of tax money, built an alternative. This started with Bitcoin as a neutral, honest, base money that anyone could use and access according to transparent rules. It expanded with Ethereum and smart contracts, such that all manner of decentralized financial tooling could be built. This suite of technologies is called “decentralized finance,” or “defi,” and it has, in fact, already solved the problem of trust in financial markets. Read that sentence again and rejoice. Isn’t that wonderful? With defi, financial transactions are transparent, not just to government regulators, but transparent for the entire public to see and learn from (or is that not good when the public can know things, too?). With defi, accounts are transparent. Transfers are transparent. Trades and even complex financial derivatives are transparent. Balances are proven cryptographically. The code that executes these transactions is open-source, anyone can review it or suggest changes! You can look it all up for free on Etherscan, you don’t even need a $20k Bloomberg account. The code works exactly as written, and no human subjectivity need concern its execution. Incredibly, it’s all borderless, such that every man, woman, and child on Earth has equal access and opportunity to interact with global financial markets. How beautiful is that? Where’s Satoshi’s Nobel Prize? …oh it went to Bernanke? The opaque fraud that just happened with the highly regulated FTX would not (can not!) happen in defi. The re-hypothecation through which the highly regulated Celsius betrayed their users and lost millions, would not (can not!) happen in defi. The complex derivatives and custody issues which froze financial flows in 2008, back when safe, regulated financial institutions had no idea who owned what and markets collapsed under the layers of counterparty risk… these would not (can not!) happen in defi. And yet what have many regulators done in response to this suite of miraculous technology that was built by brilliant, determined, principled engineers over the past decade? Have they even learned how to use it? How many of those drafting crypto laws have ever actually executed a defi loan? Regulators - open, immutable, inclusive, honest finance is sitting at your doorstep, merely wanting to exist without persecution, and you forsake this Promethean Fire at every opportunity, or pretend to embrace it while knifing every attribute that makes it special. Consider that the only transparency we have on FTX at the moment ironically comes from blockchain forensics through its use of defi, not from any of you. The false veneer of regulatory sophistry having yet again failed them, the victims of SBF must now seek resolution through law. But what will never be resolved through law is that when finance is based on the subjective behaviors of men, it will be prone to the failures of men. It does not matter how many laws are written. It does not matter who writes them. Defi is finance based not on the subjective behaviors of men, but on the immutable law of code. It is powerful and important, and if you care about protecting consumers, it is the greatest set of advancements toward that end in all of human history. Against the innumerate flaws of man, this is an actual savior. If you feel the need to regulate centralized custodians like FTX, I get it. Remember, though, that you’ve already regulated them with a hundred prior laws. Maybe reflect on that. But if you feel the need to regulate defi—decentralized finance—pause for a moment, and with humility recognize that you and your staff may not yet understand it, and consider that your law may merely suffocate a grand and ready solution to so many of the problems you rightly see around you. If you impose the licensing apparatus that has governed traditional, fiat-based finance, you will at best be ineffective, and at worst will subordinate billions of people to gradual impoverishment and continual financial shade and trickery. Yes, defi removes some of your power as regulators… but it solves the problems you’ve been trying to regulate. Isn’t that more important? Erik Voorhees Next A Response to SBF and Principled Crypto Regulation Money & State For the first time in history, every person has financial sovereignty. Private property can now truly be controlled by the owner, and nobody else. The rules of finance, and our economic relationships, now become set and regulated by markets instead of by politicians; by the individual, not the collective. The value of one’s savings now cannot be reduced through inflation and debasement. Trade between individuals is now the business of only those individuals. Money has been separated from the state, and we may now rejoice at the next century of its consequences. Erik Voorhees Erik Voorhees is the founder of ShapeShift, an open-source, self-custody digital asset platform. He advocates liberty, peace, and markets. Twitter @ErikVoorhees Farcaster @ErikVoorhees ShapeShift.com

1 0

United States: Court Sends Endangered Species Act Regulations Back To The Agencies
by Gunnar Larson 24 Nov '22

24 Nov '22

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/environmental-law/1252754/court-sends-e… 22 November 2022 by Rebecca Hays Barho Nossaman LLP Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors On November 16, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (District Court) remanded three sets of Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations promulgated in 2019 under the Trump Administration back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, Services) for reconsideration. The three regulations addressed: how species are listed and delisted and critical habitat designated under ESA section 4; interagency consultation under ESA section 7; and a final rule repealing USFWS's blanket ESA section 4(d) rule which, prior to its repeal, extended the take prohibitions of ESA section 9 to most species listed as threatened under the statute (collectively, the 2019 Rules). In July 2022, the District Court remanded and vacated the 2019 Rules without making a determination on the merits as to whether the rules were, in fact, unlawful. The Services had requested the District Court remand the 2019 Rules to the agencies without vacatur. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) later stayed the vacatur, requiring the District Court to reconsider. In a separate filing with the District Court subsequent to the decision of the Ninth Circuit and in support of the agencies' original request for remand without vacatur, the Services informed the court that potential revisions to the 2019 Rules could be completed by the agencies on or before May 2023, with any final revisions to be completed by May 2024. The 2019 Rules will remain in effect pending the Services' reconsideration of the same. 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 0

The Entrapment Controversy
by Gunnar Larson 24 Nov '22

24 Nov '22

Faculty Publications UC Hastings College of the Law Library Author: Roger C. Park Title: The Entrapment Controversy Source: Minnesota Law Review Citation: 60 Minn. L. Rev. 163 (1976). Brody Larson has made 212 highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhPWgd_OniZVLeJIlieDBx5VNC2chenn/view?usp=…

2 29

Worldwide: Psychological Injury And The Montreal Convention – A Step Too Far?
by Gunnar Larson 24 Nov '22

24 Nov '22

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/personal-injury/1253754/psychological-injury-and-… 23 November 2022 by Jack Harding Deka Chambers Jack Harding examines another decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union expanding the reach of the Montreal Convention, hot on the heels of his previous briefing on the meaning of 'accident' within the meaning of the Convention. 1. BT v Laudamotion (C111/21) concerned a flight from London to Vienna. The left engine of the aircraft exploded during take-off. Passengers were required to disembark via the emergency exit. During disembarkation the unfortunate Claimant was hurled several metres through the air when the right engine also exploded. She did not receive any physical injury but was subsequently diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She sought damages from the airline under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention. The Defendant denied the claim on the basis that 'bodily injury' under article 17 does not encompass pure psychiatric or psychological injury. 2. The Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a short judgment which belies its importance in this field of the law, concluded that: "a psychological injury caused to a passenger by an 'accident', within the meaning of [article 17], which is not linked to 'bodily injury', within the meaning of that provision, must be compensated in the same way as such a bodily injury, provided that the aggrieved passenger demonstrates the existence of an adverse effect on his or her psychological integrity of such gravity or intensity that it affects his or her general state of health and that it cannot be resolved without medical treatment" 3. The result is perhaps not a complete surprise in the context of the overall direction of travel of the CJEU's own jurisprudence on the Convention over recent years. Indeed, as long ago as 2009, in Walz v Click Air (C-63/09), it held that the concept of 'damage' for the purposes of a lost luggage claim under article 21 of the Convention included 'non-material damage' such as loss of enjoyment caused to a holiday. 4. However, the conclusion of the Court represents a very significant departure from the approach adopted by the Courts in most (if not all) signatory states to the Convention. 5. Under English law, the leading authority in respect of the Warsaw Convention (the predecessor to the Montreal Convention) remains the decision of the House of Lords in King v Bristow (2002) 2 WLR 258. The Court held that pure psychiatric injury is not recoverable unless either it can be demonstrated either to have been caused by changes to the structure of the brain itself1, or alternatively it has manifested in subsequent physical injury (for example shock which precipitates a peptic ulcer). The Highest Courts in the United States2, Canada3, Australia4 and South Africa have all concluded that pure psychiatric injury is not recoverable under the Warsaw Convention. The result has been to preclude recovery in a range of cases where, at least on the facts as pleaded, the 'merits' might be said to have favoured protection of the consumer. They include the loss of insulin needed by diabetic passenger for three days where no physical injury was claimed5 and a passenger who found part of a finger in their in-flight food6. 6. It also now generally accepted that psychological injury which flows from, and is caused by, a physical injury, is recoverable. This was accepted (arguably obiter) by Lord Steyn in King, but represents the ratio of the subsequent US Court of Appeal (2nd Circuit) decision in Ehrlich v American Airlines 360 F 3d 366 (2nd Cir, 2004. It has not been challenged in any English cases and is likely also to represent the position under English law. 7. More controversial is the recent decision in Doe v Etihad (870 F3d 406 (6th Cir, 2017) that under the MC 1999, a psychological injury that occurs concurrently with a physical injury, but without any causal link between them, is also recoverable. The court noted, in particular, the subtle change of wording between Article 17 under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions (the former permitting recovery for damage sustained 'the event of' bodily injury, whereas the latter providing that the passenger is liable for damage sustained 'in case of' bodily 'on condition only' that it occurred within the timeframe of the convention). 8. Doe has been widely criticised by certain academics, and by the airline industry more broadly. It has has not yet been considered in any English Case, but even if it is followed, its departure from the 'orthodox' position is still relatively modest, insofar as it still acknowledges the need for some 'bodily injury' to have been caused by 'the accident'. In other words, even in Doe the focus remained firmly on the plain wording of Article 17 even if the court's interpretation differed from previous cases. The decision in BT v Laudamotion discards the requirement for bodily injury altogether. 9. It is right to acknowledge that the 'King orthodoxy' has not been universally applied. As the House of Lords noted in King itself, the Supreme Court of Israel, as long ago as 19847 permitted recovery for pure psychiatric injury. The decision was described by their lordships in King as one which 'stands alone internationally' but it is a useful reminder that, as striking as the conclusion in the Laudamotion case is, it is by no means unprecedented. 10. The reasoning of the Court in BT v Laudamotion is however perfunctory. It can be distilled down to 3 core propositions: a. The concept of bodily injury must be given an autonomous European law interpretation, unshackled by any approach which has been adopted in individual member states. b. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties provides that treaty terms must be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of 'bodily injury' does not include pure psychological injury, but the term was adopted on the basis that, in certain signatory states, psychological injury is recoverable under 'certain conditions' and case-law on the criteria for recoverability will develop over time. c. The entire scheme of the convention, according to recitals 2 and 3, is to protect the interests of passengers and provide for equitable compensation based on restitution. Since the consequences of a psychological injury can be as severe as, or worse than, a physical or bodily injury, to disallow recovery for the former would be an injustice. 11. The curious feature of the decision of the CJEU is the somewhat belated attempt, having found that damages for psychological injury are recoverable in principle, to place conditions on recovery. It did this in recognition of the fact that the fifth recital to the Convention requires an 'equitable balance of interests' between carriers on the one hand and the protection of passengers on the other. The solution upon which the court settled is an unsatisfactory one, since it raises more questions than it answers. The Court held that damages would be recoverable: "only if the aggrieved passenger demonstrates, to the requisite legal standard, by means in particular of a medical report and proof of medical treatment, the existence of an adverse effect on his or her psychological integrity suffered as a result of an 'accident', within the meaning of that provision, of such gravity or intensity such that it affects his or her general state of health, particularly in view of its psychosomatic effects, and that it cannot be resolved without medical treatment. 12. This appears to be an attempt by the court to impose a threshold condition on recovery, but the language adopted is sufficiently broad to be capable of a wide range of interpretations, and much confusion. What constitutes 'medical treatment'? When does a psychological injury become sufficiently 'grave' or 'intense' to affect a person's general health? What are 'psychosomatic effects'?8 There is a broad spectrum of different psychiatric conditions, but insofar as a clinically diagnosable injury has been suffered (which seems to be what is envisaged by the reference to a medical report being required) it is difficult to imagine that this would be regarded by the court as falling below the threshold of 'gravity' and 'intensity'. But if this is right, is the carrier really protected from the "very heavy compensation burden" that the CJEU expressed that it was intending to avoid? 13. Standing back, the reality is that the balance of interests struck by the existing qualified strict-liability regime under the Convention will always operate, in certain circumstances, to the detriment of the consumer, unless it is amended. Indeed, the very exclusivity of the Convention resulted in the Claimants in Stott v Thomas Cook Airlines [2014] 2 WLR 521 having no remedy despite a flagrant act of discrimination against them. The Supreme Court (Lord Toulson giving the leading judgment) noted that: "The underlying problem is that the Warsaw Convention long pre-dated equality laws which are common today. There is much to be said for the argument that it is time for the Montreal Convention to be amended to take account of the development of equality rights, whether in relation to race (as inKing v American Airlines) or in relation to access for the disabled, but any amendment would be a matter for the contracting parties. It seems unfair that a person who suffers ill-treatment of the kind suffered by Mr Stott should be denied any compensation" 14. In BT v Laudamotion, the CJEU sought to cut the gordian knot by re-interpreting the seemingly clear language of the convention in one breath, but then imposing new, judicially created criteria in the next. The result, it seems to this author, is likely to be further confusion. The English Courts are not bound by the CJEU's decision after Brexit, but nor are they bound to follow King, it being a decision under the Warsaw Convention not the Montreal Convention. It is submitted, however, that most English judges, certainly at first instance, will be likely to follow King and accept the sense in Lord Steyn's observations that: "If cases of mental injuries and illnesses are to be brought within the Convention system, it must be done by amendment of the Convention system and not by judicial creativity" Footnotes 1 As was the case in Weaver v Delta Airlines 56 F Supp 2d 1190 (DC Mont, 1999) 2 United Airlines v Floyd (1991) 1 S&B AvR VII/633 3 Plourde v Service Aérien FBO Inc (Skyservice)2007 QCCA 739. 4 Kotsambasis v Singapore Airlines Ltd(1997) 148 ALR 498 5 Lewis v BA 30 Avi 16 632 6 Jiminez v Mexicana Airways 34 Avi 15, 346 7 Daddon v Air France(1984) 1 S & B Av R VII/141,(1984) 38(3) PD 785, 8 A number of US decisions have rejected the argument that sweating, heading, palpitations, fever etc associated with psychological injury is enough to constitute bodily injury: see Hermano v United Airlines 27 Avi 17,524 (ND Cal, 1999). First published Wed 16th Nov, 2022> 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 0