- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

The Role Of Law Enforcement In Detecting, Investigating, And Prosecuting Criminal Activity Related To Digital Assets
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

Brody Larson collates 70 highlights to The Role Of Law Enforcement In Detecting, Investigating, And Prosecuting Criminal Activity Related To Digital Assets: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KjCDedZ9ah8E7kyD2Dj_TET-jpH8orpO/view?usp=… "Financial regulations also play a key role in protecting national security, including through the designation of certain individuals and entities for sanctions based on a determination that they pose a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States."

1 1

Donald Trump seems pretty unhappy about the newly approved wind project off Martha’s Vineyard
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

https://bdc2020.o0bc.com/news/politics/2021/05/12/donald-trump-vineyard-win…

1 0

Trump adviser involved in Vineyard Wind opposition - E&E News
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

"Trump adviser involved in Vineyard Wind opposition" https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-adviser-involved-in-vineyard-wind-opp… David Stevenson, policy director at the Caesar Rodney Institute, participates in a press conference yesterday in Boston announcing a lawsuit that aims to block construction of Vineyard Wind, the first major offshore wind facility approved in the United States. AP Photo/Philip Marcelo The two Nantucket women said they were suing the federal government because they wanted to save the North Atlantic right whale from offshore wind. Then a former member of President Trump’s EPA transition team stepped to the microphone to commend them for their bravery. “They did it voluntarily,” David Stevenson, the former Trump adviser, said of the women. “They’re not getting anything out of this other than trying to save the whales, save Nantucket.” So went a press conference outside the Massachusetts State House yesterday, where offshore wind critics announced a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s approval of Vineyard Wind, the first major offshore wind project in America to be issued an environmental permit. Advertisement The lawsuit marks a new chapter in a decadeslong push to build offshore wind farms in America. Cape Wind, the first offshore wind project proposed in the U.S. waters, was sunk by nearly two decades of legal battles. Now, the question is whether they will sink a second generation of projects. Vineyard Wind, a 62-turbine project 12 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, is the first to run the legal gauntlet. The $2.8 billion project is the only utility-scale offshore wind project to receive a final permit from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Other projects could soon follow. BOEM, as the bureau is known, has committed to reviewing 16 others along the Eastern Seaboard by the end of President Biden’s first term. The lawsuit <https://subscriber.politicopro.com/f/eenews/?id=0000017b-7fbb-d1d1-a57f-ffb…> filed by Nantucket Residents Against Turbines in the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts argues that the bureau failed to consider the impact of Vineyard Wind on right whales. It seeks to vacate the permit. It’s not the first time opponents have challenged BOEM’s review of Vineyard Wind. That distinction belongs to a small-scale solar developer who owns a vacation house on Martha’s Vineyard (*Climatewire <https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2021/07/20/solar-executiv…>*, July 20). But the Nantucket suit illustrates how critics of offshore wind are starting to organize in opposition to projects along the East Coast. Nantucket Residents Against Turbines is a part of the American Coalition for Ocean Protection, a network of community groups that are fighting offshore wind developments, Stevenson said. The Caesar Rodney Institute, a libertarian think tank where Stevenson serves as director of the Center for Energy and the Environment <https://www.caesarrodney.org/CRI-staff/David-T-Stevenson.htm>, is spearheading a legal defense fund to fight offshore wind up and down the Eastern Seaboard. “We communicate with each other, help each other out with resources and ideas,” he said. “You’ve got the emotional power of the beach community, that comes without a lot of background in how to get things done, with these state policy groups.” Community groups like Nantucket Residents Against Turbines played a key role in defeating Cape Wind. At the time, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound unleashed a storm of legal action against Cape Wind with funding from conservative industrialists like William Koch. Stevenson said donations to the American Coalition for Ocean Protection have come from individual property owners along the coast, though he declined to identify any. “So far there is no Koch money, not that we wouldn’t take it,” he said. The Caesar Rodney Institute recently helped establish a legal defense fund to finance lawsuits against offshore wind projects. It has raised $75,000 to date with the goal of raising $500,000, Stevenson said. He said the money would be directed to plaintiffs with standing and a strong legal case. None has yet gone to Nantucket Residents Against Turbines. But the lawsuit sets an important precedent, Stevenson said. “The approval of the Vineyard Wind is kind of a hinge point,” he said. “If it gets approved and it stands with the shoddy job they did on the EIS [environmental impact statement], they’ll approve the rest of them. The coalition partners agree we need to stop the Vineyard Wind project.” Whale extinction ‘inevitable’ Vallorie Oliver, the founder of Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, is listed as the sole plaintiff in the case. BOEM had failed to provide scientific justification for giving Vineyard Wind an incidental take permit for right whales, Oliver told reporters at the press conference. The permit enables the developer to drive monopoles into the seabed in the vicinity of up to 20 whales. Noise from pile driving is considered harassment. A biological assessment <https://subscriber.politicopro.com/f/eenews/?id=0000017b-7fbc-d290-a57b-fff…> conducted by NOAA Fisheries as part of BOEM’s analysis found pile driving activity could temporarily force right whales to go elsewhere, but was unlikely to injure or kill them. “Once these installations are erected and the damage is done, that is not the time for regret, especially for the North Atlantic right whale, whose extinction will then most surely be inevitable,” Oliver said. Right whales and offshore wind projects have the potential to come into conflict. A recent study <https://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2021/45/n045p251.pdf> by the New England Aquarium found the whales’ presence appears to be increasing in the waters off southern New England, where seven wind developments have been proposed. Whale sightings were common between 2011 and 2015 just north of the area where Vineyard Wind and six other developments have been proposed, the study found. They moved into the eastern area of the wind development area in the winters of 2017 to 2019. The whales were even more prevalent during the spring months. “Implementing mitigation procedures in coordination with these findings will be crucial in lessening the potential impacts on right whales from construction noise, increased vessel traffic, and habitat disruption in this region,” the aquarium researchers wrote. Funding for the aquarium study was provided by BOEM and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, a state entity that supports the build-out of renewable energy in the Bay State. BOEM and Vineyard Wind declined comment on the lawsuit. ‘No … serious injury of any kind’ The developer, a joint venture of Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, has made efforts to limit its impact on whales. In 2019, Vineyard Wind agreed to a series of voluntary mitigation measures as part of a deal <https://www.vineyardwind.com/protecting-environment> with the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and Conservation Law Foundation. The deal calls for no pile driving between Jan. 1 and April 30 and requires the developer to halt pile driving if whales are sighted near the area at other times of the year. Those conditions were incorporated into BOEM’s permit. The biological assessment issued by NOAA Fisheries found that pile-driving events would last up to three hours, but would be unlikely to harm the animal if whales went undetected. “No non-auditory injury, serious injury of any kind, or mortality is anticipated,” the opinion stated. Fishing gear, which can entangle whales and kill them, and vessel strikes are the primary cause for the dangerous drop in the right whale population over the last decade, the New England Aquarium found. It estimated the whale’s total population is 356. NOAA, which regulates commercial fisheries, is reportedly weighing more stringent regulations on fishing gear in an attempt to stop the decline of right whales. While offshore wind critics said they were concerned about Vineyard Wind’s impact on right whales, they said they were not following the NOAA proposal and could not offer an opinion on what it would mean for the animal. “The fishermen say they are already obeying all the restrictions,” Stevenson said. ‘I am not a denier’ Stevenson made a name for himself in conservative circles for fighting proposed climate policies. He has opposed Pennsylvania’s decision to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap and trade program for power plants, and is on the board of policy advisers <https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-t-stevenson> at the Heritage Institute, a conservative think tank that has questioned the science of climate change (*Energywire* <https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2020/02/18/pas-future-in-…>, Feb. 18, 2020). At EPA, Stevenson was a part of a transition team that sought agency records on controversies like “Climate Gate,” the 2009 hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that some conservatives argued showed climate change was a conspiracy cooked up by scientists (*Greenwire <https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2017/09/25/trump-transiti…>*, Sept. 25, 2017). In one instance, Stevenson specifically requested agency communications regarding EPA’s crafting of a 2013 social cost of carbon calculation. Stevenson said his opposition to offshore wind was borne from a belief that it would damage the environment and economy, causing electricity bills to rise. “I am not a denier of climate change. I am not against solar,” Stevenson said, noting he has built a net-zero house in Delaware and was involved in solar research when employed by DuPont, a chemical company. Massachusetts and other Northeastern states involved in offshore wind should consider solar and natural gas as alternatives, he said. Members of Nantucket Residents Against Turbines said they were grateful for the support. Raising concern about Vineyard Wind’s impact on Nantucket has often been a lonely task, said Mary Chalke, a member of the group who joined Stevenson and Oliver at yesterday’s press conference. Many people on Nantucket were unaware of the project and often confused it for Cape Wind. She described Nantucket Residents Against Turbines as “pure grassroots” and said environmental impacts like the plight of the right whale are its primary concern. “Politics or other special interests don’t weigh into that as far as I am concerned,” she said. To the contrary, support from other communities along the East Coast and groups like the American Ocean Protection Coalition was welcome. “We’re not alone anymore,” Chalke said.

1 0

Bernhardt: Trump tried to boost offshore wind, not kill it - E&E News
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

https://www.eenews.net/articles/bernhardt-trump-tried-to-boost-offshore-win… Where is Elizabeth Warren on the United States' largest wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts? JPMorgan is clearly subject to the Endangered Species Act yet Mr. Trump's role in Vineyard Wind seems being ignored. Bernhardt: Trump tried to boost offshore wind, not kill it By *Benjamin Storrow* | 07/21/2021 06:46 AM EDT [image: David Bernhardt and Donald Trump.] Then-Interior Secretary David Bernhardt spoke last year as President Trump looked on. Bernhardt yesterday defended his role in delaying a major offshore wind farm. Drew Angerer/Getty Images Former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt defended the Trump administration’s lengthy review of America’s first offshore wind farm in an interview yesterday, saying the additional environmental analysis he ordered was intended to strengthen the project against legal challenges rather than kill it. The Trump administration had initially planned to complete a review of Vineyard Wind in the summer of 2019. But Bernhardt surprised the project’s developers, who proposed a $2.8 billion wind farm near Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., by expanding a government study of the project to consider other wind farms proposed along the East Coast. The announcement cast a pall over the wind industry. It slowed planning work on other projects and raised questions about the viability of offshore wind in the United States. Many industry supporters suspected the move was a reflection of former President Trump’s disdain for wind power, which he regularly lambasted as an eyesore and a danger to birds. Trump erroneously claimed wind turbines could cause cancer. But in a phone interview yesterday while vacationing at a North Carolina beach, Bernhardt said it was “fundamentally false” that the administration was playing politics with Vineyard Wind. Instead, he said his call for more analysis was driven by the growing number of wind projects proposed along the East Coast and by divisions among federal agencies over Vineyard Wind’s potential impact on commercial fishing and marine navigation. “You can’t proceed with federal agencies warring with each other,” he said. “I was like, ‘Look, we don’t have our ducks in a row.’” He added, “The last thing we wanted to do is put out a finalized program that wasn’t legally sustainable.” Bernhardt’s comments came hours after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released more than 500 pages of documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by E&E News. The documents were related to the permitting process of Vineyard Wind. They show that BOEM officials were nearing completion of the project’s environmental impact statement in the summer of 2019. It was the final step before approval. Then Bernhardt got involved. “BOEM briefed the DOI Executive review team on the Vineyard Wind Final EIS on Friday, June 28th (this briefing is required prior to publication of a Final EIS for all DOI agencies),” Brian Krevor, an environmental protection specialist at BOEM, wrote to other federal officials involved in the permit review on July 1, 2019. “The Secretary of the Interior is now personally reviewing the Final EIS and associated materials,” he added. “As a result, the Final EIS was not filed with the EPA on the 28th and will not be published on July 5th. I currently do not have a date for when the document will be published.” Bernhardt said he had promised Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who has championed offshore wind, that he would personally read Vineyard Wind’s EIS. He said he was “extremely troubled” by what he read. A growing number of states along the East Coast had signed contracts to buy electricity from offshore wind projects by the time Interior officials were finalizing the Vineyard Wind study. But the cumulative impact of those projects on other ocean users like the fishing industry was not considered in the study, Bernhardt said yesterday. He was also concerned about issues raised by other agencies. NOAA Fisheries, a division of the Commerce Department that oversees federal fisheries, had informed BOEM it did not agree with the bureau’s impact analysis of Vineyard Wind. The U.S. Coast Guard had raised separate issues about the safety of marine vessels transiting the project’s towers. “It was very important to me that we not have conflict between the agencies when you go out for the first project,” Bernhardt said. “People have to have faith the government is doing the job it is required to do and managing the varying interests we had. We couldn’t be shooting at each other.” Trump critics saw the delay as an attempt to kill the project, but Bernhardt said he has a long-standing interest in offshore wind. In 2005, he helped draft the Energy Policy Act as Interior’s congressional liaison. The law gave Interior oversight of offshore wind permitting. “I think where I depart from perhaps some is that because I was actually involved in the development of the legislation, it is my view that a high bar was set in the standards that the secretary must meet to move forward both in preventing waste but also in protecting other uses,” Bernhardt said. “I think the legislation that was created was intended to be cautionary. It is important to make these projects work in areas and places where they don’t do harm to others,” he said. “That was what Congress was trying to do, because it was developed in context of the Cape Wind situation.” Cape Wind was a 130-turbine project proposed in Nantucket Sound. The federal government lacked regulations for permitting offshore wind projects when it was initially proposed. It was ultimately abandoned in 2017 after years of lawsuits from residents who worried about the sight of turbines and their impact on environmental and cultural resources. Fearing a similar outcome, Vineyard Wind went back to the drawing board after Bernhardt’s unexpected announcement in 2019. It revamped the layout of its project, agreeing to space its turbines 1 nautical mile apart in a grid. The move was intended to address concerns from fishermen and the Coast Guard about transiting between the turbines. Other offshore wind developers said they would follow the same pattern. Vineyard Wind also increased the size of its turbines, from 9.5 megawatts to 12 megawatts, enabling it to reduce the number of towers from 84 to 62. The company’s initial plan called for 104 turbines. The project has a capacity of 800 MW, enough to power 400,000 homes. When BOEM released a draft review of the cumulative impact of all proposed offshore wind projects in the summer of 2020, it found the industry would have an adverse effect on fishermen. But it also concluded that fishermen would be affected by climate change and that the burden of the turbine would be concentrated on different parts of the fishing fleet. Squid boats, it found, would be most impacted by Vineyard Wind. It also determined that the wind industry stood to create thousands of jobs. BOEM subsequently missed a November deadline to finish its review. Instead, it would announce its final decision on Jan. 15, five days before Trump was scheduled to leave office. In response, Vineyard Wind announced in December that it was withdrawing its permit application, saying it needed to consider the impact of using larger turbines as part of the project. It quickly refiled its application after Biden took office, concluding the larger turbines did not alter the project’s impact. BOEM approved a final EIS in March and stamped Vineyard Wind’s permit in May. The final decision said it expected the project would have a negligible to moderate impact on fishermen but that the impact could become major as a result of future offshore projects. A 2020 study by the Coast Guard concluded that the updated grid layout addressed many of the navigation concerns. But the permitting snafu may yet plague the project. A lawsuit filed this week challenging the project’s permit said BOEM erred when it decided to re-accept the application without considering the impact of the larger turbines. Bernhardt, for his part, said Interior was committed to finishing its review under his watch, saying a tremendous amount of work was done to “ensure that when this program went forward it would be defensible and stand the test of time.” “A tremendous amount of work on this project was happening up to the moment they chose to terminate,” he added. Asked if the final EIS released by the Biden administration differed from the one being prepared by the Trump administration, Bernhardt said it was difficult to evaluate because his team never finished its review. But, he added, “I would be very skeptical that it looks dramatically different.”

1 0

Jennifer Robinson is to Journalist Julian Assmange what Clavin Ayre is to Pastor Craig Wright.
by professor rat 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

See, Austria got all the criminals - Amerikkka got all the Gilead Puritans. Here endeth the History lesson.

1 0

xNY.io - Bank.org | DOJ Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pwysH05O9rlrFVs_w1Jq3EiQdBoktCtt/view?usp=… March 10, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1, Memo #2 and Memo #3 with our recent inquiry to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Deferred Agreement. Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery…> with the United States of America is in potential breach, with ethical enforcement being concerned. Memo #4 aims to associate the malfeasance in Malaysia with war crimes of aggression (in the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression), leveraging the world’s only military divided capital city Nicosia, Cyprus. 1. Additionally, Memo #4 aims to earn the DOJ’s assessment of New York State’s regulatory marketplace manipulation deriving the war crime against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. 2. In this case, the first challenge is to observe and consider the simple idea that the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs alone, through means of regulatory arbitrage naively fails to recognize the ‘cause and effect’ relationship at play at the inception of Memo #4’s assertion of war crimes. 3. Even with the best of intentions, perhaps unknowingly the DOJ may be amplifying the effect of potential war crimes by indirectly supplementing the root cause of the problem and financial model of the Deferred Agreement being self-policing. Mr. Marzulli, there has been an active United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since the 1964 Turkish military invasion and occupation of the northern third of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, while there is broad recognition that the ongoing military presence constitutes occupation of territories that are under Turkish military control. - The graduate education behind Memo #4 is a product of the University of Nicosia’s (UNIC) main campus, located adjacent to the United Nations Buffer Zone that separates the invaded Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, which joined the European Union in 2004. - Memo #4 is also a product of United Nations consultancy, based at its Manhattan headquarters, where (today, what is now xNY.io - Bank.org) was credited with increasing the breadth and accessibility of reference content from the world’s most important multinational organization. - Memo #4’s subject of war crimes has preeminent association with such projects as the Audio Visual Library of International Law. Over the following sections, Memo #4 will provide a detailed timeline that would constitute real concern of the war crime of aggression yielding the war crime against peace in active war conflict in the world’s only military divided capital, funded from Manhattan Island. The Bank of Cyprus and Illegal Short Selling Irregularities of Turkey’s Markets Mr. Marzulli, turn this matter as we will, and look at it from any side whatsoever, and it presents the appearance of a cross-border act of aggression. Goldman Sachs’ potential disrespect to the Deferred Agreement’s core values has cultivated new crimes that aim to manipulate cross-border war crime regulatory frameworks. - On April 02, 2021 the Financial Times reported that Turkey fined Goldman Sachs over alleged irregularities in short selling, just a week after foreign investors pulled $1.9B from the country’s stock and bond markets. Turkey’s Capital Markets Board said that Goldman Sachs was among 10 securities firms that had placed orders for short selling without proper notification, violating rules enacted previously that temporarily prohibited such transactions. - On April 20, 2021 the CyprusMail (Cyprus’ only English Language daily newspaper) reported Goldman Sachs International acted as Global Coordinators and Dealer Managers in a $330M bond issuance for the Bank of Cyprus. Given the active military conflict in Cyprus, Memo #4 notes that there is one place on the planet you are not supposed to do this sort of thing. Furthermore, the DOJ’s Deferred Agreement with Goldman Sachs may have been tainted with the potential war crime of aggression, risking international peace and the lives of United Nations peacekeepers, while jeopardizing the United States of America’s financial security. Concern of New York Prime Bank Instrument Fraud and Marketplace Manipulation The United States Department of the Treasury warns that Prime Bank Instrument Fraud schemes have attracted significant international attention, since individuals and organizations have lost billions of dollars worldwide. "Prime Bank Instrument Fraud" is the general term given to prime bank fraud schemes that go by many different names. During April 2021, Goldman Sachs could not in good faith (and, plausible deniability) make any reasonable claim of holding a pristine relationship with Turkey’s Central Bank or with Cyprus’ largest financial institutions, given the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and then pending Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States of America. - Memo #4 suggests that Goldman Sachs developed a Prime Bank Instrument Fraud program to level out yo-yo market dynamics caused by failed marketplace manipulation exercises in Turkey and Cyprus. - Systematic bank fraud and/or marketplace manipulation of any kind between Turkey and Cyprus could constitute the war crime of aggression. - Furthermore, Memo #4 argues that Goldman Sachs may have tried to bambooze governments in New York, Cyprus and Turkey through regulatory arbitrage loopholes, while Goldman seemingly may have not considered the totality of such actions as war crimes. Turkey has the highest inflation in Europe. It has the second-highest rate of inflation among emerging markets, just behind Argentina. It has the 13th highest inflation rate in the world, ranking it between South Sudan and Nigeria. After Goldman Sachs was fined for illegal stock and bond market short selling by the Turkish government, logic would argue further malfeasance potentially could have been avoided by the DOJ’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad investigation. - On April 15, 2021 CNBC reported that Goldman Sachs (note, the previous section’s milestones of April 02, 2021 and April 20, 2021) crucially removed its bias toward Turkey tightening interest rates. Goldman issued guidance highlighting the fact that the bank thought that, “…the removal of the tightening bias against rising inflation expectations suggests that the TCMB (Turkish Central Bank) now has a more dovish reaction function.” - On August 14, 2021 the CyprusMail reported serious concern among economists about data reporting from the Turkish Statistical Institute. Ahmet Takan, a former official with the office of the Turkish prime minister, acted as a whistle blower, warning that Turkey potentially was manipulating inflation data. - On September 1, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs hiked Turkish growth forecasts. Goldman economists issued guidance stating, "Overall, the Turkish economy has been able to grow faster than we thought without a deterioration in its external balances, as the pickup in foreign demand has been very supportive." - On November 30, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs trimed Turkey’s 2022 growth forecast. Goldman Sachs' Murat Unur stated, "We think that the GDP figures released today tell us little about the pace of economic activity going forward as the recent sell-off in the Lira is likely to impact economic activity significantly" Mr. Marzulli, the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs was signed on October 21, 2021. The timeline of events above do not coincide with terms and conditions of the Deferred Agreement mandated by the United States of America. Furthermore, as an international graduate scholars of the world’s only military divided capital on the planet, xNY.io - Bank.org should be protected from any association of crimes against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. War Crimes Against Humanity Mr. Marzulli, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned that potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement are impacting our global enterprise. Crimes against humanity can be committed in peacetime as well as during an armed conflict. Even a single act could fall under this exclusion ground provided it forms part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and the act is committed by any person (including a civilian) who had knowledge of the attack and the link of the act to the attack. 1. We are looking to learn more about the DOJ’s approach to assessing any potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement’s mandates as we determine New York State’s role in cross-border bank regulation and corresponding innovation beyond war crimes against humanity. 2. In order to establish whether a war crime or a crime against humanity has been committed, the case officer should consult the relevant international instruments and case law. 3. Crimes against humanity are fundamentally inhumane acts, committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack. Inhumane acts, which could reach this threshold when committed pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy (potentially, New York State bank regulation). 4. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. 5. Furthermore, we have made 28 highlights to the Deferred Agreement providing supporting reference to Memo #4’s overarching premise. xNY.io - Bank.org submits Memo #4 for DOJ consideration of other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Some crimes against humanity would require an additional specific intent, such as Goldman Sachs willfully disrespecting New York State and/or overall peace and security of the United States of America. Memo #1, Memo #2, Memo #3 and Memo #4 outline instances that correspond with the associated definitions of the potential war crimes abroad and jeopardize the future of bank innovation from New York, at great sacrifice to the Homeland. We hope to learn the DOJ’s approach to comment on Memo #4’s subject matter or, without delay refer these concerns to the International Criminal Court and/or International Court of Justice for comment. Respectfully yours with anticipation, 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

1 10

140 Highlights to Complaint by Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Against Attorney General Letitia Ann James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq.
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

Brody Larson collates 140 highlights to Complaint by Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Against Attorney General Letitia Ann James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq.: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOzEmOpxCBNfThWYqPPDaV0evqGFVFTd/view?usp=… "I am the 56th Governor of the State of New York and write to bring to the Attorney Grievance Committee’s (“Committee”)attention certain professional misconduct by New York Attorney General LetitiaAnn James (“AGJames” or the “Attorney General”), and two Special Deputies to the First Deputy Attorney General appointed by AG James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq., to assist in an investigationof allegations of sexual harassment against me."

1 1

158 highlights to DONALD J. TRUMP, vs. HILLARY R. CLINTON.
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

158 highlights to DONALD J. TRUMP, vs. HILLARY R. CLINTON. Honestly, I understand the FBI's scenario here. Why on god's green Earth would New York be used and abused while at the expense of innovation. DONALD J. TRUMP, vs. HILLARY R. CLINTON: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=…

1 7

xNY.io - Bank.org | Memo #2 - JPMorgan Chase Board of Directors ESG Marketplace Manipulation
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxERzXknAFfVW3YsDpNB-GPlVoiLAeeBXUrxwOF… May 1, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Investor Relations Board of Directors, JPMorgan Chase & Co. 277 Park Avenue New York, NY 10172-0003 JPMCinvestorrelations(a)jpmchase.com Re: JPMorgan Chase Board of Directors ESG Marketplace Manipulation Dear Board of Directors: xNY.io - Bank.org recently contacted JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors to communicate our concern(s) that potentially JPMorgan Chase may be engaging in exploitation of more than $100B of ESG asset liabilities, across international regulatory arbitrage structures, while headquartered in Manhattan. Specifically, the duty to promote the success of the company is that a director must act in the way that she considers, in good faith, and would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. - Failure by a board to adequately consider ESG-related risks, particularly entity-specific compliance risks such as breach of securities laws, could serve as the basis for liability of individual directors or officers for breach of their fiduciary duties. Given JPMorgan’s five cout felonies, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned with your board of director governance in preventing ESG fraud. xNY.io - Bank.org’s assessment of JPMorgan’s board embraces fundamentals including liquidity risk and protecting New York ESG cross border innovation from marketplace manipulation. - According to JPMorgan’s August 2021 Sovereigns and ESG whitepaper, the bank states that governance carries the largest weight of the three ESG pillars across scores, as it is the most empirically relevant for asset prices. - JPMorgan notes that philosophically, the bank views good governance as a foundational pillar for positive ESG developments in other pillars. Today’s memo follows protocol suggested by the United States of America, in that JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors is responsible to xNY.io - Bank.org’s enterprise and the Department of the Interior, in connection with any action alleging a violation of the Endangered Species Act, by any person (“person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity) claiming the benefit of any exemption or permit under the Act, who shall have the burden of proving that the exemption or permit is applicable, or has been granted, and was valid and in force at the time of alleged violation. xNY.io - Bank.org has made 91 highlights to the Department of Interior’s Endangered Species Act for JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors reference. 1. xNY.io - Bank.org has reason to believe in the JPMorgan Chase board of directors’ engagement of ESG marketplace manipulation, risking your ESG portfolio’s future at the cost of New York digital asset innovation. 2. xNY.io - Bank.org references your 2021 Environmental Social and Governance Report, totaling $117B of ESG “development funding” transferred from New York to Caribbean and Eastern European accounts. 3. xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned of JPMorgan Chase board directors leveraged marketplace manipulation techniques in allocating ESG funds to engage in potential harassment (the term "harassment" means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance) of some of the world’s most precious endangered species protected by domestic and international governance. 4. JPMorgan Chase’s $2.3B ESG “wind farm” facility is characterized by the Washington Post as a potential misuse of ESG assets (and board policies) to fund probable violation(s) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Looking internationally, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned of further ESG marketplace manipulation structures, sacrificing endangered species, via JPMorgan Chase’s board directed ESG investments in the Caribbean (your largest ESG investment region). xNY.io - Bank.org signals that JPMorgan’s board of directors is party to the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Being clear, any violation of the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere … Requires xNY.io - Bank.org to consult JPMorgan Chase board members on ESG allocations that may be in conflict with construction, or other development projects, or other forms of economic activity. xNY.io - Bank.org asks JPMorgan Chase board directors to return the Secretary of Department of the Interior’s approval, confirming licensing and/or exclusion to the Endangered Species Act, with further authorization of “harassment” pursuant to exemption(s). Including (if available) a similar Environmental Protection Agency permit that is applicable and is valid and in force. - Due to the riskiness of ESG portfolio mismanagement in violation of the Endangered Species Act, ESG marketplace manipulation risk(s) may trigger causal shocks to New York State monetary and regulatory innovation. - According to JPMorgan’s sovereign fund ESG research, “A common complaint about ESG analysis is that data can be difficult to source. Some sovereign data is in fact more readily available than corporate data given the multitude of multinational organizations and NGOs – including the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations.” - The European Central Bank provides support to the eurozone sovereign debt market but has more restrictions on what and how much it can buy, so eurozone bonds can trade with more credit risk premium compared to other major developed market bonds. - Whatever the case may be, JPMorgan disclosures detail significant concern of lapse in board governance and ESG portfolio risk with potential violation of the Endangered Species Act, risking ESG portfolio default(s) in Europe and the United States risking ESG customer financial abuse. Forbes recently profiles JPMorgan Chase ESG investments as problematic, highlighting that your board of directors potentially are allocating ESG proceeds in competition with human rights at the expense of customers’ best interests while investing heavily in fossil fuels. A letter to JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors from ESG scholars (including, The Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Greenpeace, Amazon Watch, Revolving Door Project, Rainforest Action Network and the Center for International Environmental Law) suggests the bank would “...lock us into energy sources that are overly expensive and subject to wild price swings, and that exacerbate rather than ease global conflict.” xNY.io - Bank.org aims to protect ESG digital asset innovation and JPMorgan’s board should understand your proprietary ESG scoring matrix should signal seismic marketplace manipulation risk if directors are in potential violation of any Endangered Species Act covenant. - Head of Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) distribution at JP Morgan Asset Management says, “In Europe, we do not have a semi-transparent product – like the US and Australia – which would add further complexity to the trading. For example, the US has several models which make it harder for the AP to guess what the actual fund looks like and therefore the costs might be higher accordingly.” - Given, JPMorgan may potentially be in breach of United States Endangered Species Act provisions, similar risk of ESG asset failure(s) may include Europe, Middle East, Africa and Australia international law, as ratified by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. While directors and officers are likely to be particularly focused on the risk that they may be found personally liable for a breach of their duties, proper ESG compliance with fiduciary obligations requires acting to a higher standard. Given the defenses available to fiduciaries, and the difficulty in bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty, a director or officer found to be liable for such ESG breaches will generally have acted egregiously. This ‘sliding scale’ of the standards to which directors and officers should adhere. Following the Endangered Species Act, xNY.io - Bank.org kindly petitions JPMorgan’s board of directors, in connection with all ESG investments, claiming the benefit of any exemption or permit under the United States Department of the Interior’s Endangered Species Act … Shall have the burden of proving that an exemption or permit is applicable, or has been granted, and is valid and in force. - At JPMorgan’s earliest convenience (within 60 days of receipt of this memo) xNY.io - Bank.org kindly requests a certified copy of JPMorgan Chase’s approval by the Department of the Interior, being a license and/or exclusion to the Endangered Species Act and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - JPMorgan Chase suggests a commitment to anti-corruption compliance is central to the success of its business. Your board of directors stand to maintain that trust by promoting a corporate culture that encourages ethical business practices and compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the countries in which the JPMorgan conducts business. xNY.io - Bank.org’s research guidance from the United States Securities and Exchange Commision, supports the international community in taking actions to address ESG issues on a global basis, and those actions that can have a material impact on companies. Future correspondence concerning ESG innovation is at your board’s leisure. Respectfully yours with appreciation, Gunnar Larson | xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> - Bank.org <http://bank.org>, PBC 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

1 1

Fwd: Your Freedom of Information Law Request FOIL-2022-092267-018305
by Gunnar Larson 18 Oct '22

18 Oct '22

2022-092267: “Dear Madam or Sir: On May 18, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org received a copy of a financial disclosure form for Mr. Richard Weber (General Counsel, NY-DFS) noting an advisory council role at the Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement. No address was provided: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CCIh9CQiwxVILSv86B54kEcipVRnx1YQ/view?usp=… We would like to receive any and all records NY-DFS and Human Rights hold for this appointment approval for a state associated represenative. Warm regards, Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-454-9107 Expected due date: 10.18.22. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <Carmen.Garrett(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2022, 11:13 AM Subject: Your Freedom of Information Law Request FOIL-2022-092267-018305 To: <G(a)xny.io> Good Morning: Attached, please find correspondence from the New York State Department of Financial Services pertaining to your FOIL request. Thank you. Tracking Number:FOIL-2022-092267-018305

1 1