- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Chase Bank Customers Are Reporting a Wave of Wire Fraud in their Accounts; the Bank Won’t Make Good on the Looted Funds
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/06/chase-bank-customers-are-reporting-a… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: June 19 2024 ~ On January 29, Anne Marie Murphy and two of her colleagues at law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP in Santa Monica, California filed a lawsuit in Superior Court on behalf of a 76-year old widow, Diane Artemis Yaffe. Scammers had tricked Ms. Yaffe into making seven wire transfers out of her Chase Bank account, which tallied up to the astonishing sum of $1.8 million, or the bulk of her funds at the time. There are three things which jump out of the factual details in the case that would appear to be legally problematic for Chase Bank – the federally-insured, retail banking unit of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. First, the six figure wires were completely out-of-character for this elderly client. Second, the huge sums were being wired out of the country. Third, the funds that Chase Bank wired were originally at Bank of America and were only transferred to Chase Bank because Bank of America had the good sense to refuse to make the wire transfers for this elderly widow. But rather than accept responsibility and make the widow whole, JPMorgan Chase has hired the international corporate law firm, Steptoe, to represent it in the court case. The bank has also forced the removal of the case out of state court to federal court (a move which is being very competently challenged by Ms. Yaffe’s attorneys), and appears ready to engage in copious motions to drag out the case. Knowing this bank’s history of felony counts and an unprecedented rap sheet, it occurred to us that these fraudulent wire transfers might not be an isolated event at Chase Bank. We went to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) complaint database and put “Chase Bank wire fraud” in the search box. It brought up 558 responses. If you consider that possibly one out of 50 Americans know about the CFPB’s complaint database and fewer still would take the time to file a complaint as opposed to going to law enforcement, the 558 complaints involving wire fraud appear to us to be deeply concerning. In addition, the dates of the filing of the complaints show that dozens of the complaints have occurred in the past six months in widely dispersed geographic areas including California, New York, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Ohio, among others. On April 4 of this year, the CFPB received the following report from a Chase Bank customer in New York: (Redacted information, indicated by Xs, is how the complaint appears on the CFPB website.) “On XX/XX/2024, a total of {$130000.00} was wired out of my bank accounts with Chase Bank in New York without my authorization. I never send wires for more than a few XXXX dollars. I was not notified or warned by Chase. Usually they send an email advising when a wire transfer is made. This did not happen…To my immense horror, Chase had no interest in pursuing a serious investigation….” CFPB received this complaint from a Chase Bank customer in Colorado on April 2: “If you are a JPMorgan Chase customer be aware!!!!!! I was a victim of a non-authorized wire transfer within my JP Morgan Chase banking account. JPMC bank is refusing to help me get my {$9200.00} that was fraudulently stolen from my account because they say there is nothing they can do, that the $ was NOT stolen from them-JPM Chase but from me personally.” On April 1, a California couple wrote in their CFPB complaint that they had rushed to their local Chase Bank branch to stop a suspected fraudulent wire transfer and a Chase Bank employee indicated that the hacker was cloning an actual Chase Bank phone number to commit the wire fraud. The complaint states the following: “On XX/XX/24 multiple accounts at Chase Bank where simultaneously hit with wire fraud. We have NEVER used wires before. These hackers were so sophisticated that they were able to first do inter bank transfers from both of my daughters savings accounts (which I am on ) into my and my husbands savings accounts ( which I am on, but they are not ). And then from my savings account, wired out three sums of money simultaneously to three different US banks/credit unions… When we ask Chase how this happened, we get a different story every time, and now we get no response at all…[After going to the bank branch…] I put the call on speaker. XXXX immediately recognized the phone number as the desk sitting next to her. Caught on camera, you can see my husband and XXXX go to the EMPTY desk that the spoof call was supposedly coming from. She was SHOCKED that the hackers able to impersonate Chase….” In multiple cases, the Chase Bank customers’ cell phones were involved, suggesting that bank account information had been stored on the cell phone, which was then hacked by the scammer. In one case, the individual had taken her computer to be serviced and experienced a fraudulent wire transfer shortly thereafter, suggesting that the bank account details had been stolen during the servicing of the computer. Given the mushrooming problems being reported with mobile banking and payment apps and identity theft, as well as fraudulent wire transfers, it should go without saying that one should exercise extreme caution in where and how bank account numbers and passwords are stored and with whom they are shared.

1 0

Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ajVVx6NGB9wd2GDXfLRftf0RVFpqjl8WWITvdNV… 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 12

Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

Dear Madam Acting Superintendent: Reflecting this week, Ripple once again <https://www.law.com/radar/card/ripple-legal-chief-accuses-sec-of-playing-de…> shares concerning comments and approaches to respecting their Bitlicense award. Even more, many experts are concerned <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-17/nyc-miami-seen-facing-po…> about MIA Coin and resulting NYCCoin disasters. Madam Acting Superintendent, on August 4, 2020 as part of our Conditional BitLicense application we submitted a draft of the Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights. - Today this memo is to re-new our obvious approach to virtual currency innovation in New York. Together under your leadership, we should be leading the world in the principles of modern cross-border BitLicense logic. - Madam Acting Superintendent, this type of stuff matters. The Deceleration aims to level the playing field for all and impacts the future of women and girls with respect to financial inclusion. - At the very least, New York and your office should be embracing such thoughtful approaches to support future generations and protect virtual currency from market manipulation. Madam Acting Superintendent, we implore that if some version of the Declaration was enacted in 2020, the world would be a better place today. Kindly find a copy of the Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights <https://thecapital.io/article/universal-bitlicense-declaration-on-virtual-c…> below. We will be in contact with your office this coming week to engage in dialogue on the Declaration's feasibility forward. Very respectfully yours, Gunnar Larson *WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DETERMINED* - to pioneer noble advancement of BitLicence theory and regulation, whereas it is essential to safeguard virtual currency and its potential to galvanize international, economic and social advancement of all peoples, and - to ensure clarity, principally New York’s BitLicence being the preeminent institution with mandate of ensuring that virtual currency manipulation (of any sort) shall not burden the common global interest of humanity, and that human rights are protected in the jurisdiction of New York for all peoples *AND FOR THESE ENDS* - to save succeeding generations from financial fraud and corruption, which in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to humanity, and - to reaffirm New York’s faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and - to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from BitLicence regulation and other sources of financial services law can be maintained, and - to promote larger social progress by leading global standards, given that New York remains the center of technological innovation and forward-looking virtual currency regulation *HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS* *Now, therefore this UNIVERSAL BITLICENSE DECLARATION ON VIRTUAL CURRENCY & HUMAN RIGHTS as the common crypto standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive to promote respect for human rights and personal freedoms by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance of New York-based companies accountable to a **universal **BitLicense **standard of virtual currency regulation across all global territories of business, protecting all peoples and all nations.* *Article One* - Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in failed financial frameworks that have outraged the conscience of mankind, and - Whereas the foundational vision of BitLicense theory imagines a world in which human beings shall enjoy safe, reliable and regulated virtual currency tools and financial products, now proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, *Article Two* - Whereas ethical stewardship of virtual currency is inherent to the BitLicence mandate, the invention of blockchain, and virtual currency aimed to secure the equal and inalienable rights of all as foundation to financial freedom and economic prosperity, especially in the developing economies, and - BitLicense members pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the state of New York, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of international human rights fundamental to the integrity of the BitLicense’s virtual currency regulation. - Whereas New York reaffirms faith in the BitLicense’s foundational themes and the general concept of human right protection. The dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women are part of New York BitLicense protections and standards which correlates to noble “public-spiritedness” virtual currency regulation with exponential social progress of humanity. *Article Three* *The Purposes of this Declaration are:* - To maintain the protection of BitLicense virtual currency standards, implying any New York- based group or person has no right to engage in “loophole” business activities in global markets out of New York, or to perform any act aimed at bypassing BitLicense virtual currency regulation, and - To take effective collective measures to remove inconsistencies and prevent the suppression of human rights or other breaches of BitLicense regulations of virtual currency, and to bring about conformity with the principles of justice and international human rights laws, adjusting or settling international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of New York BitLicense law; - To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, while executing appropriate measures to close KYC/AML loopholes by strengthen universal virtual currency regulation of New York firms operating in global emerging markets; - To achieve international co-operation in solving international virtual currency problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian nature, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and - To offer New York as centre jurisdiction and the BitLicense as universal to harmonizing smart virtual currency actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. *Article Four* New York BitLicensees (members), in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article One, shall act in accordance with the following Principles: - All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from BitLicense membership, shall fulfill the obligations assumed by them in accordance with this Declaration, and - All Members shall immediately settle their international virtual currency inconsistencies by peaceful means in such a manner that international law and justice are not endangered while meeting this Declaration and overall BitLicense compliance, and - All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the violation of human rights or abuse of virtual currency manipulation *by leveraging territorial loopholes (e.g. Africa) and/or inconsistent jurisdictional integrity and enforcement (e.g. Europe), nor willfully employ political naivete of any state (e.g. New York)*, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of this Declaration, and - Continued membership is contingent on the requirement that BitLicense Members based in New York act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental virtual currency regulation, and finally - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of human rights or degradation of the BitLicense’s virtual currency statute or mandates set forth in this Declaration. -- *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 18

Sullivan & Cromwell, FTX Lead Counsel in Bankruptcy, Says It Has No Adverse Relationships, Despite Representing Four of FTX’s Crypto Exchange Competitors
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/01/sullivan-cromwell-ftx-lead-counsel-i… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 10, 2023 ~ Andrew (Andy) Dietderich, Law Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Andrew (Andy) Dietderich, Law Partner at Sullivan & Cromwell Sullivan & Cromwell ranks among the oldest law firms in America. It was founded 144 years ago by Algernon Sydney Sullivan and William Nelson Cromwell in Manhattan’s financial district. During the financial bust in the 1930s, Sullivan & Cromwell garnered its reputation for defending Wall Street firms against shareholder lawsuits and antitrust actions. As Wall Street On Parade previously detailed, the firm’s Senior Chairman, Rodge Cohen, paved the way for the Fed’s unprecedented $29 trillion bailout of Wall Street banks after their corrupt activities collapsed the U.S. economy in 2008. And, of course, there was S&C partner Jay Clayton, who was tapped by President Donald Trump to Chair the SEC – and, in our opinion, left markets mired in the worst corruption since 1929. Against that backdrop, one would think that S&C would be attempting to stay off the radar screen of federal regulators and prosecutors. Instead, it has steamrolled its way into Lead Law Firm for bankruptcy proceedings of one of the largest financial frauds in U.S. history according to federal prosecutors – the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto exchange, FTX. According to the new CEO of FTX, John Ray, $8 billion of customers’ money is missing. On December 21, FTX and its related bankrupt companies, filed a request with the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware to name Sullivan & Cromwell as the lead law firm for the bankruptcy proceedings. Included in that request was a Declaration from S&C law partner, Andrew (Andy) Dietderich. In that declaration, Dietderich stated that “S&C does not represent any person or entity having an interest adverse to the Debtors.” But in that same document, Sullivan & Cromwell provides a list of its current clients who have a relationship to FTX, as well as a list of former clients who had a relationship to FTX. Stunningly, included on the list of Sullivan & Cromwell’s current clients are four crypto exchanges that are major competitors to FTX. Those competitors are BlockFi, Coinbase, Gemini, and Kraken. Clearly, a major competitor would logically seem to have a built-in motive to see its competitor fail rather than be resuscitated in bankruptcy proceedings. Adding to the unseemliness of the situation, on December 7, Bloomberg News reported that the incoming CEO of Kraken, Dave Ripley, called FTX mastermind, Sam Bankman-Fried, a “fraudster,” while adding that “We have information to know that fraud was committed there.” Two days later, on December 9, the New York Post reported that Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong, was blasting the media for being too soft on Sam Bankman-Fried, stating that “I mean, this guy just committed a $10 billion fraud, and why is he getting treated with kid gloves?” (Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to an 8-count criminal indictment brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. His trial is scheduled for October.) In addition to representing two crypto exchange competitors whose CEOs are using the media to bash the former CEO of FTX, Sullivan & Cromwell’s crypto client, BlockFi, has filed a lawsuit arguing that approximately $440 million of shares in stock-trading platform, Robinhood, belong to it as collateral for loans it made to FTX. At the same time, the bankruptcy team for FTX is arguing that the Robinhood shares belong to a related FTX company, Alameda Research, which is also in bankruptcy, and it needs to hold onto the stock while investigating other disputed claims to the shares. (One of those disputed claims has emerged as coming from Sam Bankman-Fried, who says he needs the Robinhood stock to pay his legal defense team.) Adding to the Sullivan & Cromwell rabbit hole of conflicts, Sam Bankman-Fried was previously its client according to its recently filed document with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. Robinhood itself is listed as a current client to Sullivan & Cromwell. Adding to Sullivan & Cromwell’s tenuous claims to the bankruptcy court that it “is not aware of any conflict between its representation of the Debtors and its representations of its Current Clients or Former Clients that would cause S&C not to be a ‘disinterested person,’” are the large legal fees it had been collecting from FTX during a period when federal prosecutors say FTX was looting its customer accounts and Sam Bankman-Fried was using the money as his personal piggy bank. According to the S&C document filed with the bankruptcy court, prior to it filing the FTX bankruptcy petition, Sullivan & Cromwell collected a “retainer in the amount of $12 million” from the parent of FTX.US. Sullivan & Cromwell further notes in its filing that it received legal fees and expenses totaling $8,564,487.50 from FTX and its related companies from July 2021 to the Petition Date of November 11, 2022. Sullivan & Cromwell has asked the court to bill as follows going forward: “from $1,575 to $2,165 per hour for partners and special counsel, $810 to $1,475 per hour for associates and $425 to $595 per hour for legal assistants.” Adding further to the sinking ground on which Sullivan & Cromwell finds itself, a draft of the testimony that Sam Bankman-Fried was set to deliver before the House Financial Services Committee on December 13 (which never materialized because he was arrested on that date), claims that Sullivan & Cromwell used undue pressure tactics to get him to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Bankman-Fried writes: “Most of that pressure came from Ryne Miller, the General Counsel of FTX US and a former partner at Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), and Sullivan and Cromwell itself. 2) Sullivan & Cromwell was one of the primary external law firms that represented FTX US as well as FTX International at the time. a) I have 19 pages of screenshots of Sullivan & Cromwell, Mr. Miller, and others I believe were influenced by them, all sent over a two day period, pressuring me to quickly file for Chapter 11. They range from adamant to mentally unbalanced. They also called many of my friends, coworkers, and family members, pressuring them to pressure me to file, some of whom were emotionally damaged by the pressure. Some of them came to me, crying. b) It was only later that I was informed that it was very unusual for such a significant filing to be made so quickly. 3) Sullivan & Cromwell chose John Ray to run the Chapter 11 team.” John Ray is not just running the Chapter 11 team. Ray has been named as the new CEO of FTX. According to Bankman-Fried’s draft testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, “S&C chose John Ray as the new CEO of the Chapter 11 estate; John Ray then chose S&C to represent the Chapter 11 estate.” While Bankman-Fried has not particularly built up a reputation for truth-telling, the assertion that S&C picked the new CEO is supported by the fact that there was no proper corporate mechanism at the time to pick a new CEO. According to John Ray’s testimony to Congress, there was no functioning Board of Directors at FTX.

1 1

Re: Your Bloomberg Visit: We look forward to welcoming you - Regulatory Compliance - Key Trends and Evolving Technology
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

Dear Bloomberg: While listening to Wall Street Week this morning, I received communication that if I go to this Bloomberg invatational below, it could be considered as xNY.io - Bank.org being complicit to regulatory fraud. I am looking forward to attending this Bloomberg event. However, xNY.io - Bank.org would need to receive confirmation from Bloomberg that you have communicated with the FBI of today's incident while listening to Wall Street Week. Being clear, xNY.io - Bank.org contacted Bloomberg today with moral clarity that we are not complicit to regulatory fraud. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Sun, May 5, 2024, 7:11 PM Bloomberg Visit (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) < blpvisit(a)bloomberg.net> wrote: > Dear GUNNAR LARSON, > > We are looking forward to welcoming you to our Bloomberg office. We hope > the information below is helpful to ensure your smooth arrival. > > Office address: > 731 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > > Building access: > > - Please bring a valid proof of identity in the form of a valid > government photo ID card, or document as this will be used to check in on > the ground floor at our Bloomberg reception. Photo ID must be a hard copy. > - Bloomberg and the security companies it employs take photographs of > visitors to Bloomberg's offices. For more information about how we > process your personal information, please see our privacy notice at: > https://www.bloomberg.com/notices/ > - As the majority of our Bloomberg office is accessible by an internal > staircase, please inform your host if you need any additional assistance > with regards to access. > > > If prompted, please present this QR Code at the lobby check-in. > > If you have any questions or concerns, please speak to your Bloomberg > host. > > We look forward to seeing you soon. > > *Please note that this inbox is not actively monitored. Please contact > your Bloomberg host with any questions. > Thank you for registering for the in-person event: Regulatory Compliance - Key Trends and Evolving Technology. Your registration is confirmed, and we have reserved your spot. Please update your calendar: Date: Thursday, May 16, 2024 Time: 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM EST Location: Bloomberg Headquarters 731 Lexington Avenue, 7th floor New York, NY 10022 We look forward to having you join us. Please contact me with any questions. **If you have already received your confirmation please ignore this email.**

1 5

492 Highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

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

1 1

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

19 Jun '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 7:44 AM Subject: Fwd: FOIL Request No. 2022-090560 - Larson (NY-DFS Apple Card Investigation) To: <Scheduling_schumer(a)schumer.senate.gov> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> Dear Honorable Senator Schumer: My name is Gunnar Larson, I am a co-founder at xNY.io - Bank.org. Today's memo seeks your office's esteemed help resolving a NY-DFS records access case from October 12, 2022. On November 2, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org elected to appeal NY-DFS' records access decision. NY-DFS responded to xNY.io - Bank.org on July 25, 2023 with the attached memo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19g7NvXjwCwD7859N1DDx8JS9WTvrEU7I/view?usp=… . Senator Schumer, as of today (January 12, 2024) xNY.io - Bank.org has not received the request records. NY-DFS has responded several times suggesting our request is under review. We are concerned New York State could be suggesting a delay in records access given the sensitive nature of the former Governor and NY-DFS Superintendent. Senator, given your senior position in New York State government we seek any relevant relief in accessing the corresponding records. Sending you the best from Chelsea. Thank you for your service, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomczak, Christine (DFS) <christine.tomczak(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Wed, May 10, 2023, 4:58 PM Subject: RE: FOIL Request No. 2022-090560 - Larson (NY-DFS Apple Card Investigation) To: g(a)xny.io <g(a)xny.io> Cc: JeanBaptiste, Pascale (DFS) <Pascale.JeanBaptiste(a)dfs.ny.gov>, cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> Dear Mr. Larson, I am getting back to you to apologize for the delay and assure you that your appeal is under review and you will receive a response in the near future. Christine M. Tomczak Assistant Counsel New York State Department of Financial Services 1 State Street, New York, New York 10004

1 3

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

19 Jun '24

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

1 0

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

19 Jun '24

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

1 0

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

18 Jun '24

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

1 1