- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Feds Say Conn. Psychologist's Fraud Was His 'Way Of Life'
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

Feds Say Conn. Psychologist's Fraud Was His 'Way Of Life' <https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1831276?nl_pk=4126fe73-…> By Ryan Harroff A Connecticut psychologist who pled guilty to defrauding his state's Medicaid program of $1.6 million in January should spend three years and one month in prison for a scheme that was "a way of life" rather than a momentary lapse in judgment, the government said in a sentencing memorandum. Memorandum attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1831276?nl_pk=4126fe73-…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/governmentcontracts/articles/1831276?nl_pk=4126fe73-…>

1 0

NY Man Charged With $43M Hospitality Ponzi Scheme
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

NY Man Charged With $43M Hospitality Ponzi Scheme <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1831933?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> By Elliot Weld A Manhattan resident was charged Wednesday with soliciting $43 million in investments through a Ponzi scheme that peddled false claims about his company's business interests in cryptocurrency, Las Vegas sports stadiums and hospitality. Indictment attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1831933?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1831933?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…>

1 0

Artist Can Exhibit 'MetaBirkins' NFT Despite TM Trial Loss
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

Artist Can Exhibit 'MetaBirkins' NFT Despite TM Trial Loss <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1832075?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Madeline Lyskawa A New York federal judge has said the Los Angeles-based designer behind the "MetaBirkins" non-fungible token can provide permission to a Swedish museum to display his trademark-infringing artwork, despite an injunction barring him from promoting or selling the NFTs. Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1832075?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1832075?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

Wall Street’s Megabanks Have Trillions of Dollars Off-Balance Sheet, in a Replay of Accounting Hubris that Led to the 2008 Wall Street Collapse
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/05/wall-streets-megabanks-have-trillion… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: May 2, 2024 ~ The Bankers' New ClothesWhen the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released their final forensic report on the causes of the 2008 financial collapse on Wall Street – the worst collapse since the 1929-1932 collapse – it pointed to hidden leverage in off-balance sheet entities at the megabanks on Wall Street as a key driver of the crisis. It wrote: “From 2000 to 2007, large banks and thrifts generally had $16 to $22 in assets for each dollar of capital, for leverage ratios between 16:1 and 22:1. For some banks, leverage remained roughly constant. JP Morgan’s reported leverage was between 20:1 and 22:1. Wells Fargo’s generally ranged between 16:1 and 17:1. Other banks upped their leverage. Bank of America’s rose from 18:1 in 2000 to 27:1 in 2007. Citigroup’s increased from 18:1 to 22:1, then shot up to 32:1 by the end of 2007, when Citi brought off-balance sheet assets onto the balance sheet. More than other banks, Citigroup held assets off of its balance sheet, in part to hold down capital requirements. In 2007, even after bringing $80 billion worth of assets on balance sheet, substantial assets remained off. If those had been included, leverage in 2007 would have been 48:1, or about 53% higher. In comparison, at Wells Fargo and Bank of America, including off-balance-sheet assets would have raised the 2007 leverage ratios 17% and 28%, respectively.” Citigroup, of course, blew itself up in 2008 and received the largest bailouts in global banking history. By March of 2009, its stock was trading at 99 cents. The crash of 1929-1932 had two key similarities to today’s banking structure: so-called universal banks that took deposits as well as operated giant trading casinos that took huge risks by speculating in stocks and manipulating markets; and the lack of competent regulation. The Banking Act of 1933, known also as the Glass-Steagall Act, effectively dealt with that crisis for the next 66 years by barring deposit-taking banks from merging with Wall Street trading houses. The Bill Clinton administration repealed that legislation in 1999 at the urging of Sandy Weill, John Reed (and their sycophants in his administration) in order for the two men to recreate the disastrous 1929 universal bank model via the creation of Citigroup. The other big players on Wall Street followed in lockstep in short order. In January of this year, Anat Admati, Professor of Finance and Economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and German economist Martin Hellwig, released an updated and expanded version of their 2013 book The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It. In it, the authors write: “Some of the risks that make JPMorgan Chase dangerous cannot actually be seen by looking at its balance sheet because the positions that give rise to them are not included there. These are risks from business units that JPMorgan Chase might own in part or that it sponsors, and to which it has provided guarantees to serve as a backstop if they should have funding problems. These units might be full-flown subsidiaries, or they might be mere ‘letterhead firms,’ vehicles without any drivers, that are established for legal or tax reasons only. The bank’s commitments to these units amount to almost a trillion dollars, but these potential liabilities of the bank are left off the bank’s balance sheet. Yet they are quite relevant to the financial health of JPMorgan Chase.” JPMorgan Chase explains why it doesn’t consolidate its tax credit vehicles on its balance sheet as follows in its most recent annual report: “The Firm holds investments in unconsolidated tax credit vehicles, which are limited partnerships and similar entities that own and operate affordable housing, energy, and other projects. These entities are primarily considered VIEs [Variable Interest Entities]. A third party is typically the general partner or managing member and has control over the significant activities of the tax credit vehicles, and accordingly the Firm does not consolidate tax credit vehicles….” But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to financial data at the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), as of December 31, 2023, JPMorgan Chase held $3.227 trillion off-balance sheet, of which $528.5 billion is undefined and marked as “other.” To put that in perspective, $528.5 billion is the size of the assets of the seventh largest bank in the United States and yet the public has no idea what the $528.5 billion off-balance sheet at JPMorgan Chase is made up of or what kind of risks it presents. In JPMorgan Chase’s 10-K public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ending December 31, 2023, it reported total assets on its balance sheet of $3.875 trillion. (See page 46 at this link.) That’s versus the FFIEC data showing it has another $3.227 trillion off-balance sheet. Now ask yourself this: have you ever read in any mainstream media news outlet that the U.S. is harboring a $7.1 trillion bank that has admitted to five criminal felony counts since 2014? JPMorgan Chase’s off-balance sheet hubris goes a long way in explaining why the bank’s federal regulators are demanding that it increase its capital by 25 percent. The bank’s Chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon, is huffing and puffing against a capital increase and holding all of those private meetings with bigwigs in Washington. Raising additional concerns, for the first time ever Jamie Dimon dumped a large amount of his own stock in JPMorgan Chase this year, selling $150 million in February and another $32.8 million in April. If the bank is forced by its regulators to announce a big equity capital raise via a secondary offering of common stock, that could cause a plunge in its share price – raising more questions about the timing of Dimon’s unprecedented stock sales while sitting on inside information gleaned from what his bank regulators are telling him about its demands for an increase in capital. JPMorgan Chase, of course, is not the only Wall Street megabank showing giant sums off-balance sheet. As of December 31, 2023 Bank of America shows $1.6 trillion off-balance sheet; and Citigroup’s Citibank, the “universal” bank that blew itself up in 2008, shows a mind-boggling $2.6 trillion off-balance sheet versus $1.7 trillion on its balance sheet. That data also comes courtesy of FFIEC. Below is the mind-numbing breakdown of the $3.2 trillion JPMorgan Chase is holding off-balance sheet according to data at the FFIEC. (See this link; check the box “Off-Balance Sheet Items,” then click the hyperlink for “Off-Balance Sheet Items.”)

1 0

Re: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.)
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

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

1 0

Re: Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request FOIL-2023-095358-021587 - Robinhood BitLicense Records Appeal - NY-DFS
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

Dear Madam Attorney General James: xNY.io - Bank.org knows it is essential to encouraging candor and open, honest communications while operating in New York State. Today xNY.io - Bank.org contacts your esteemed office seeking required approval to engage New York State's Fale Claims Act. Madam Attorney General, Robinhood's board of directors suggests the firm was founded in part to "democratize finance" with New York roots: https://investors.robinhood.com/governance/board-of-directors/default.aspx. With NY-DFS withholding relevant Robinhood records, xNY.io - Bank.org has no real evidence to prove Robinhood has any real honest intentions to democratize anything, let alone finance. FTX's $500M Robinhood seized share transaction is one such example of xNY.io -Bank.org's general concern. Furthermore, it is our understanding that FTX and Robinhood share conflicts of New Yorker's interests at the solicitor level. Robinhood making these "to democratize finance" endorsements may also be liable for potential violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, for participating in an unregistered offer and sale of FTX securities. Additionally, Robinhood could have acted as unregistered "STX" brokers outside of New York State (for example in Florida, California, Singapore and Hong Kong) leading to NYCCoin and MIA Coin that took advantage of New York State's BitLicense by association. Attorney General James, as a matter relating to xNY.io - Bank.org growing into one of the world's most ethical companies, famous for risk management and corporate governance, and as internationally recognized Scholars, our executive team must adhere to federal securities laws. Robinhood's likley contrived conflicts could be interpreted as a red flag to xNY.io - Bank.org's earnest enterprise everywhere on Earth. xNY.io - Bank.org must act in good faith to protect pure innovation in New York State financial markets, so that our international operations are sound. We seek the Attorney General's approval to engage New York False Claims Act by May 13, 2024 or we may be forced to seek relevant injunctive relief in California and Hong Kong. The best with warm regards, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 2:21 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > In accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4), xNY.io - Bank.org elects > to appeal this determination to withhold the Robinhood BitLicense Records. > > Turn this matter as we will, any side whatsoever appears to require > obstruction of justice. > > We further demand NY-DFS send xNY.io - Bank.org an update on the > aforementioned appeal within five (5) business days. > > Reserving all rights, xNY.io - Bank.org is seeking relevant relief in > California on Robinhood. > > Warm regards, > > Gunnar > > ---- > > SENT VIA EMAIL > Email: G(a)xny.io > February 21, 2024 > Mr. Gunnar Larson > xNY.io – Bank.org > 406 West 25th Street > New York, NY 10001 > Re: Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Tracking No. 2023-095358 > Dear Mr. Larson, > I write in response to the FOIL request that you submitted to the New York > State Department of Financial Services > (“Department”), which has been assigned the above-referenced tracking > number and reads as follows: > Dear Madam or Sir: On August 2, 2022 the Superintendent of Financial > Services Adrienne A. Harris > announced that Robinhood Crypto, LLC (“RHC”) would pay a $30 million > penalty to New York State > for significant failures in the areas of bank secrecy act/anti-money > laundering (“BSA/AML”) > obligations and cybersecurity that resulted in violations of the > Department’s Virtual Currency > Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 200), Money Transmitter Regulation (3 NYCRR Part > 417), Transaction > Monitoring Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 504), and Cybersecurity Regulation > (23 NYCRR Part 500). > xNY.io - Bank.org would like to > 1. receive any and all records related to NY-DFS' investigation of > Robinhood Crypto. Including (but > not limited to) records concerning the bespoke Supervisory Agreement > Robinhood Crypto has with > the Department of Financial Services mentioned here: > https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202208021 > . > 2. In addition, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks any and all records concerning New > York's approach to > Robinhood Crypto and Goldman Sachs compliance programs mandated by the > United States > Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Money > Laundering and Asset > Recovery Section mentioned here: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r- > m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=drivesdk. > 3. Finally, xNY.io - Bank.org seeks records concerning New York's > regulatory approval of > Robinhood Crypto engaging a fine of $30M to implement heightened controls > and additional > procedures and policies relating to electronic surveillance and > investigation, due diligence on > transactions or clients and the use of third-party intermediaries across > business units; and enhancing > anti-corruption training for all management and relevant employees. > To the extent the request is reasonably described, the Department > construes the request as seeking the records, > correspondence, and work product exchanged between Robinhood and the > Department in accordance with the Department’s > August 1, 2022 Consent Order (“responsive records”). > The records that you seek relate to an ongoing Department investigation. > Accordingly, your request is denied > pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i) (the “law enforcement > exemption”), which excepts from disclosure records > that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and that, if disclosed, > would interfere with law enforcement investigations. > The purpose behind the law enforcement exemption is to protect an agency’s > investigative process from being compromised > by revealing the scope and nature of an agency's investigation before an > investigation is complete. See Matter of Pittari v. > Pirro, 258 A.D.2d 202 (2d Dep’t 1999). It also bears noting that the law > enforcement exemption applies to both civil and > criminal investigatory files. See Madeiros v. Dep’t of Educ., 30 N.Y.3d 67 > (2017). In this instance, releasing the requested > records would interfere with the Department’s investigative process. Thus, > the Department is not disclosing the records that > you request pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i). > Moreover, in addition to withholding the responsive records pursuant to > Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i), the > Department also is withholding the responsive records pursuant to Public > Officers Law § 87(2)(a), which specifically > exempts from disclosure records exempted by a state or federal statute. > The applicable statutory provision is N.Y. Banking > Law (“Banking Law”) § 36(10), which states, in pertinent part, that > reports of examinations and investigations and > correspondence and memoranda concerning or arising out of such > examinations and investigations are confidential and shall > not be made public. The statute fosters open communication between the > Department and its regulated institutions, a > necessity for effective regulation of financial institutions, by ensuring > that records transmitted to the Department in > connection with its supervision of a financial institution are protected > from disclosure. > The responsive records that were transmitted between Robinhood and the > Department in connection with the > Department’s supervision of Robinhood as a licensed money transmitter > pursuant to New York Banking Law, constitute > correspondence and reports concerning and arising out of an investigation > and are, therefore, required to be kept confidential > and exempt from disclosure under Banking Law § 36(10). The expectation > that records transmitted to the Department will > remain confidential is essential to encouraging candor and open > communications between the Department, its regulated > entities, and the entities undergoing regulatory review that submit such > records. Release of such sensitive records, albeit > responsive records, may have a chilling effect on the willingness of > regulated entities to share information and cooperate > with supervisors to resolve issues, and thus confidentiality is critical > to the Department’s ability to perform its regulatory > mandate and purpose. Accordingly, the exemption set forth in Public > Officers Law § 87(2)(a) via Banking Law § 36(10) > covers the responsive records. > In accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4), you may appeal this > determination to withhold the records within > 30 days by sending an email to FOIL.Appeals(a)dfs.ny.gov. > Very truly yours, > Stephanie Mazza > Associate Attorney > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <Stephanie.Mazza(a)dfs.ny.gov> > Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 1:26 PM > Subject: Your Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") Request > FOIL-2023-095358-021587 > To: <G(a)xny.io> > > > Dear Mr. Larson: > > Attached please find the Department's determination regarding the > aforementioned FOIL request. Because your request has been answered, your > request is now closed. > > Tracking Number:FOIL-2023-095358-021587 >

1 0

Law Firm Fabiani Hit With Race, Gender Bias Suit
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

Law Firm Fabiani Hit With Race, Gender Bias Suit <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1831694?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Andrea Keckley A Black female insurance and construction law attorney sued Fabiani Cohen & Hall LLP and its three name partners Tuesday in New York federal court, alleging she was subjected to a "despicable campaign" of harassment for more than a decade. Complaint attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1831694?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1831694?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0

In Trump Staredown With NY Judge, 'Somebody Has To Blink'
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

In Trump Staredown With NY Judge, 'Somebody Has To Blink' <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1832023?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Phillip Bantz Experts say Donald Trump will likely continue to ignore warnings from the court, and possibly his own attorneys, as his Manhattan hush money trial resumes Thursday with a fresh set of arguments over the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's out-of-court statements. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1832023?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1832023?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0

Eastman Denied Stay Of Inactive Status To 'Safeguard' Public
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

Eastman Denied Stay Of Inactive Status To 'Safeguard' Public <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1832481?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Lauren Berg A State Bar Court of California judge on Wednesday denied a request from Donald Trump's onetime attorney John Eastman to delay placing him on inactive enrollment while he appeals the recommendation for his disbarment, saying he hasn't shown that "he no longer presents a threat to the public." Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1832481?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1832481?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0

Mich. Atty Can't Avoid Suspension For Frivolous Cases
by Gunnar Larson 02 May '24

02 May '24

Mich. Atty Can't Avoid Suspension For Frivolous Cases <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1831585?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Danielle Ferguson The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has said a 100-day suspension is appropriate for an attorney accused of filing frivolous claims and misleading federal and state courts while representing clients in cases against governmental entities and elected government officials. Opinion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1831585?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1831585?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0