Dear Goldman Sachs: Is Goldman Sachs a potential negligent terrorist organization? - *xNY.io - Bank.org demands a response from Goldman Sachs confirming your firm is innocent of possible terrorism actions across your Investment Bank. * - *xNY.io - Bank.org demands Goldman Sachs' answer by 5:00pm EST today, Thursday, March 13, 2025.* Live Nation Calls DOJ 'Delay Tactics' Claim 'Groundless' <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/2309311?nl_pk=7f7472c8-af4a-4299-9ac5-a594bd6cf4d5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=compliance&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=22> By Bryan Koenig Live Nation Entertainment assailed the U.S. Department of Justice for claiming "out of the blue" that the company is slow-walking its discovery obligations in the government's New York federal court monopolization suit centered on the 2010 purchase of Ticketmaster. Response attached | Panel Decries Judge's Watergate Remarks, Axes $2M Verdict <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2309747?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=11> By Y. Peter Kang A Florida appeals court on Wednesday vacated a $2 million verdict in a slip-and-fall suit against Walmart, saying the trial court's comments that allegedly missing video evidence was akin to Nixon's actions in the Watergate scandal signaled his preconceived notion that the company improperly destroyed evidence. Opinion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2309747?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=11> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2309747?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=11> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights. Thank you, Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514 On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 10:06 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Dear Goldman Sachs:
Overnight, Goldman Sachs was dishonest with xNY.io - Bank.org; Visavie technology.
Today, xNY.io - Bank.org doubles down on our commitment to Peace on Planet Earth.
xNY.io - Bank.org shares 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."*
xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514
*----- (PAGE BREAK) -----*
*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."*
*INTRODUCTION*
*March 24, 2022*
* - 158 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=d... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=drivesdk>*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.
____________________
*BACKGROUNDSeptember 8, 2022*
- *190 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=d... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=drivesdk>*
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.
____________________
*BACKGROUNDOctober 31, 2022 - 25 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=d... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=drivesdk>*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. ____________________
*BACKGROUNDNovember 10, 2022 - 66 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=d... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=drivesdk>*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.
____________________
*BACKGROUNDJanuary 19, 2023 - 53 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=d... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=drivesdk>*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. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 8:54 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
Today xNY.io - Bank.org is 'doubling down' on potential fraud committed against xNY.io - Bank.org, allegedly committed by Goldman Sachs' Board.
Crypto CEO Linked To Jack Abramoff Convicted Of Fraud <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2309864?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0>
A California federal jury on Wednesday convicted a cryptocurrency company founder of fraud and money laundering over allegations he stole more than $10 million from tens of thousands of investors in a scheme that involved disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2309864?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2309864?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0>
Capital One Nearly Bought Frank For $125M, Javice Jury Told <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2309341?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1>
By Stewart Bishop
A Capital One investment banker told a New York federal jury on Wednesday that the lender was eyeing student financial aid startup Frank for a potential $125 million acquisition before backing out, $50 million less than what JPMorgan Chase & Co. ultimately paid for the company, the result of what prosecutors say was a scheme to fraudulently induce JPMorgan to make the purchase.
Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2309341?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2309341?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 6:51 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
Is Goldman Sachs a potential negligent terrorist organization?
- *xNY.io - Bank.org demands a response from Goldman Sachs confirming your firm is innocent of possible terrorism actions across your Investment Bank. * - *xNY.io - Bank.org demands Goldman Sachs' answer by 5:00pm EST today, Thursday, March 13, 2025.*
Binance Asks Judge To Rethink Upholding Terror Victims' Suit <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2309613?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=11>
By Katryna Perera
Cryptocurrency exchange Binance and its former CEO Changpeng Zhao have asked a New York federal judge to reconsider his ruling allowing a bulk of claims from a group of Hamas attack survivors to move forward, arguing that the survivors do not allege that Binance had a "close nexus" to the terrorist groups that allegedly used its platforms.
Memorandum attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2309613?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=11> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2309613?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=11>
Luxottica Drops Appeal On ERISA Suit's Arbitrability <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2308633?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9>
By Grace Elletson
Luxottica shuttered its appeal of a New York federal judge's order that the company could not compel arbitration of a worker's representative claims that it violated federal benefits law by using outdated mortality data to calculate pensions benefits.
2 documents attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2308633?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2308633?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9>
xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 6:32 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
Are you prepared to handle your potential involvement with the Los Angeles fires?
Insurance Pros Urge Calif. Lawmakers To Address Fire Risks <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/2309895?nl_pk=6e763a2a-9f82-44c1-ad37-dbb872fe3785&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=competition&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=12>
By Eli Flesch
Insurance experts in a committee hearing that largely summed up concerns following the Los Angeles fires urged California lawmakers on Wednesday to address rising physical risks, smoke damage complaints, and regulations meant to expand coverage access.
Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/2309895?nl_pk=6e763a2a-9f82-44c1-ad37-dbb872fe3785&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=competition&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=12> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/2309895?nl_pk=6e763a2a-9f82-44c1-ad37-dbb872fe3785&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=competition&utm_content=2025-03-13&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=12> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, 10:17 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
Working with NYDFS, Goldman Sachs' CEO may have efforted to obstruct justice while under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement; While allegedly abusing xNY.io - Bank.org's business enterprise.
Goldstein Wants Look At Testimony On Alleged Obstruction <https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/2308921?nl_pk=347c5954-47a8-495c-bfa1-d8ec8f6144fe&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insurance&utm_content=2025-03-12&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=10>
By Elliot Weld
U.S. Supreme Court lawyer and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein asked a Maryland federal judge to let him see grand jury material related to the government's claim that he offered to pay a potential witness cryptocurrency in his tax evasion case.
Motion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/2308921?nl_pk=347c5954-47a8-495c-bfa1-d8ec8f6144fe&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insurance&utm_content=2025-03-12&read_more=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=10> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/2308921?nl_pk=347c5954-47a8-495c-bfa1-d8ec8f6144fe&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insurance&utm_content=2025-03-12&read_later=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=10> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, 9:20 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
Your board's intent to potentially defame xNY.io - Bank.org will not be tolerated.
Staley Denies Knowledge Of Epstein's 'Monstrous Activities' <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2308805?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-03-12&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3>
By Sophia Dourou
Jes Staley told a tribunal on Tuesday that he would not have maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein if he had known about the disgraced financier's "monstrous" activities.
Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2308805?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-03-12&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2308805?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-03-12&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-554-7514
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 2:03 PM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
> Goldman Sachs: > > JPMorgan is a large Goldman Sachs shareholder. > > - xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned that Goldman Sachs made efforts > to defraud xNY.io - Bank.org while leveraging Goldman Sachs' relationship > with JPMorgan. > > JPMorgan Paying For Lawyers On Both Sides Of Javice Trial > <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2303422?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-02-27&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> > > By Pete Brush > > JPMorgan Chase, the bank allegedly duped by Frank founder Charlie > Javice into paying $175 million for her education startup, is paying legal > fees for defense counsel as well as for lawyers representing prosecution > witnesses, according to statements in court Wednesday. > > Read full article » > <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2303422?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-02-27&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> > | Save to favorites » > <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2303422?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-02-27&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> > xNY.io - Bank.org has compiled a list of 19 resources that reference > a common link between Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement and > JPMorgan’s successful Deferred Prosecution Agreements. > > *NYDFS Financial Inclusion Research:* > > - > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FTRRFFhQHDxf-oR9WOZz0a2gRtC9ZWVO > > xNY.io - Bank.org's research on JPMorgan paints a stark image for > Goldman Sachs' Board Directors if the firm knowingly made effort to defraud > the United States of America *AND* xNY.io - Bank.org; > > - While under active Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the > United States of America. > > *Given the seriousness of the matter:* > > Can Goldman Sachs Board Directors kindly reply back to xNY.io - > Bank.org by Monday, March 3, 2025 by 9:00am if Goldman Sachs refutes any of > the above claims; > > - Any February e-mails xNY.io - Bank.org has sent Goldman Sachs? > > xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional > rights. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar Larson > -- > Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson > xNY.io - Bank.org > 646-554-7514 > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 1:47 PM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote: > >> Goldman Sachs: >> >> JPMorgan is a large Goldman Sachs shareholder. >> >> - xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned that Goldman Sachs made >> efforts to defraud xNY.io - Bank.org while leveraging Goldman Sachs' >> relationship with JPMorgan. >> >> JPMorgan Paying For Lawyers On Both Sides Of Javice Trial >> <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2303422?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-02-27&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> >> >> By Pete Brush >> >> JPMorgan Chase, the bank allegedly duped by Frank founder Charlie >> Javice into paying $175 million for her education startup, is paying legal >> fees for defense counsel as well as for lawyers representing prosecution >> witnesses, according to statements in court Wednesday. >> >> Read full article » >> <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2303422?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-02-27&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> >> | Save to favorites » >> <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/2303422?nl_pk=b53aa520-5013-4a8d-a57c-18936227adef&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newyork&utm_content=2025-02-27&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> >> xNY.io - Bank.org has compiled a list of 19 resources that >> reference a common link between Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution >> Agreement and JPMorgan’s successful Deferred Prosecution Agreements. >> >> *NYDFS Financial Inclusion Research:* >> >> - >> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FTRRFFhQHDxf-oR9WOZz0a2gRtC9ZWVO >> >> xNY.io - Bank.org's research on JPMorgan paints a stark image for >> Goldman Sachs' Board Directors if the firm knowingly made effort to defraud >> the United States of America *AND* xNY.io - Bank.org; >> >> - While under active Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the >> United States of America. >> >> *Given the seriousness of the matter:* >> >> Can Goldman Sachs Board Directors kindly reply back to xNY.io - >> Bank.org by Monday, March 3, 2025 by 9:00am if Goldman Sachs refutes any of >> the above claims; >> >> - Any February e-mails xNY.io - Bank.org has sent Goldman Sachs? >> >> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional >> rights. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Gunnar Larson >> -- >> Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson >> xNY.io - Bank.org >> 646-554-7514 >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 8:53 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote: >> >>> Goldman Sachs: >>> >>> Will Goldman Sachs' Board Directors submit the Board to an audit >>> of the Deferred Agreement’s mandates? >>> >>> - xNY.io - Bank.org confirms, Goldman Sachs' Deferred >>> Prosecution Agreement holds certain employee, customer and vendor data >>> requirements. >>> >>> GreenSky Loan Class Action Certified In Calif. Court >>> <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2302644?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-02-26&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=7> >>> >>> By Katryna Perera >>> >>> A California federal judge has granted class certification to >>> consumers suing GreenSky Inc. over alleged unlawful loan transaction fees, >>> finding that expert analysis showed merchants likely passed these fees onto >>> borrowers, but also granted summary judgment to the lending company on >>> claims related to performance fees over the lack of evidence that consumers >>> had to pay them. >>> >>> Order attached | Read full article » >>> <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2302644?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-02-26&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=7> >>> | Save to favorites » >>> <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2302644?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-02-26&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=7> >>> >>> Apple Litigation Chief Threatened With Sanctions At Hearing >>> <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2302667?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-02-26&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=5> >>> >>> By Dorothy Atkins >>> >>> A California federal judge presiding over a high-stakes >>> evidentiary hearing into whether Apple has complied with her 2021 antitrust >>> injunction threatened to sanction Apple's commercial litigation director >>> Tuesday, telling counsel she has "significant concerns" about Apple's >>> over-designation of attorney-client privilege, saying, "Your client is not >>> entitled to have you engage in unethical conduct." >>> >>> Read full article » >>> <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2302667?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-02-26&read_more=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=5> >>> | Save to favorites » >>> <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2302667?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-02-26&read_later=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=5> >>> xNY.io - Bank.org's research on Apple Card paints a stark image >>> for Goldman Sachs' Board Directors if the firm knowingly made effort to >>> defraud the United States of America *AND* xNY.io - Bank.org; >>> >>> - While under active Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the >>> United States of America. >>> >>> *Please find the attached whitepaper with 71 reference footnotes.* >>> >>> *xNY.io | CryptoBank Whitepaper:* >>> >>> >>> - >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aeK8X8-2KDZ8tQPN5ksaUCXcxH9tbjexsUbW1olf... >>> >>> Introduction >>> >>> Crypto and Blockchain are each a Human Right. >>> For all, everywhere. >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> How does New York based bank fraud happen from the inside? >>> People who commit crimes comprise departments and divisions of corporate >>> organizations, and some current Human Resources (HR) management cultures >>> lend well to the committing of crimes. >>> 2. >>> >>> What organizational HR management design structures are at >>> play to architectect such fraud for bespoke juristical instances? >>> 3. >>> >>> Is there a unique opportunity for a fresh and clean New >>> York-based international bank such as Bank.org? >>> >>> xNY.io argues that modern and innovative Executive Suites pioneer >>> organizational HR management with the CEO and CFO leading the pack as the >>> most ethical example for members in their organization. This key >>> distinction calls for leaders to always adhere to a very strict, yet >>> progressive, standard of ethics, even when it’s inconvenient. >>> >>> *---- (PAGE BREAK* >>> >>