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
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
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
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
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
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

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 » | Save to favorites »

Capital One Nearly Bought Frank For $125M, Javice Jury Told

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 » | Save to favorites »

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

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 » | Save to favorites »

Luxottica Drops Appeal On ERISA Suit's Arbitrability

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 » | Save to favorites »


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

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 » | Save to favorites »

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

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 » | Save to favorites »

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'

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 » | Save to favorites »

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

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 » | Save to favorites »

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:
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

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 » | Save to favorites »

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:
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

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 » | Save to favorites »

Apple Litigation Chief Threatened With Sanctions At Hearing

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 » | Save to favorites »

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:

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) ----


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, 7:02 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:

xNY.io - Bank.org shares with Goldman Sachs' Board Directors; 187 highlights to the Department of Justice’s "Prosecuting Computer Crimes, Computer
Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division," published by the Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys.

Computer Crimes Manual Highlights.pdf:
    xNY.io - Bank.org has organized seven references to xNY.io - Bank.org's Apple Card research for Goldman Sachs' Board Directors.

    xNY.io - Bank.org: Apple Card NYDFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell:
    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. 

    Referral Co. Barred From $5.54B Swipe Fee MDL Settlement

    By Sydney Price

    A New York federal judge has blocked a referral partner of a claims filing service from any role in the $5.54 billion settlement of long-running multidistrict litigation accusing Visa and Mastercard of charging improper merchant fees, after the referral partner allegedly improperly used class member information to submit claims.

     Order attached | Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    xNY.io - Bank 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, 3:07 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.

    Audit Watchdog Tightens UK Accounting Guidance

    By Joel Poultney

    The audit watchdog published on Tuesday its finalized guidance to help companies asses whether it is a "going concern," which it said will broaden the scope of its advice to reflect reporting changes and high-profile corporate collapses.

    Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    xNY.io - Bank.org's running hypothesis is to move the Deferred Agreement conversation to official Discovery.
    • Discovery could eventually summerise an enterprise software racket perpetuated by Goldman Sachs;
    • Perhaps, an enterprise software RICO could be argued visavie Goldman Sachs' software relationships at Coinbase, Fireblocks, Robinhood, Apple Card and WorldBank.org; 
    • While under active Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States of America.

    Ex-Allianz Exec Avoids Prison As Massive Fraud Case Wraps

    By Pete Brush

    A Manhattan federal judge on Tuesday allowed a former fund executive from New Jersey to avoid prison for lying to clients of Allianz's U.S. unit, citing his cooperation as the government investigated a fraud that cost the German finance giant $6 billion.

     2 documents attached | Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    EU Report May Influence Regulation Of Decentralized Finance

    The European supervisory authorities’ recent report on decentralized finance highlights the major regulatory challenges and increased cybersecurity risks of this ecosystem, and will likely provide useful guidance on how the market could be regulated to limit potential risks for investors, say Hubert de Vauplane and Hugo Bordet at Morgan Lewis.

    Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    xNY.io - Bank 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, 2:26 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
    Art Director/Designer: Ken Carson 
    Photographers: Charles Wiesehahn, David Vine, Stan Schafer, H. Armstrong Robert's
    Copywriter: Bill Drier 
    Agency: Conaway & Lyon, Inc. 
    Client: Nation's Business 

    oops.

    We hate to cloud your day, but we'd like 
    to bring you up to date on a few things the
    experts have to say about our future relationships with Russia.

    The outlook is anything but rosy.

    It seems we could all be blown to hell be-
    cause of an incredible Kremlin capacity for
    misjudging what they can get away with 
    in their drive to communize the world. 

    In other words, the cold war, though 
    vastly changed, is far from over. 

    It's perils are not diminishing. If any-
    thing they're on the increase. 

    And continued disintegration of the So-
    viet bloc may tempt the Russians into new
    and desperate measures. 

    In short: the Reds are still on the make. 
    And though they definitely do not want a 
    nuclear war, they seem to be continually 
    blundering to the brink.

    Take the Cuban missile crisis, for exam-
    ple. The Russians thought they could plant missiles in Cuba without obstacles. They
    never dreamed President Kennedy would
    stand up to them.

    Another example, Czechoslovakia. The
    Russians actually expected to be welcomed as they plunged into Prague.

    In the end, either of these miscalcula-
    tions could have triggered a showdown. A
    showdown leading to a humiliating defeat. 
    Or disaster. 

    The cover story of the December issue 
    of Nation's Business tells more of the story. 
    (To over 2,000,000 of the nation's business
    men.)

    Why a political report in a magazine like 
    ours? That's simple. If it affects business,
    it'll be there.

    Which is probably why we have over 854,000 businessmen paying to subscribe to our magazine.

    Which, when you think about it, is at 
    least one happy note to leave you with.

    If you're an advertiser. 

    Nation's Business 
    We Reach more businessmen than any other business magazine 

    On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, 6:36 PM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
    Goldman Sachs:

    Filmmaker Seeks New IP Trial Against Shyamalan, Others

    By Andrea Keckley

    A filmmaker has asked for a new copyright infringement trial against writer-director M. Night Shyamalan and his co-defendants Friday after a jury found that they did not have access to the film she claimed they infringed, arguing that the court failed to answer a crucial question from the jury before the verdict was delivered.

     Memorandum attached | Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    Patent Eligibility Appeals 'Will Not Go Away,' Justices Told

    By Andrew Karpan

    Another plea to hear a patent eligibility case has been lodged at the U.S. Supreme Court, this time in an amicus brief from the owner of two invalidated patents covering medical machinery that warned "the problem will not go away. The problem will get worse and worse."

     2 documents attached | Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    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 Tue, Feb 25, 2025, 10:15 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
    Goldman Sachs:


    The Hong Kong Department of Justice’s approach to litigation finance and third party funding is coming into greater focus following the UK Supreme Court’s July 26, 2023 ruling on R. (on the Application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28.

    Mondaq reports that PACCAR has defined “damaged-base agreements” or “DBAs” in the United Kingdom. DBAs are strictly regulated in the UK, now including litigation funding agreement contract law. Many UK courts have operated under the assumption that funding of litigation agreements does not fall under the purview of DBAs. PACCAR’s Supreme Court decision has sparked a fervent debate around this topic. 

    Mondaq says that Hong Kong DBA relevancy differs from the UKs DBA approach. Specifically, in Hong Kong, champerty and maintenance are illegal factors that can lead to a fine and prison sentence. 

    It’s important to note that Hong Kong does allow waivers to the general prohibition of litigation investment if: 

    1. Third parties share a common interest in funding the outcome of a case.

    2. Accessible justice is a prime consideration.

    3. Insolvency proceedings are necessary.

    --
    • xNY.io - Bank.org will totally defend ourselves in Hong Kong. 

    Crypto Exchange OKX To Pay $504M For Allowing Illicit Deeds

    By Stewart Bishop

    Cryptocurrency exchange OKX on Monday agreed to pay $504 million in a deal with New York federal prosecutors who said the company ran afoul of U.S. anti-money laundering rules and allowed its platform to be used for more than $5 billion worth of suspicious transactions.

    Read full article » | Save to favorites »

     
    Thank you,

    Gunnar Larson
    --
    Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson 
    xNY.io - Bank.org 
    646-554-7514 

    On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, 3:12 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
    Goldman Sachs:

    xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned of potential Deferred Prosecution Agreement malfeasance by Goldman Sachs. 

    xNY.io - Bank.org's running hypothesis is to move the Deferred Agreement conversation to official Discovery.
    • Discovery could eventually summerise an enterprise software racket perpetuated by Goldman Sachs;
    • Perhaps, an enterprise software RICO could be argued visavie Goldman Sachs' software relationships at Coinbase, Fireblocks, Robinhood, Apple Card and WorldBank.org; 
    • While under active Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States of America.

    BREAKING: Elizabeth Holmes Loses 9th Circ. Appeal Over Theranos Fraud

    By Dorothy Atkins

    A Ninth Circuit panel on Monday affirmed the criminal fraud convictions of former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes and former Theranos executive Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani along with their respective 11-year and nearly 13-year prison sentences, rejecting arguments that the lower court made multiple evidentiary errors that unfairly swayed jurors.

     Opinion attached | Read full article » | Save to favorites »

    xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement was designed to prevent Goldman Sachs' potential malfeasance; Such as market misrepresentations. 

    • It is alleged that Goldman Sachs has made multiple market misrepresentations against xNY.io - Bank.org;
    • It is alleged that Goldman Sachs' CEO continues to make market misrepresentations against xNY.io - Bank.org's co-founder; Gunnar Larson.

    Denmark Argues Misrepresentation Led To £1.4B Tax Refunds

    By Joanne Faulkner

    Denmark's tax authority told the High Court of Justice on Monday that it would not have paid out billions in refunds to a British trader and others accused of involvement in a fraudulent trading scheme had they not submitted forms purporting to show eligibility for tax refunds.