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 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:* - *https://drive.google.com/file/d/11tbgHgDg8qagomO-NBffvIFpxXKmBC3g/view?usp=d... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/11tbgHgDg8qagomO-NBffvIFpxXKmBC3g/view?usp=drivesdk> Ideagen Says K10 Vision Misled Clients With False Product Ties <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2323686?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=6> By Tabitha Burbidge Audit software company Ideagen Ltd. has accused the former owners of a business it acquired for over £19 million ($25.1 million) of tricking clients into defecting to a rival startup through false claims of involvement in developing a key Ideagen product. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2323686?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=6> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2323686?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=6> Ga. Plant Alleges Ex-CFO Tried To Bribe Atty In Bogus Letter <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325512?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1> By Lynn LaRowe The owner of a now-shuttered Atlanta plastics manufacturing plant has alleged it was the company's disgruntled former financial chief who authored a letter offering to pay off the attorney representing sibling plaintiffs in a federal discrimination lawsuit, in a response this week to a sanctions bid. Brief attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325512?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325512?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1> McGuireWoods Immune From Defamation Case, NC Panel Told <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325692?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3> By Hayley Fowler McGuireWoods LLP and a former partner have told a North Carolina state appeals court that they have absolute privilege over allegedly defamatory statements made in connection with an investigation into the former CEO of a managed care organization, arguing that the trial court should have granted them a pretrial win. Brief attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325692?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325692?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3> Moye White Says It Was Evicted To Make Way For Tech Co. <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325655?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=5> By Isaac Monterose Defunct law firm Moye White LLP is fighting back in Colorado state court against its Denver landlord's nearly $4 million lawsuit, alleging in counterclaims that the landlord unlawfully evicted the firm and its subtenants from a downtown office building in order to make room for a technology business. 1 document attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325655?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=5> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2325655?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=5> xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights. Thank you, Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson *xNY.io - Bank.org* 917-580-8053 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 On Wed, Apr 16, 2025, 10:58 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Dear Goldman Sachs:
*xNY.io - Bank.org is excited to announce our campaign, "2025 SUMMER OF LOVE" from April 15, 2025 to December 15, 2025.*
- With respect to Coinbase, it seems Goldman Sachs potetially harbored questionable intent concerning cryptocurrency; Or, "virtual currency" in New York State.
xNY.io's whitepaper discusses the future of virtual currency innovation in New York State and Goldman Sachs.
*xNY.io | CryptoBank Whitepaper.pdf:*
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NK5DoHBCbQ0yOh_l8kilRg8oXx9cZ-7u/view?usp=d...
Taking themes of software purity; It would appear that all enterprise software deals with Goldman Sachs potentially structured against xNY.io - Bank.org would need to pass standard compliance in New York State.
xNY.io - Bank.org has collated 34 highlights to *UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * - against - THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.* for Goldman's Board Directors.
*Goldman-Sachs-Deferred-Prosecution-Agreement.pdf:*
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r-m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=d...
*Enforcement and Discipline: *
- *12. The Company will implement mechanisms designed to effectively enforce its compliance code, policies, and procedures, including appropriately incentivizing compliance and disciplining violations.*
*Third-Party Relationships:*
- *14. The Company will institute appropriate risk-based due diligence and compliance requirements pertaining to the retention and oversight of all agents and business partners, including: **a. properly documented due diligence pertaining to the hiring and appropriate and regular oversight of agents and business partners; **b. informing agents and business partners of the Company’s commitment to **abiding by anti-corruption laws, and of the Company’s anti-corruption compliance code, policies, **and procedures; ...*
*Coinbase Trade Secret and Determination Letter 2023-093329.pdf:*
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QgEzT-VwvT54S1nMuotxj3OVRgYb0JEU/view?usp=d...
Coinbase Wants 3rd Circ. To Look At Share Traceability Ruling <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/2325131?nl_pk=35f19b02-1b5d-4d87-9886-0568d6f0b360&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=capitalmarkets&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3>
By Katryna Perera
Coinbase has asked a New Jersey federal judge to let the Third Circuit immediately review the court's decision to allow an investor class action to proceed, saying it runs contrary to Fifth and Ninth circuit rulings concerning the traceability of share purchases, particularly in companies like Coinbase that went public via a so-called direct listing.
Motion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/2325131?nl_pk=35f19b02-1b5d-4d87-9886-0568d6f0b360&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=capitalmarkets&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/2325131?nl_pk=35f19b02-1b5d-4d87-9886-0568d6f0b360&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=capitalmarkets&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=3>
Ex-Fund Boss Loses Path To Fight $400M Ponzi Scheme Debt <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2325457?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0>
By Christopher Crosby
The top appeals court for U.K. overseas territories refused on Tuesday to prevent liquidators from chasing a former hedge fund manager for a $400 million debt linked to a financier convicted of running a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme more than a decade ago.
Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2325457?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/2325457?nl_pk=9aaa8860-7735-4b56-abff-576e74202fd7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=financial-services-uk&utm_content=2025-04-16&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0>
Slaughter And May-Led Wood In £242M Bid After £1.6B Offer <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/2324815?nl_pk=34b724c6-95c5-49a3-b963-aea9d35fbb95&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mergersacquisitions&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=6>
By Dawood Fakhir
Scotland-based engineering consultancy Wood Group said Monday that its West Asian rival Sidara has made an approximately £242 million ($379 million) takeover proposal, guided by Slaughter and May, after making a £1.6 billion offer in 2024.
Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/2324815?nl_pk=34b724c6-95c5-49a3-b963-aea9d35fbb95&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mergersacquisitions&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=6> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/2324815?nl_pk=34b724c6-95c5-49a3-b963-aea9d35fbb95&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mergersacquisitions&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=6>
Chinese Fintech Says Investors' IPO Suit Still Misses The Mark <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2325179?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9>
By Sydney Price
Chinese fintech 9F Inc. pushed back on the third version of a complaint filed by its investors, saying the shareholders still fail to address their lack of standing for its claims that 9F violated securities laws by not disclosing an "illegal arrangement" it allegedly had with an insurance firm.
Brief attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2325179?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-04-15&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/2325179?nl_pk=31322029-63eb-4d40-acd3-a08313aa07ff&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=2025-04-15&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* 917-580-8053 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 11:11 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Dear Goldman Sachs:
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* 917-580-8053 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 *----- (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 Fri, Apr 11, 2025, 3:51 PM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
Yesterday, xNY.io - Bank.org's co-founder Gunnar Larson was at Bloomberg's New York Headquarters for "Bloomberg Women's Buy-Side Network - AI: The Future of Investing."
*xNY.io - Bank.org had a great time at Bloomberg yesterday at the Women's Buy-Side Network AI: The Future of Investing:*
- https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16JBnzxDCJ/
BREAKING: Ex-Girardi CFO Gets 10 Years For 'Devastating' Fraud <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2324647?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2324647&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0>
By Rachel Scharf
A California federal judge sentenced Girardi Keese's former chief financial officer to just over 10 years in prison Friday for aiding firm leader Tom Girardi's $15 million client theft scheme while also embezzling $6 million for himself, saying the two interrelated schemes "had devastating and far-reaching effects."
Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2324647?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2324647&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/2324647?nl_pk=87c9365b-e736-431a-87d3-d121d8acafcf&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=2324647&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0>
- xNY.io - Bank.org knows Goldman Sachs knows that Goldman Sachs' Chairman of the Board of Directors was mentioned at Bloomberg yesterday.
xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson
*xNY.io - Bank.org* 917-580-8053 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025, 7:49 AM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Goldman Sachs:
xNY.io - Bank.org is worried that Gomdman Sachs efforted and failed to defame xNY.io - Bank.org co-founder Gunnar Larson.
Ex-Bank VP's Defamation Claims Dismissed By NJ Panel <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/2320018?nl_pk=e602c558-f520-472e-90f1-02d555fb6fb0&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&utm_content=2025-04-03&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1>
By Carla Baranauckas
A former Pennsylvania bank vice president's claims of retaliation, defamation and trade libel were properly tossed by a New Jersey trial court that found the bank's statement that she had engaged in criminal behavior was substantially true even though she was never convicted of a crime, a state appellate panel said in a published opinion.
Opinion attached |
FinCEN Warns About Ongoing ISIS Threats, Banking Red Flags <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/2320089?nl_pk=e602c558-f520-472e-90f1-02d555fb6fb0&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&utm_content=2025-04-03&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=4>
By Sarah Jarvis
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has advised financial institutions that the Islamic State group continues to pose a threat to the U.S., detailing various red flags which banks should be on the lookout for to report suspicious activity tied to the terrorist organization.
1 document attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/2320089?nl_pk=e602c558-f520-472e-90f1-02d555fb6fb0&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&utm_content=2025-04-03&read_more=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=4> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/2320089?nl_pk=e602c558-f520-472e-90f1-02d555fb6fb0&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&utm_content=2025-04-03&read_later=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=4>
Justices Broaden RICO Reach To Personal Injuries <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/2264334?nl_pk=e602c558-f520-472e-90f1-02d555fb6fb0&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&utm_content=2025-04-03&read_main=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=12>
By Sam Reisman
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expanded the type of civil actions that can be brought under a federal racketeering statute, asserting that claims stemming from personal injuries are redressable if they can be shown to have caused economic harm.
Opinion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/2264334?nl_pk=e602c558-f520-472e-90f1-02d555fb6fb0&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&utm_content=2025-04-03&read_more=1&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=12> | xNY.io - Bank.org respectfully reserves all Interjurisdictional rights.
Thank you,
Gunnar Larson -- Gunnar Donald Arthur Peter Larson
*xNY.io - Bank.org* 917-580-8053 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025, 6:40 PM Gunnar Larson <g@xny.io> wrote:
Dear Goldman Sachs:
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* 917-580-8053 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001
*----- (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) t