February 2024 - cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

RIP Tommaso Aversa
by professor rat 05 Feb '24

05 Feb '24

https://anarchistnews.org/content/ciao-tommy Reposts etc. Death to America

1 0

CMA Can Require Overseas Companies To Produce Documents In Its Competition Law Investigations - Cartels, Monopolies - UK
by Gunnar Larson 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

There are two RICOs happening in New York right now... and they can be solved abroad if necessary. ----- "The absence of such power would create a perverse incentive for conspirators to move offshore in order to organise cartels directed at harming the UK market, who would be more or less immune from investigation. This would particularly be easy to achieve in the digital era." https://www.mondaq.com/uk/cartels-monopolies/1417624/cma-can-require-overse… UK: CMA Can Require Overseas Companies To Produce Documents In Its Competition Law Investigations 30 January 2024 by Natalia Rodriguez , Kristien Geeurickx and Phoebe Hirst Herbert Smith Freehills View Natalia Rodriguez Biography on their website In its ruling1 of 17 January 2024 the Court of Appeal allowed the CMA's appeal against a joint judgment by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the Administrative Court in the BMW and Volkswagen cases, relating to the scope of the CMA's information gathering powers under Section 26 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98). The joint judgment held that the CMA's decision to issue an information request to foreign-domiciled companies, with no presence in the UK, for documents and information held outside the UK was outside the scope of its powers under Section 26 CA98. The Court of Appeal decided that the CMA's ability to conduct competition investigations would be compromised if it is not able to obtain information from overseas, which would create "a perverse incentive for conspirators to organise cartels directed at harming the UK market". It also found that nothing in the "logic, policy, case law or legislative history" supported the restrictive interpretation adopted by the CAT. The CMA has welcomed the ruling which, in light of the increasingly cross-border nature of its work involving multi-national businesses, strengthens its investigatory and enforcement powers. Background The case arose in relation to information requests issued by the CMA to BMW AG and VW AG in the context of its end-of life vehicle recycling cartel investigation. Under section 26 CA98 the CMA may require any person to produce a specified document or information which the CMA considers relates to any matter relevant to an investigation. BMW AG and VW AG challenged the CMA's power to apply section 26 notices extraterritorially and argued that, as foreign domiciled companies with no presence in the UK, the CMA had no power to require them to produce specific documents or information held outside the UK. The CAT found that the CMA had acted beyond its powers in issuing section 26 notices to the German-domiciled parent companies of BMW and VW. In reaching its decision it focused on the true meaning of "person" to whom section 26 could apply. The CAT considered that it made no legal sense to serve an undertaking with a notice, and that while the term of a "person" can extend to an "undertaking", this does not absolve the CMA from directing a section 26 notice to a specific natural or legal person within that undertaking. It concluded that a section 26 notice could be directed to an undertaking, but only via a natural person or legal person with a sufficient connection to the UK. The CAT drew on the fact that both BMW AG and VW AG were incorporated and domiciled in Germany and had no branch or office in the UK. It recognised that their respective UK subsidiaries were legal persons sufficiently connected to the UK and were subject to UK laws. The CAT also considered that, should the UK subsidiaries have control of documents or information responsive to the CMA's section 26 notices that were beyond the UK territory, there would be an obligation to produce them. The Court of Appeal's ruling The CMA appealed the joint judgment by the CAT and Administrative Court on two grounds: The extraterritorial application of the substantive prohibitions of the CA98 in section 2 and section 18 and the CMA's powers to carry out an investigation under section 25 would be frustrated if section 26 did also not have extraterritorial effect. The reference to "any person" in section 26(1) captures all documents held by all members of an undertaking where any member of that undertaking is present in the UK. Ground I: Extraterritoriality The Court of Appeal noted that in determining whether legislation has extraterritorial effect a court must, so long as its language allows, apply an interpretative presumption against extraterritoriality. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in KBR, which held the principle to be a starting point for consideration of the scope of a legislative measure. But an extraterritorial intent can also be implied, taking into account a range of considerations such as the purpose, scheme and context of the legislation, the practicality of enforcement, the legislative history and the impact on comity. Based on a careful analysis of the following factors the Court of Appeal concluded that in its judgment Parliament intended section 26 CA98 to have extraterritorial effect. Section 2(1) CA98 (the Chapter I prohibition) CA98 does have extraterritorial effect. It includes agreements between undertakings physically located in a third country with no physical presence in the UK but which is targeted on the UK market. This is also confirmed by the wording in section 2(3) which provides that the prohibition applies only if the agreement is or is intended to be implemented in the UK. Section 25 provides the CMA with the power to conduct an investigation where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is an agreement that may affect trade within the UK and has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK. The language of sections 2 and 25 indicates that both the prohibitions and the investigation and enforcement regimes are extraterritorial. Section 26 is one of the CMA's investigatory and enforcement powers and enables it to request information and disclosure of documents for the purpose of an investigation. It is related to and implements two provisions which are extraterritorial and there is nothing in the wording of section 26 that indicates Parliament's intention to limit its territorial effect. The CAT did not consider the role of section 26 in the context of the combined effect of section 2 and 25 CA98. For section 26 not to be extraterritorial there would need to be some clear indication that it was intended to have a different territorial ambit to sections 2 and 25. That is not the case and the Court of Appeal therefore concludes that it follows that Parliament intended section 26 to have the same territorial effect as section 2 and 25. Similarly when considering the scheme of enforcement, context and purpose of the legislation the Court of Appeal concluded that it is not possible to infer that Parliament intended to avoid extraterritorial effect. Cartels are typically covert and are often international in scope and competition authorities around the world may have to target their powers on actors located abroad when exercising their duty to protect their domestic markets and consumers. This is achieved by competition authorities around the world through broad extraterritorial regulatory and investigatory powers which can be exercised with the necessary caution and pragmatism when dealing with undertakings located outside their jurisdiction. Taking into account the effectiveness and practicality of the regime, the Court concluded that if the CMA is denied the power to exercise section 26 extraterritorially this would create "a gaping lacuna" in the effectiveness of the CMA to exercise its statutory powers. The absence of such power would create a perverse incentive for conspirators to move offshore in order to organise cartels directed at harming the UK market, who would be more or less immune from investigation. This would particularly be easy to achieve in the digital era. There is also nothing in the legislative history that points to Parliament's intent to create a competition law enforcement regime with no need for extraterritorial investigatory and enforcement powers. The Court of Appeal also refused to accept the argument that the fact that the CA98, as initially enacted, contained criminal sanctions for failing to comply with information requests, supports the view that this power is not extraterritorial. The current version of the CA98 no longer imposes criminal sanctions and for the purpose of Parliament's intent it is necessary to look at the version of the legislation as it stood as of the date of the decision being challenged, when sanctions for failure to comply with section 26 notices were civil sanctions. Ground II: "Undertaking" The Court of Appeal focussed on whether the meaning of an "undertaking" under the CA98 excluded the legal concept of joint and several liability and responsibility. In considering Parliament's intention and drawing comparisons with the EU law concept of an "undertaking", the Court of Appeal concluded that the inclusion of an "undertaking" as "any person" under section 26 CA98 incorporates the legal concept of joint and several liability and responsibility. As a result, the CMA can exercise its section 26 powers against an entity, whether it is located inside or outside of the UK, which may be a natural or legal person, an undertaking, or a combination thereof. The Court of Appeal considered that the CMA had adopted a "sensible course of action" by serving a notice on the UK subsidiaries and German parent companies of both BMW and VW. According to the Court of Appeal, the CMA's approach made it clear that the relevant section 26 notices and obligations under them to produce documents and information, were brought to the attention of, and applied to, the legal entities "comprising the undertaking as a whole". It is inferred from the statutory language in the CA98 that that where Parliament adopted the use of "any person" or "undertaking", it intended to impose an obligation upon the widest array of entities possible. The expression of "any", which is adopted under section 26 CA98 is unlimited and does not mean only persons with a territorial connection to the UK. The Court of Appeal considered that "undertaking" did not need to be defined in the CA98, since it is a "well understood" concept of EU law, and Parliament intended to adopt a meaning that was consistent with EU law. There is nothing in logic, policy, case law or legislative history to support a contention that Parliament intended to reject the concept of joint and several liability and responsibility, as established under the EU law concept of joint and several liability of entities within the same undertaking (as evidenced in recent EU cases such as Sumal). It was "jurisprudentially inconsistent" to argue that serving a notice on a subsidiary was legally insufficient to gain access to the documents of an entity within the same undertaking over which the subsidiary had no control. The principle of separate legal personality does not apply as an undertaking is an "indivisible entity". The CMA's obligation to act in accordance with fundamental rights when exercising its section 26 powers does not mean that it can only ever exercise its power against a discrete legal entity within a wider undertaking. The Court of Appeal considered that, on the facts of the case, there was no suggestion that procedural rights had been violated. Notices were served to the UK subsidiaries and brought to the attention of the German parent companies, who had "exercised their right of access to a court and to a fair and objective adjudication of their challenges". Looking at the legislative purpose of section 26 CA98, the Court of Appeal considered that the CMA would become "largely toothless when confronting international cartels" if it was unable to exercise its section 26 powers over an undertaking and was restricted to requesting information and evidence over which entities operating within the UK held physical or legal control. The Court of Appeal rejected the position alluded to by the CAT that notices served on an undertaking as a whole, could risk notices being brought to the attention of entities who do not know the full extent of the undertaking to which they belong, meaning that notices are not properly brought to the attention of the entities comprising the relevant undertaking. The Court of Appeal considered this possibility to be "theoretical" and an "improbable scenario" and noted its lack of awareness of the CMA ever having exercised its powers in this way. Changes under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill The Court of Appeal's position is also about to be endorsed further through amendments to the CA98, which would effectively have reversed the joint judgment by the CAT and Administrative Court if the Court of Appeal had not overturned it. The competition enforcement provisions of the DMCC Bill, which is currently before Parliament and is expected to receive Royal Assent in April this year, will introduce new powers regarding the extraterritorial application of information notices in competition, merger and market studies investigations. The DMCC Bill provides that the CMA's Section 26 powers may be used to give notice to a person outside the UK and to require the production of documents and information held outside the UK, provided that person's activities are being investigated under the CA98 and they have a UK connection. The Bill also extends the territorial scope of the Chapter I prohibition so that the prohibition applies to agreements implemented outside the UK but which have an effect within the UK. This amendment seeks to ensure that conduct is within the scope of the CMA's investigative powers, even when an agreement is implemented in another jurisdiction. Footnote 1. Judgment made available on Brick Court Chambers website.

1 0

Hong Kong Pins Revival Hopes on Messi After Coldplay, Taylor Swift Misses
by Gunnar Larson 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

Hong Kong Pins Revival Hopes on Messi After Coldplay, Taylor Swift Misses https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-03/hong-kong-pins-hope-on-m… Hong Kong’s image of a freewheeling finance hub has taken a severe hit in recent years in the wake of a crackdown on dissent and strict pandemic curbs, which triggered an exodus of residents. The city’s reopening has been marred by China’s economic slowdown and high borrowing costs, with the local property and stock markets plunging.

1 0

The FBI Establishes New Virtual Assets Unit
by Gunnar Larson 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2022, 3:51 PM Subject: Fwd: The FBI Establishes New Virtual Assets Unit To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> Wonder if the new FBI virtual assets unit "has what it takes..." to get down to the issue with NYCCoin and MIA Coin? xNY.io wonders what the new virtual asset unit thinks of Proof of Transfer (POX) as computer software that harms integrity of the Bitcoin Blockchain? Bloomberg allues that NYCCoin and MIA Coin are a ponzi scheme (powered by POX): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-17/nyc-miami-seen-facing-po… -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> | Bank.org <http://bank.org/>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: FBI <fbi(a)subscriptions.fbi.gov> Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:38 PM Subject: The FBI Establishes New Virtual Assets Unit To: <g(a)xny.io> * National Press Releases * The FBI Establishes New Virtual Assets Unit The FBI is announcing the creation of the Virtual Assets Unit (VAU), a nerve center for the FBI’s virtual currency programs. March 15, 2022 Full Press Release <https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/the-fbi-establishes-new-vi…> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/FBI> <https://twitter.com/FBI> <https://www.youtube.com/user/FBI> <https://www.fbi.gov/e-mail-updates?utm_campaign=email-Immediate&utm_medium=…> * You have received this message because you are subscribed to one or more of the following categories: National Press Releases * Manage Subscription <https://delivery.fbi.gov/account-reminder> | Unsubscribe <https://delivery.fbi.gov/subscriber/c57956fe9830b3f02d21fe7a2581942df706f0b…> If you have questions about this service, email us at delivery(a)subscriptions.fbi.gov. Help <https://www.fbi.gov/e-mail-updates?utm_campaign=email-Immediate&utm_medium=…> | Privacy Policy <http://www.fbi.gov/privacy_policy?utm_campaign=email-Immediate&utm_medium=e…> | Visit FBI.gov <https://www.fbi.gov/?utm_campaign=email-Immediate&utm_medium=email&utm_sour…>

1 0

Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.)
by Gunnar Larson 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org> Date: Fri, Jan 19, 2024, 6:17 AM Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) To: <g(a)xny.io> You have already sent 24 posts to this list in the last 24 hours. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:17:22 -0500 Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) Hello: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-attorney-in-manhattan-launches-program-to-… Gunnar ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 2:59 AM Subject: Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) To: <casework(a)gillibrand.senate.gov> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> Dear Honorable Senator Gillibrand: My name is Gunnar Larson and I am a co-founder at xNY.io - Bank.org. Today I contact your esteemed office seeking assistance with retrieving the NYPD body camera footage mentioned below. The FOIL request was filed with the NYPD on July 14, 2023. The NYPD responded on July 16, 2023, noting a potential delivery date of the body camera footage by end of November 2023. As of today, January 12, 2024 xNY.io - Bank.org has not heard from the NYPD on receiving the body camera footage. Senator Gillibrand, I am concerned delay in receiving this body camera footage may disrespect your #MeToo zero tolerance policy. Humbly, the FBI should be able to confirm with your office if this is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" matter. Ultimately, I am concerned this matter should not impact the pure interests of your Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act. The FBI should be able to be honest with your office concerning your Bloomberg Crypto Summit interview with Senator Lummis on the Responsible Financial Innovation Act. It is my understanding that the NYPD body camera footage could have been staged politically, given xNY's approach to NYCCoin. Senator Gillibrand, your office could offer anyone the opportunity to engage the new SDNY program here to protect honest integrity of the NYPD: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-attorney-in-manhattan-launches-program-to-… . Thank you Senator Gillibrand. Sending you the very best regards, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin Touting.) To: IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> Cc: <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>, ethics.sm.records <records(a)ethics.ny.gov>, < ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov>, <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) < Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>, <PressOffice(a)cityhall.nyc.gov>, Reader, Shaun < sreader(a)curtis.com>, <district3(a)council.nyc.gov> Good morning NYPD: Thank you for your Jul 16, 2023 response. xNY.io - Bank.org did not hear from you on November 29, 2023 as promised. Given the emerging situation in USA cryptocurrency markets, we are going to need to follow up with the NYPD every 10 days until we receive the NYCCoin touting body camera footage. Can you please update xNY.io - Bank.org on the status of the footage? We have received various replies from the City of New York on Mayor Adams' 'first checks in Bitcoin' mentioned here: https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/041-22/mayor-adams-receive-fir… . Have a good day. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Mon, Jan 1, 2024, 6:41 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Good morning: > > Happy New Year 2024 to you. > > Can we please have an update on this matter? > > Thank you, > > Gunnar > > -- > Gunnar Larson > xNY.io | Bank.org > MSc - Digital Currency > MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) > > G(a)xNY.io > +1-917-580-8053 > New York, New York 10001 > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023, 3:51 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > >> Hello: >> >> Thank you for your Jul 16, 2023 response. >> >> xNY.io - Bank.org did not hear from you on >> November 29, 2023 as promised. >> >> Can xNY.io - Bank.org please receive the >> NYPD body cam footage for NYCCoin Touting by December 31, 2023? >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Gunnar >> >> Gunnar Larson >> -- >> Gunnar Larson - xNY.io - Bank.org >> MSc - Digital Currency >> MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) >> >> G(a)xNY.io >> +1-917-580-8053 >> New York, New York 10001 >> >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 11:11 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: >> >>> Hello: >>> >>> Any updates on the body camera footage mentioned below? >>> >>> Gunnar >>> >>> Gunnar Larson >>> xNY.io - Bank.org >>> 917-580-8093 >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 7:10 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Madam or Sir: >>>> >>>> I am just confirming that the NYCCoin body camera footage is still on >>>> track for November 29, 2023 delivery. Can you confirm as such please? >>>> >>>> The matter was recorded late March 2023. And xNY.io - Bank.org must >>>> close our EOY-23 books. >>>> >>>> Any further delay of the body camera footage could be a challenge to >>>> N.Y. Executive Law, Article 15 >>>> Human Rights Law, § 296. Unlawful discriminatory practices: >>>> >>>> 14. ... whether or not accompanied by the >>>> person for whom the dog is being trained. >>>> >>>> 16. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless >>>> specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency, >>>> bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any political >>>> subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about, whether in any form of >>>> application or >>>> otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the individual involved, any >>>> arrest or criminal accusation of such individual not then pending against >>>> that individual which was followed by a termination of that criminal action >>>> or proceeding in favor of such individual, as defined in subdivision two of >>>> section 160.50 of the criminal procedure law, or by an order adjourning >>>> the criminal action in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section >>>> 170.55, 170.56, 210.46, 210.47, or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, or >>>> by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of >>>> section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by a conviction for a >>>> violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the criminal procedure law >>>> or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to section 160.59 or 160.58 of >>>> the criminal procedure law, in connection with the licensing, housing, >>>> employment, including volunteer positions, or providing of credit or >>>> insurance to such individual; provided, further, that no person shall be >>>> required to divulge information pertaining to any arrest or criminal >>>> accusation of such individual not then pending against that individual >>>> which was followed by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding >>>> in favor of such individual, as defined in subdivision two of section >>>> 160.50 of the criminal procedure law, or by an order adjourning the >>>> criminal action in contemplation of dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55, >>>> 170.56, 210.46, 210.47, or 215.10 of the criminal procedure law, or by a >>>> youthful offender adjudication, as defined in subdivision one of section >>>> 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or by >>>> a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the >>>> criminal procedure law, or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to >>>> section 160.58 or 160.59 of the criminal procedure law. An individual >>>> required or requested to provide information in violation of this >>>> subdivision >>>> may respond as if the arrest, criminal accusation, or disposition of >>>> such arrest or criminal accusation did not occur. The provisions of this >>>> subdivision shall not apply to the licensing activities of governmental >>>> bodies in relation to the regulation of guns, firearms and other deadly >>>> weapons or in relation to an application for employment as a police officer >>>> or peace officer as those terms are defined in subdivisions thirty-three >>>> and thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal >>>> procedure law; provided further that the provisions of this subdivision >>>> shall not apply to an application for employment or membership in any law >>>> enforcement agency with respect to any arrest or criminal accusation which >>>> was followed by a youthful offender adjudication, as defined >>>> in subdivision one of section 720.35 of the criminal procedure law, or >>>> by a conviction for a violation sealed pursuant to section 160.55 of the >>>> criminal procedure law, or by a conviction which is sealed pursuant to >>>> section 160.58 or 160.59 of the criminal procedure law. For purposes of >>>> this subdivision, an action which has been adjourned in contemplation of >>>> dismissal, pursuant to section 170.55 or 170.56, 210.46, 210.47 or 215.10 >>>> of the criminal procedure law, shall not be >>>> considered a pending action, unless the order to adjourn in >>>> contemplation of dismissal is revoked and the case is restored to the >>>> calendar for further prosecution. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Gunnar >>>> >>>> Gunnar Larson >>>> xNY.io - Bank.org >>>> 917-580-8053 >>>> >>>> n, Jul 16, 2023, 11:03 AM IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mr. Larson, >>>>> >>>>> The FOIL request you requested was acknowledged and a response will be on >>>>> or about Wednesday, November 29, 2023. They will follow-up with your >>>>> request. If the request is denied, and you would like to file a complaint, >>>>> we will assist you. Have a good day. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *COMMAND CENTER, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the >>>>> person and/or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL >>>>> or PRIVILEGED material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or >>>>> distribution is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws >>>>> including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the >>>>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >>>>> delete/destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended >>>>> recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, >>>>> please so advise the sender immediately. Please treat this and all other >>>>> communications from the New York City Police Department as LAW ENFORCEMENT >>>>> SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. NO REPORT OR SEGMENT THEREOF MAY BE >>>>> RELEASED TO ANY MEDIA SOURCES. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2023 10:56 AM >>>>> *To:* FDSHelpDesk(a)ethics.ny.gov <FDSHelpDesk(a)ethics.ny.gov>; >>>>> ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov <ethel(a)jcrope.ny.gov>; IABCMDCNTR < >>>>> IABCMDCNTR(a)nypd.org> >>>>> *Cc:* letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov>; >>>>> cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>; Harris, Adrienne A >>>>> (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov> >>>>> *Subject:* Fwd: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER* >>>>> >>>>> *STOP WHEN UNSURE.* Never click on links or open attachments if >>>>> sender is unknown, and never provide user ID or password. >>>>> *Suspicious?* Please report to this email address: >>>>> reportphishing(a)nypd.org >>>>> >>>>> Dear New York Ethics Team: >>>>> >>>>> I am concerned that the FOIL below is subject to obstruction of >>>>> justice. >>>>> >>>>> The FOIL request is for access to NYPD body cam footage, for NYCCoin >>>>> Touting. >>>>> >>>>> Ethics Team, I am concerned that the Chief of your office is also the >>>>> Chief of the City Mayor's office. >>>>> >>>>> The body cam footage should have an agreeable time for delivery. I am >>>>> concerned that the Mayor is retaliating against NYCoin and the NYPD may be >>>>> aware of this. >>>>> >>>>> The video would or would not delineate any form of unnecessary force. >>>>> The NYPD may be aware of this. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, xNY is very protective of digital asset innovation. Ethics >>>>> is a serious matter and the body cam footage would be helpful concerning >>>>> NYCCoin. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely yours, >>>>> >>>>> Gunnar >>>>> >>>>> Gunnar Larson >>>>> xNY.io - Bank.org >>>>> 917-580-8053 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: <donotreply(a)records.nyc.gov> >>>>> Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 12:25 PM >>>>> Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2023-056-15960 Acknowledged >>>>> To: <g(a)xny.io> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has *acknowledged* your >>>>> FOIL request FOIL-2023-056-15960 >>>>> <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960>. >>>>> >>>>> You can expect a response on or about Wednesday, November 29, 2023. >>>>> Additional Information: >>>>> >>>>> Your request has been assigned to PAA Quagliano (646-610-5296) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please visit FOIL-2023-056-15960 >>>>> <https://a860-openrecords.nyc.gov/request/view/FOIL-2023-056-15960> >>>>> to view additional information and take any necessary action. >>>>> >>>>

1 2

MEXICO CITY ANARCHIST BOOKFAIR, FEB. 17
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

>From Federación Anarquista de México February 1, 2024 Full program of the 13th edition of the Anarchist Book and Publications Fair convened by the FAM. We start with many activities for this next book fair. You can't afford to miss it https://www.anarchistnews.org/content/schedule-mexico-city-anarchist-bookfa… Viva la revolution!

1 0

Nodes: GNURadio RF MultiSpectrum P2P Fiber Distributed Sensor Arrays Encrypted FreeSpace Comms DropGangs Coins Astronomy UFOs Tor Decentralized Science CrowdFunding
by grarpamp 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

Nodes: GNURadio RF MultiSpectrum P2P Fiber Distributed Sensor Arrays Encrypted FreeSpace Comms DropGangs Coins Astronomy UFOs Tor Decentralized Science CrowdFunding On uses for the previously discussed distributed modular hardware platform... Everyone deploys a cheap P2P fiber/RF network comms base node, then choose your favorite projects as modular HW/SW plugin expansions to the node... Govts Science Fiat Power, and Commercial Internet... are all dead, you don't need them. Deploy your own Freedom nodes at will !!! https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2023-06-01/decentralizing-uap-explorat… Decentralizing UAP Exploration: CryptoUAPeez & The Power of Community Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) have long been a topic of fascination, mystery, and curiosity. Projects such as Sky360 bring distributed UFO observation to the next level. uapsociety.eth @UAPSociety Help us discover more by decentralized funding our eyes on the skies! We need your help! Go to OpenSea.com now and you can see our latest mint starting to take flight. Search for Crypto UAPeez!!! Non Fungible Conference @NFCsummit @UAPSociety is bringing Alien invasions and decentralised science into the streets of Lisbon ! 🇵🇹 For those who seek the truth of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), the revolution has begun. 🎪 See you this summertime, June 7-8–9th! ☀️ Decentralizing UAP Exploration: CryptoUAPeez & The Power of Community Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) have long been a topic of fascination, mystery, and curiosity. By Chris Lehto, in [120]Crypto . 01 Jun 2023, 15:58 . [121]0 Comments [122][IMG] Credits: Supplied Image; As an ex-fighter pilot with first-hand experience of the skies and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, I've found myself deeply captivated by the enigma of UAPs. This fascination led to my founding of the UAP Society, a community united by the shared desire to explore these enigmatic phenomena. However, the exploration and understanding of UAPs have often been hindered by the gatekeeping of information, a challenge rooted in the centralised systems of control that have, until now, dictated this field of study. Enter the power of decentralisation, a transformative principle at the core of blockchain technology and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). Blockchain technology Blockchain technology, particularly NFTs, has dramatically shifted how we perceive ownership and value in the digital world. Unlike their fungible counterparts, NFTs are unique, and their ownership is immutably registered on the blockchain. But these individual digital assets are not just changing the art, gaming, and collectibles space; they have the potential to foster vibrant communities and democratise access to experiences, resources, and information. Embracing this immense potential, we are excited to introduce CryptoUAPeez, a groundbreaking NFT collection we are preparing to launch at the NonFungible Conference Lisbon 2023. Yet, CryptoUAPeez isn't just another collection of digital art. At its core, it's a pioneering platform designed to decentralise UAP exploration and nurture a global community of passionate, curious, and forward-thinking individuals. Credits: Supplied Image; CryptoUAPeez is our bold step away from the constraints of conventional gatekeeping towards a future of democratic exploration. By enabling a community of curious minds to pool their resources, share their discoveries, and collectively contribute to our understanding of UAPs, CryptoUAPeez is breaking the mold. This vision contrasts the traditional paradigm, where access to UAP information is limited to a select few, usually government and military institutions. Every CryptoUAPeez NFT is far more than a unique digital artifact. It represents an interactive platform inviting owners to share in the shared exploration of UAPs. Through CryptoUAPeez, owners can engage in open discussions, debate theories, communicate findings, and ultimately contribute to a democratic, participatory approach to UAP science. This interactive feature underscores our belief that exploring UAPs benefits immensely from diverse perspectives, debate, and collaboration, like all scientific inquiry. Advancing exploration A significant aspect of the CryptoUAPeez project is its role in further advancing UAP exploration. The CryptoUAPeez collection will fund the deployment of Sky360 systems, advanced technological tools designed for capturing and analysing UAP events. These systems search the skies 24/7 at UAP hotspots around the globe, such as Hessdalen, Norway; Mount Wilson Ranch in Nevada near the enigmatic Area 51; and even my current home, Lagos, Portugal. This practical, grassroots approach to UAP exploration aligns with the spirit of decentralisation that blockchain technology and NFTs inherently embody. Involvement in the CryptoUAPeez project transcends the mere acquisition of a unique digital asset. It's about becoming part of a passionate, globally-connected community of UAP enthusiasts. It's about contributing to a decentralised and collaborative effort to understand the unknown, where every member's input is valued, and every perspective enriches the collective discourse. Credits: Supplied Image; At a macro level, CryptoUAPeez is more than an NFT project. It is a bold attempt to leverage cutting-edge technology to propel our understanding of UAPs, smashing through the barriers of traditional constraints. The project represents the power of community-driven exploration, where the pursuit of knowledge is democratised, and the joy of discovery is shared. Igniting collaborations The launch of CryptoUAPeez is just the beginning. We are tremendously excited about this project's potential as we prepare for the grand unveiling at NonFungible Conference Lisbon 2023. We envision CryptoUAPeez as the spark that ignites countless collaborations, the fuel that feeds the discovery engine, and the beacon that guides us through our shared journey into the unknown. This project reflects my commitment as an ex-fighter pilot to unravel the mysteries of UAPs, not just with technical insight but with a genuine regard for human curiosity and the desire for knowledge. It is a testament to my faith in the power of collaboration and the belief that a dedicated community can push boundaries, challenge norms, and drive meaningful progress. Through CryptoUAPeez, we aspire to unite a community of explorers and dreamers who, like me, are driven by the irresistible allure of the unknown. We invite you to join us in this exciting journey, to contribute your unique perspectives and insights, to participate in this collective endeavor, and to make the unexplored frontier of UAPs a little less unknown. We are embarking on a journey that promises to be as thrilling as enlightening. It's a journey that we hope you'll join us on. Let's come together to learn, discover, and explore the mysteries of UAPs in this new era of decentralised exploration. We are standing at the precipice of the known, gazing into the vast expanse of the unknown, and together, we will take that leap into the future of UAP exploration. In the grand scheme of human curiosity and the perpetual quest for knowledge, the launch of CryptoUAPeez at the NonFungible Conference Lisbon 2023 represents a significant milestone. But it's just the start of our expedition. The future of UAP exploration is here, and it is decentralized, community-driven, and infinitely exciting. Let's unravel the mysteries of the skies together – because the truth, after all, is out there. Join us!

1 2

War re Ukraine: Thread
by grarpamp 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

The pre-announced "hour" is nigh... place yer bets, make yer odds, does hardware roll, or nyet? 2022-02-15T18:43:37+01:00 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_191889.htm https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220215-eadrcc… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW4fuHit9HI Biden HeroProp Speech Livestream Now

5 219

Adrienne Harris Is Crypto’s Most Powerful Regulator
by Gunnar Larson 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/adrienne-harris-is-cryptos-most-pow… THE MONEY GAME MAR. 30, 2022 Crypto’s Most Powerful Regulator Is Here Adrienne Harris, New York’s financial watchdog, has enormous sway over the industry’s future. Portrait of Kevin T. Dugan By Kevin T. Dugan, staff writer at Intelligencer, who covers money and business Photo: Victor Llorente Thirteen years after the birth of cryptocurrency, it was supposed to be time for Washington to rein it in. Instead, the White House punted, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is still hashing out how it’s going to oversee the $2 trillion industry. State watchdogs have filled that vacuum, making Adrienne Harris, the head of the New York State Department of Financial Services, by default the most powerful crypto regulator in the country. While states such as Florida and Wyoming have adopted a laissez-faire approach to regulation, attracting a sizable chunk of the booming industry, more money and jobs are still flowing into New York than any other city, making it the de facto crypto capital of the U.S. “There’s a misconception that having rigorous regulation turns off innovative companies,” Harris tells me during an hour-long interview at her office looking out onto the Statue of Liberty last month. “That hasn’t been our experience here.” Sign up for Dinner Party A lively evening newsletter about everything that just happened. Enter your email Harris was tapped as the first Black woman to lead DFS last year. She came into her position after a turn working in Silicon Valley and representing Wall Street banks, a résumé that critics have used to paint her as too close to the industries she is regulating. She’s eager to dispel any criticism that she’s soft as a regulator, especially when it comes to crypto. Harris says she’s looking to expand the agency’s remit, hire new regulators, and possibly watch over lending and asset management in decentralized finance, a.k.a. DeFi, one of the fastest-growing crypto industries, which has been prone to very large hacks. The agency’s power over the industry lies mostly with the BitLicense, a required if unloved permit for crypto exchanges to operate within state lines. When it was first introduced in 2014, it was meant to be a model for the country, but the crypto industry has attacked the license for being too strict, limiting what people can trade, and requiring expensive anti-money-laundering operations, which, it should be noted, most traditional financial institutions are required to maintain. For Harris, the problem isn’t that it’s too restrictive — it’s that the process of getting one, which has stretched years for some companies, is too slow. “If you think about the companies that are BitLicensees, and even the companies in the queue, having the imprimatur of ‘Have you passed regulatory muster with a stringent regulatory regime?’ — I think the good actors see that as a good thing,” she says. Created in 2011, DFS has been a regulator feared more than any of its counterparts in other states for the power it has over banks, insurance companies, and a host of other financial institutions. It brought ambitious money-laundering cases against banks like BNP Paribas (a settlement that resulted in several bankers losing their jobs), fined Deutsche Bank for its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and levied a $2.5 million fine on the National Rifle Association for selling its so-called murder insurance in the state. “DFS has a lot of teeth, and the sky’s the limit if the agency is exercised properly,” says state Sen. John Liu of Queens, a member of the state finance committee. “DFS compelled multinational banks to cough up $15 billion. We were able to build a couple bridges with that money. We still have much infrastructure in the state of New York that might benefit from DFS’s vigorous functions.” But part of DFS’s mandate is to keep the state’s economy healthy, a balancing act when it means protecting consumers from predatory, but also lucrative, companies. “For me, it’s an opportunity to bring my lived experience as a woman of color,” Harris says. So far, she has established the agency’s first climate division, frozen fees for check-cashing businesses that target the poor, and looked into non-bank lenders for evidence of redlining. “It’s important to me that those voices are at the table and being heard,” she says. “I bring a sort of pragmatism. It’s one thing to sit in our offices with nice views and make policy, but it’s another thing, in my mind, to really run the water through the pipes.” In 2008, Harris joined Sullivan & Cromwell, a law firm so close with Goldman Sachs that it has long sent its lawyers to work in-house at the investment bank. It was there that she worked for H. Rodgin “Rodge” Cohen, then the law firm’s chairman and the so-called trauma surgeon of Wall Street. Cohen remembers Harris working late into the night writing near-flawless memorandums so they’d be ready on his desk in the morning. “She just brought what I’d call a penetrating intelligence to the problems that were at hand,” Cohen tells me. “Many of the problems we get, you cannot just look up the answer in a book. It’s a question of judgment and trying to apply rules written often for other circumstances.” Still, it was clear that corporate law wasn’t for her. “Her heart was really in public service,” he says. From there, she went on to work for the Treasury Department, then the Obama White House, where she focused on policies around the then-upstart fintech industry. After the administration turned over, Harris took a spin through the revolving door between government and business. Her New York financial-disclosure forms show a superabundance of work with the tech and finance industries: She sat on the boards of six companies and nonprofits, including LendingClub, which had recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission over claims it had misled users on fees. She also advised 11 companies, owned two, and invested in or on behalf of two others. “I just thought, well, if you’re going to make policy about it, you should do the thing — run the company, build the company,” she says. “At the time, I felt very comfortable going to a start-up because I thought, well, coming out of government, you’re not making a ton of money. And if this start-up blows up, I’ll probably be no worse off, financially speaking.” It seems Harris did well enough. One real-estate tech company at which she worked went public last summer, and Harris appears to have cashed out. Since the disclosures were for 2020, they didn’t include her stake in Forethought, a private A.I.-based customer-service company that announced in December that it had attracted such investors as Harris, Ashton Kutcher, and Gwenyth Paltrow. When I asked her about Forethought, Harris said her investment in the company predated her time at DFS, that all her investments are now in a blind trust, and that she would recuse herself from any dealings with companies she has conflicts with. So when Hochul appointed Harris to lead DFS, she was attacked by the left. Zephyr Teachout and Cynthia Nixon both criticized Harris as being insufficiently independent, thanks to her connections in tech and finance. The American Prospect dug up a speech in which she characterized regulators as looking for “no-nos” and “icky things.” Harris has also advised the cash-advance companies Earnin, Brigit, and SmartWage (based in South Africa), according to her disclosures. In 2019, DFS led a multi-state investigation into the cash-advance industry over whether they created debt traps and state banking and anti-usury laws, since equivalent interest rates for the fees they charged would reach as high as 469 percent. A person directly familiar with the investigation told me that Harris’s predecessor was presented with multiple options for furthering the investigation, including reaching a settlement, but ultimately never made a decision. DFS wouldn’t comment. So, of all the companies to work for, why them? “My role, when I was working with those companies, was not to dictate price pricing or business model. It was more to say: Here’s how regulators would view this. Here’s why you should engage with them. Let me help you engage with them and figure out these issues and how you can also serve customers. Less pricing and business model, but, as an adviser who’s not in the day-to-day, helping to sort of guide a culture and mentality,” she says. Did she disagree with those arguing that these companies created debt traps for consumers? “I think it’s hard to paint with a broad brush,” she says. “I think we should always always be careful with any new products and services, that they are affordable and non-predatory, not creating debt traps, and that they’re solving a real problem for consumers. And I think some do that and some don’t.” Last summer, after Andrew Cuomo resigned as governor, many of his appointees went with him, including then-superintendent of DFS, Linda Lacewell. Soon Harris’s old boss, Cohen, had recommended her to Kathryn Wylde, the president and CEO of the Partnership for New York, a business-advocacy group that has advised DFS. “The folks at Sullivan & Cromwell thought that Adrienne would be a terrific candidate to field for that job given her eight years of experience in the Obama administration and the fact that she was somebody who understood industry,” Wylde says. “On the theory that a regulator should know something about the industries they’re regulating — which may be a novel concept but struck me as a valid one — I thought she sounded like a terrific candidate.” Harris sailed through her confirmation, with 63 senators voting for her and nine against. “When the regulated are complaining that the regulator is being too aggressive, that generally means the regulator is doing their job.” said Michael Gianaris, the state senator from Queens who voted against Harris’s nomination and, in 2019, tanked Amazon’s proposed HQ2 in New York. “Cuomo was a prick, and the people he appointed tended to share his bare-knuckles approach to the world. In some cases, that’s actually not a bad thing.” While the crypto industry doesn’t appear to be getting the reprieve it had been hoping for, other industries will surely lobby Harris to make similar gestures toward the business community. For instance, Wylde says that insurance companies are hoping that Harris will lower the reserves they are required to have on hold, which they claim are higher than what’s required by other states. “There are some long-standing issues that the industry has that they feel that they’ve got a fresh start on with Adrienne’s leadership,” she says. Still, crypto is going to play a major part in how Harris’s tenure is defined. “It’s clear that New York is doing well now and the companies that came and started here five to ten years ago are doing well,” says Matt Homer, a former deputy superintendent at DFS and the current executive-in-residence at the venture-capital fund NYCA Partners. “It’s not totally clear what the future will look like five to ten years from now.” New York is the home base for major exchanges such as Coinbase and Gemini, and it’s also home to shady NFT front-running scandals and alleged rapping billionaire money launderers. That such a volatile industry could implode and damage New York’s economy is apparent. “I understand that other states may have gone the opposite way of the BitLicense, but there are things we can do here in New York that will hopefully inform the federal regulators as they continue to think about this space,” Harris said. “It’s a new world with crypto, with DeFi, with NFTs.”

1 1

85 Highlights to "SAFEGUARDING HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR INVESTORS"
by Gunnar Larson 04 Feb '24

04 Feb '24

Gunnar Larson (in memory of Brody Larson, on his 14th Birthday...) collates -- 85 Highlights to SAFEGUARDING HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR INVESTORS: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ecoN8I6SNmM6uH3eoi3f1Cp7C-c8ffuo/view?usp=… . Boomer, wherever you are your daddy loves you ❤️

1 2