May 2024 - cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Bill Gross Expects Trump Win to Disrupt Bond Markets, FT Says
by Gunnar Larson 27 May '24

27 May '24

Bill Gross Expects Trump Win to Disrupt Bond Markets, FT Says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-26/bill-gross-expects-trump… Bill Gross said that a Donald Trump victory in the US presidential election would be more disruptive for bond markets than a Joe Biden win, according to the Financial Times.

1 0

TikTok Video Playing on Finance Bro Stereotype Becomes a Viral Hit
by Gunnar Larson 27 May '24

27 May '24

TikTok Video Playing on Finance Bro Stereotype Becomes a Viral Hit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-24/is-looking-for-a-man-in-… A 19-second TikTok video poking fun at old stereotypes is finding some new popularity online.

1 0

Dozens Killed as Israel Strikes Tent City in Rafah Assault
by Gunnar Larson 27 May '24

27 May '24

Dozens Killed as Israel Strikes Tent City in Rafah Assault https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-26/dozens-killed-as-israel-… At least 35 Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike at a camp for displaced people in the southern city of Rafah late Sunday, the Hamas-run ministry of health said.

1 0

Re: Bank.org Concern of BitLicense Marketplace Manipulation
by Gunnar Larson 27 May '24

27 May '24

While xNY.io - Bank.org was blowing the wistle, what was happening, FBI? Literally, most of this could have been avoided. When it comes to honesty the Brody of Wall Street reminds you that the truth is so important. PYUSD did not just fall from the sky. And if it takes a new Superintendent, it takes a new Superintendent then. We were not blowing the wistle for the award, FBI. We were blowing the wistle for the protections and since July 25, 2021 you know how we have been treating. Water under the bridge. xNY.io - Bank.org is doing better than ever. However, the FBI cannot accuse us of using Donald Trump RICO arguments against New York State. That would be silly. In other news, on its own who thinks xNY.io is going to be tricked by X.com and Xoom.com? ----- July 25, 2021 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 14420 Albemarle Point Place Suite 102 Chantilly, VA 20151-1750 ATTN: SEC TCR SUBMISSIONS Re: Bank.org Concern of BitLicense Marketplace Manipulation Dear Sir or Madam: Virtual currency fraud is a serious problem for such a developed country as the United States, whose bank regulators have drawn attention to the increase of these crimes. Having discovered that an unregulated virtual currency sphere (such as in Africa, or other developing markets) is very popular among virtual currency fraudsters, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NY-DFS) concluded that this kind of regulatory fraud was threatening U.S. national security. Bank.org’s NY-DFS Shelf Charter application journey has prompted us to contact the SEC with concern of common Directors at Facebook and PayPal (incl. Xoom) who have potentially manipulated the New York State Common Retirement Fund and New York State Teachers Retirement Fund through BitLicense marketplace manipulation tactics and computer crimes. Bank.org's key definition of virtual currency computer crimes is a consistent message across markets. These crimes are relatively new, having been in existence for only as long as Bitcoin has—which explains how unprepared society and the world, in general, is towards combating these crimes. We see this as no fault of NY-DFS and the original BitLicense mandate. Facebook and PayPal along with Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo have leveraged BitLicensee connections to profit daily from virtual currency market manipulation structures with cross-border reach. PayPal's “Conditional BitLicense” may now be employed as a marketplace manipulation instrument. Meanwhile, common Directors at Facebook, PayPal (incl. Xoom) and Diem seemingly have collaborated in orchestrating a virtual currency marketplace manipulation exercise. The New York State Common Retirement Fund and New York State Teachers Retirement Fund are significant investors in Facebook, PayPal, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. >From their California headquarters, Directors at PayPal (incl. Xoom) have potentially leveraged a Conditional BitLicense award in collaboration with common Directors at Facebook to engage in marketplace manipulation techniques. The Diem Association further shares common PayPal and Facebook Directors in a potential chain of virtual currency computer software and market manipulation architectures. Bank.org must take the necessary steps to guard against fraud and to be extra vigilant about manipulation. We seek SEC guidance on the aforementioned concerns as we organize a reputable Board of Directors for NY-DFS approval. Respectfully yours with appreciation, Gunnar Larson - xNY.io | Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107

1 12

SDNY Whistleblower Program Promises Rewards, Carries Risk
by Gunnar Larson 27 May '24

27 May '24

SDNY Whistleblower Program Promises Rewards, Carries Risk <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1794769?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Sarah Jarvis A new whistleblower pilot program for corporate fraud and public corruption from the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office marks a significant departure from the district's traditional approach, but potential participants risk self-incrimination if they offer information the government already knows, former prosecutors warned. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1794769?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1794769?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

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. ____________________
by Gunnar Larson 26 May '24

26 May '24

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=… 1. In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty. The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources - are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison. 2. Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy. 3. The scheme was conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level officials at the Clinton Campaign and the DNC—including ‘the candidate’ herself—who attempted to shield her involvement behind a wall of third parties.1 To start, the Clinton Campaign and the DNC enlisted the assistance of their shared counsel, Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep Democrat ties, in the hopes of obscuring their actions under the veil of attorney-client privilege. Perkins Coie was tasked with spearheading the scheme to find—or fabricate—proof of a sinister link between Donald J. Trump and Russia. To do so, Perkins Coie launched parallel operations: on one front, Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump Campaign and Russian operatives; on a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann headed a campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian-owned bank. 4. Marc Elias, in his mission to obtain derogatory anti-Trump ‘opposition research,’ commissioned Fusion GPS, an investigative firm, and its co-founders, Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson, and directed them to dredge up evidence—actual or otherwise—of collusion between Trump and Russia. Fritsch and Simpson, in turn, enlisted the assistance of Orbis Ltd. and its owner, Christopher Steele, to produce a series of reports purporting to contain proof of the supposed collusion. Of course, the now fully debunked collection of reports, known as the “Steele Dossier,” was riddled with misstatements, misrepresentations and, most of all, flat out lies. In truth, the Steele Dossier was largely based upon information provided to Steele by his primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko, who was subsequently indicted for falsifying his claims. Even more damning, Danchenko had close ties to senior Clinton Campaign official, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., who knowingly provided false information to Danchenko, who relayed it to Steele, who reported it in the Steele Dossier and eagerly fed the deceptions to both the media and the FBI. This duplicitous arrangement existed for a singular self-serving purpose – to discredit Donald J. Trump and his campaign. 5. At the same time, Michael Sussmann, in his hunt for damaging intel against the Trump Campaign, turned to Neustar, Inc., an information technology company, and one of its top executives, Rodney Joffe, a fervent anti-Trumper who had recently been promised a high-ranking position with the Clinton Administration, to exploit their access to non-public data in search of a secret “back channel” connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank. When it was discovered that no such channel existed, the Defendants resorted to truly subversive measures – hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump’s private apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House. This ill-gotten data was then manipulated to create a misleading “inference” and submitted to law enforcement in an effort to falsely implicate Donald J. Trump and his campaign.2 All of these acts were carried out in coordination with the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, at the behest of certain Democratic “VIPs.”3 6. While their multi-pronged attack was underway, the Defendants seized on the opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy. Indeed, the Clinton Campaign and DNC—admittedly on a “mission” to “raise the alarm” about their contrived Trump-Russia link4—repeatedly fed disinformation to the media and shamelessly promoted their false narratives. All the while, Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others did their best to proliferate the spread of those dubious and false claims through press releases, social media, and other public statements. 7. The fallout from the Defendants’ actions was not limited to the public denigration of Trump and his campaign. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—relying on the Defendants’ fraudulent evidence—commenced a large-scale investigation and expended precious time, resources and taxpayer dollars looking into the spurious allegation that the Trump Campaign had colluded with the Russian Government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The effects of this unfounded investigation were prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice and the FBI – James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. These government officials were willing to abuse their positions of public trust to advance the baseless probe to new levels, including obtaining an extrajudicial FISA warrant and instigating the commencement of an oversight investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. As a result, Donald J. Trump and his campaign were forced to expend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to defend against these contrived and unwarranted proceedings. Justice would ultimately prevail – following a two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller went on to exonerate Donald J. Trump and his campaign with his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia. 8. The full extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing has been steadily and gradually exposed by Special Counsel John Durham, who has been heading a DOJ investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy. To date, he has already issued indictments to Sussmann and Danchenko, among others, for proffering false statements to law enforcement officials. As outlined below, these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of the Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into the inner-workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on recent developments and the overall direction of Durham’s investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are forthcoming. 9. In short, the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton. When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump was elected, the Defendants’ efforts continued unabated, merely shifting their focus to undermining his presidential administration. Worse still, the Defendants continue to spread their vicious lies to this day as they unabashedly publicize their thoroughly debunked falsehoods in an effort to ensure that he will never be elected again. The deception, malice, and treachery perpetrated by the Defendants has caused significant harm to the American people, and to the Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, and they must be held accountable for their heinous acts. ____________________ BACKGROUND September 8, 2022 190 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=… Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 177, Am. Compl. ¶ 9). On this general premise, Plaintiff brings a claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), predicated on the theft of trade secrets, obstruction of justice, and wire fraud (Count I). He additionally brings claims for: injurious falsehood (Count III); malicious prosecution (Count V); violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) (Count VII); theft of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) (Count VIII); and violations of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) (Count IX). The Amended Complaint also contains counts for various conspiracy charges and theories of agency and vicarious liability. (Counts II, IV, VI, and X–XVI). Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to distill it here. The short version: Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants “[a]cting in concert . . . maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1). The Defendants effectuated this alleged conspiracy through two core efforts. “[O]n one front, Perkins Coie partner Mark Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.” (Id. ¶ 3). To that end, Defendant Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and lawyers for the Campaign and the Committee allegedly hired Defendant Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele Dossier. (Id. ¶ 4). “[O]n a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman headed a campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian- owned bank.” (Id.). Clinton and her operatives allegedly hired Defendant Rodney Joffe to exploit his access to Domain Name Systems (“DNS”) data, via Defendant Neustar, to investigate and ultimately manufacture a suspicious pattern of activity between Trump-related servers and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin, Alfa Bank. (Id. ¶ 3). As a result of this “fraudulent evidence,” the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) commenced “several large-scale investigations,” which were “prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice”—Defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. (Id. ¶ 7). And while this was ongoing, the Defendants allegedly “seized on the opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy.” (Id. ¶ 6). As a result of this “multi-pronged attack,” Plaintiff claims to have amassed $24 million in damages.1(Id. ¶ 527). Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as “a series of disconnected political disputes that Plaintiff has alchemized into a sweeping conspiracy among the many individuals Plaintiff believes to have aggrieved him.” (DE 226 at 1). They argue that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff’s claims are both “hopelessly stale”—that is, foreclosed by the applicable statutes of limitations—and because they fail on the merits “in multiple independent respects.” (Id. at 2). As they view it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” (Id.). I agree. In the discussion that follows, I first address the Amended Complaint’s structural deficiencies. I then turn to subject matter jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by certain Defendants. Finally, I assess the sufficiency of the allegations as to each of the substantive counts. ____________________ BACKGROUND October 31, 2022 25 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=… PlaintifP’s pleadings and theories were obviously and fatally defective from the very inceptionof this action. Plaintiff's initial Complaint spanned 108 pages and S08 paragraphs. DE 1 (March 24, 2022). It named 28 individual defendants, as well as 10 John Does and 10 ABC Corporations. /d. Less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved to dismiss it with prejudice. DE 52 (Apr. 20,2022). Defendant Clinton’s motion identified manyofthe fundamentalfactual deficiencies and legal flaws that would ultimately lead this Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint: namely, (1) that Plaintifs claims were untimely on their face, DE 52 at 1-5; (2) that Plaintiff's own tweets confirmed his knowledge ofhis supposed claimsno later than October 2017, DE 52 at 2-3; (3) that Plaintiffs Complaint was replete with inadequate and conclusory allegations, DE 52 at 6; (4) that Plaintiff failed to allege a RICO enterprise, DE 52 at 7; (5) that Plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of theft of trade secrets based on DNS information, DE 52 at 8-9; (6) thatPlaintifffailedtoallege the predicate act ofobstructionofjustice in part because he identified no “official proceeding,” DE 52 at 9-10; (7) that Plaintiff failed to allege a patter of racketeering activity, DE 52 at 11-12; (8) that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege RICO standing because his supposed injuries were almostentirely undescribed, DE 52.at 12-14; (9) that Plaintiffs injurious falsehood claim was barred by the First Amendment, DE 52 at 15-17; (10) that Plaintiff failed to allege almost every necessary clementof injurious falsehood under Florida law, DE 52 at 17-18; (11) that Plaintiff failed to allege a malicious prosecution claim as to any official proceeding and, in particular, as to the properly predicated Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DE 52 at 19-20; and (12) that Plaintiff failed to allege a claim for “agency” because it is not an independent cause of action under Florida law. In response, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend the Complaint. DE 66 (Apr. 21, 2022). Defendant Clinton did not oppose counsel's request for an extension of time in whichto amend. See, e.g., DE 102 (Apr. 27,2022). In the intervening period, other Defendants joined Clinton's motion to dismiss and filed their own motions alertingPlaintiff and his counsel to additional fatal defects in the Complaint. See DE 124 (John Podesta), 139 (Peter Fritsch, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson); 141 (DNC Services Corporation, Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz); 143 (Perkins Coie); 144 (Nellie Ohr); 145 (Robby Mook): 146 (Michael Sussmann); 147 (Mare Elias); 149 (HFACC); 157 (Rodney Joffe); 159 (Igor Danchenko); 160 (Neustar, Inc.); 162 & 163 (Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr.); 165 (Jake Sullivan). With respect to each motion, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend in response to the motions, and Defendants did not oppose extensionsof time to allow them to do so. See DE 153 (May 17,2022). PlaintifP’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint approximately two months after receiving Defendant Clinton’s motion to dismiss and with the benefit of Defendants” additional motions in the interim. DE 177 (June 21, 2022). “But despite this briefing, PlaintifPs Amended Complaint failed to cureanyofthe deficiencies.”DE 267 at 63-64 (Sept. 8, 2022) (“0p.”). “Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims.” Op. at 64. The Amended Complaint is “193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs,” and “contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 *ABC Corporations’ identified as fictitious and unknown entities.” Op. at 4. ____________________ BACKGROUND November 10, 2022 66 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=… The Complaint. In March 2022, Charles Dolan was among 29 defendants initially sued by Mr. Trump. (DE 1). He was identified as a former chairman of the DNC, a senior official in the Clinton Campaign, and a close associate of and advisor to Hillary Clinton. The Complaint alleged that in April 2016, Mr. Dolan participated in discussions about the creation of a “dossier” to smear Mr. Trump and disseminate false accusations to the media (Compl. ¶ 79), and at the direction of Ms. Clinton assisted in preparation of the dossier (Compl. ¶ 81). According to the Complaint, an allegation contained within the dossier that Mr. Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity in a Moscow hotel was derived from Mr. Dolan. (Compl. ¶ 91). Mr. Dolan was sued for RICO conspiracy (Count II), conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood (Count IV), and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution (Count VI). The Warning Letter. On May 31, 2022, counsel for Mr. Dolan wrote the attorneys for Mr. Trump. They warned: 1. That Mr. Dolan had no role in any conspiracy related to the Steele dossier. 2. That Mr. Dolan was not a source for the allegations of sexual activity. 3. That Mr. Dolan had not been in contact with any defendant other than Igor Danchenko, and that Mr. Dolan’s contacts with Mr. Danchenko involved business interests and help for a conference in Moscow. 4. That Mr. Dolan had never been chairman of the DNC. 5. That Ms. Clinton was on record through a spokesperson as stating she had no recollection of Mr. Dolan. (DE 268-1). The letter requested that Mr. Dolan not be named as a defendant in any forthcoming Amended Complaint. The letter further warned that if he were to be named, or if he was not dropped from the original Complaint, Rule 11 sanctions would be sought. The Amended Complaint. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, as had been expected. It ballooned to 193 pages, 819 paragraphs and 31 defendants. With respect to Mr. Dolan, the allegations remained essentially the same. But in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Dolan was identified somewhat more vaguely as the former chairman of a “national Democratic political organization.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Elsewhere, he was described as a “senior Clinton Campaign Official.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Moreover, and somewhat inexplicably, Mr. Dolan was identified in the Amended Complaint as a citizen and resident of New York, despite a declaration that Mr. Dolan had provided to Plaintiff’s lawyers explaining that Mr. Dolan was a resident of Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20; DE 268-2). The Sanctions Motion and Memorandum. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Dolan served on Mr. Trump’s lawyers a motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. The motion pointed out that the change in Mr. Dolan’s purported title from “former chairman of the DNC” in the original Complaint to “former chairman of a national Democratic political organization,” in the Amended Complaint did not solve the problems identified in the warning letter because Mr. Dolan had never been the chairman of any such organization. The motion further explained that Mr. Dolan’s role in the Clinton Campaign was limited to knocking on doors as a volunteer. The motion also stated that Mr. Dolan had never been a resident of New York, that Mr. Dolan had told Plaintiff’s lawyers so, and that the allegations of the Amended Complaint to that effect demonstrated a lack of diligence over something easily checked. Mr. Dolan’s motion for sanctions went on to place the Trump lawyers on notice of a critical failure in their claims, warning them that the Danchenko Indictment referenced throughout the Amended Complaint not only failed to support their allegations against Mr. Dolan but contradicted them. That warning continues to be unheeded. ____________________ BACKGROUND January 19, 2023 53 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=… 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.

1 1

Fwd: SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets
by Gunnar Larson 26 May '24

26 May '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 12:52 PM Subject: Re: SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate Markets To: <letitia.james(a)ag.ny.gov> Cc: <ir(a)twitter.com>, Harris, Adrienne A (DFS) <Adrienne.Harris(a)dfs.ny.gov>, <district3(a)council.nyc.gov>, Reader, Shaun <sreader(a)curtis.com> Dear Madam Attorney General James: xNY.io - Bank.org kindly seeks a response from your office concerning the message below. Today in Manhattan, the FTX case will soon be sent for jury deliberation. According to NPR, "... FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is accused of orchestrating one of the largest financial frauds in history." Additionally, today Donald Trump's civil fraud trial continues in New York City. Attorney General James, as you are aware xNY.io - Bank.org has an ongoing dialog with your office concerning a 'RICO.' The New York State Department of Financial Services records office has responded with a memo concerning the "Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement" here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1reLapm-6C0QJZhPKIPtN5HZGbYhTxZMh/view?usp=… . This memo aims to execute N.Y. Executive Law, Article 15 § 297. Procedure 1. Additionally, § 298-a. Application of article to certain acts committed outside the state of New York, (Israel Crisis). Kind regards, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org MSc - Digital Currency MBA - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-917-580-8053 New York, New York 10001 On Sat, Jun 18, 2022, 4:44 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Attorney General Letitia James: > > xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks to earn your esteemed approval to engage the > New York False Claims Act under urgent pretences. > > Today's correspondence marks the first time in history, a self-titled > "mafia" (aka, the "PayPal Mafia '') is compelled to answer publicly the > decision to manipulate both the New York False Claims Act and the Martin > Act against one another. > > - Madam Attorney General, your leadership approach has historical > context > <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/exxon-climate-lawsuit-new-york.h…> > to logic and ultimate Exxon Mobil vs. New York State > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nLp9RIYw8mAh1SRG8E9PMEK94SV-viUN/view?usp=…> case > precedent. > - xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC research and development notes our hawkish > approach to ESG, D&O and LBO innovation. > - xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC sees this not a democrat vs. republican > concern as Mr. Elon Musk (CEO, SpaceX and Tesla) claims. False pretense to > protect free speech are now being debated as party to a $200B pryamid > scheme. > > Ms. James, on May 21, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS…> > contacted the SpaceX Corporation with reasonable concern of CEO Musk's > intent behind the $44B Twitter LBO. The Orlando Police Pension Fund shared > similar concerns to the intent behind Twitter's LBO as illegal. > > Since, market forces suggest that SpaceX and Tesla directors are part of > interlocking directorate, self proclaimed the PayPal Mafia. The racket > could waterfall to problem(s) at the New York State Department of Financial > Services with Superintendent association to D&O insurance regulation. > > Ms. James, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC seeks your office's urgent assessment of > this matter. We aim to earn approval to explore the New York False Claims > Act to confront SpaceX as a racket. > > *Like a house of cards, the PayPal Mafia racket could risk a waterfall of > D&O interlocking directorate insolvencies. In summary: * > > 1. xNY.io - Bank.org's May 21, 2022 memo to SpaceX questioned intent > behind baseless claims pioneered by SpaceX's CEO, branding ESG a scam via > Exxon Mobil. Obviously, Exxon Mobil vs. New York State > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nLp9RIYw8mAh1SRG8E9PMEK94SV-viUN/view?usp=…> alludes > Mr. Musk party to a false claim. > 2. SpaceX has failed to establish a preponderance of evidence and > burden of proof not a racket. > 3. SpaceX has failed to prove that Twitter's LBO is not false claim to > free speech protection. > 4. True social innovation cannot sponsor a fake news racket that could > jeopardize space exploration and war. > 5. Twitter's LBO dealmakers (Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase) > company balance sheets, financial statements and other corporate records do > not impact xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC holding a racket accountable to false > claims. > > The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla leveraging Exxon Mobil as an ESG > securities scam does not preclude the PayPal Mafia's intent to engage false > claims at the sacrifice of New York State's financial future. > > Madam Attorney General James, we hope to hear from your esteemed office > and learn assessment of best next steps. > > Thank you, > > Gunnar > > -- > *Gunnar Larson * > *xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> - Bank.org <http://bank.org/>, PBC* > > 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 > > On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 9:34 AM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > >> May 21, 2022 >> >> BY ELECTRONIC MAIL >> >> SpaceX Corporation >> Board of Directors >> One Rocket Road >> Hawthorne, California >> 90250 >> Sales(a)SpaceX.com >> >> Re: Potential SpaceX Interlocking Directors’ Intent to Manipulate >> Markets >> >> Dear SpaceX Board of Directors: >> >> From our New York headquarters, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC embodies the >> notion that rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change and >> innovation is like a slide. >> >> Today’s memo aims to notify the SpaceX Corporation of concern of >> potential market manipulation that could impact cross-border digital asset >> innovation, free speech in the United States of America, the global ESG >> economy and Moon exploration. >> >> Please find the attached memo >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS…> >> addressed to SpaceX's board of directors. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Gunnar Larson >> >

1 0

Fwd: FOIL Request F23, 205 RE: #F23, 205 Open Records # 2024-040-00099 Ref. Social Media lawsuit
by Gunnar Larson 26 May '24

26 May '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Novikova Alina <ANovikova(a)schools.nyc.gov> Date: Thu, May 23, 2024, 4:43 PM Subject: FOIL Request F23,205 To: g(a)xny.io <g(a)xny.io> Good Afternoon, Attached please find a letter concerning your FOIL request. Thank you. May 23, 2024 VIA EMAIL Gunnar Larson xNY.io – Bank.org g(a)xny.io RE: #F23,205 Open Records # 2024-040-00099 Ref. Social Media lawsuit Dear Mr. Larson: This letter is in final response to your Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request in which you ask for: [1]… records pertaining to the lawsuit and [2] Section 1. Subchapter 1 of chapter 1 of title 3 of the administrative code of the city of New York, section 3-119.5 (https://intro.nyc/local-laws/2022-35) With respect to item [1], your request for records is not reasonably described pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) as you have not identified the specific types of documents you are seeking pertaining to the lawsuit. Nonetheless, to the extent you are seeking records regarding the lawsuit, you may wish to direct this portion of your request to the NYC Law Department, a separate and distinct agency from the NYC Department of Education. With respect to item [2], a diligent search for records has been completed. Responsive records have been located and are accessible to the public via the following web links: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Algorithmic-Tools-Compliance-… yuem/data?no_mobile=true#:~:text=Under%20Local%20Law%2035%20of,datasets%20used%2 C%20and%20vendor%20involvement https://www.nyc.gov/content/oti/pages/reports This concludes the Records Access Unit’s response, and your request will be marked as “closed” in the Unit’s database as of the date of this letter. Any person denied access to a record may appeal the decision in writing within thirty days. Please state specific grounds for appeal and include copies of the initial request and the denial. Appeals should be sent to: Liz Vladeck, General Counsel, c/o Office of Legal Services, New York City Department of Education, 52 Chambers Street – Room 308, NY, NY 10007, FOIL(a)schools.nyc.gov. Gunnar Larson xNY.io – Bank.org May 23, 2024 Page | 2 Sincerely, Alina Novikova /s/ Alina Novikova Deputy Records Access Officer FOIL(a)schools.nyc.gov

1 0

NYC Mayor And Assault Accuser Spar Over Discovery 'Theatrics'
by Gunnar Larson 26 May '24

26 May '24

NYC Mayor And Assault Accuser Spar Over Discovery 'Theatrics' <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1840585?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Rachel Scharf The first conference in a lawsuit alleging New York City Mayor Eric Adams sexually assaulted a Police Department colleague in 1991 grew heated Thursday, as attorneys on both sides accused the others of improper discovery gambits. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1840585?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1840585?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 1

xNY.io - Bank.org | DOJ Memo #2 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 26 May '24

26 May '24

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10BYgCtCf9F7A4YnhN792cTBU6P-pfdaOg0UTRbt… February 1, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #2 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1329926/download> Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1 with our recent inquiry <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OsxfjN3TUepftKklopkQDSMwFWstWozuku4IPPu…> to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Deferred Agreement. Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery…> with the United States of America is in potential breach, with ethical enforcement being concerned. Memo #2 aims to associate the malfeasance in Malaysia with the Middle East. The Bank of London vs. The Bank of London and the Middle East - November 30, 2021 two New York based firms lead investment in The Bank of London based in the United Kingdom. - July 1, 2007 The Bank of London and the Middle East opened in the United Kingdom. - The Bank of London and the Middle East confirms they have no association with The Bank of London (correspondence referenced here <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLYO6qxOX5TIn0kPd69SQbvG-mn0I5R_/view?usp=…> ). The Bank of London seemingly has been funded from New York to irritate the Middle East. Recently, we made 91 highlights of research <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O2piNMJ3CI0wbfaFW33to3KhgOgZ8-dl/view?usp=…> associated with The Bank of London and the Middle East's recent sale to a firm in Kuwait. Harvey Schwartz is the Chairperson at The Bank of London, after spending over 20 years at Goldman Sachs Group, where he oversaw sales and trading, finance, technology, and operations. He completed his tenure as the firm’s President and Co-Chief Operating Officer. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1997 and subsequently held numerous senior leadership positions including Chief Financial Officer, Global Co-Head of the Securities Division, amongst other positions. He additionally served as a member of the firm’s Management Committee and co-headed its Risk Committee, Steering Committee on Regulatory Reform and Finance Committee. Mr. Schwartz established the firm’s Investment Policy Committee on which he also served as a member. It would appear that Mr. Schwartz has no friendly diplomatic agenda in London banking, potentially looking to profit off of The Bank of London and the Middle East. Furthermore, Goldman Sachs seemingly has a part in the scheme from New York. Bank of London and the Middle East is listed on the NASDAQ, Dubai. - Mr. Marzulli, during a recent telephone discussion together it was your general assessment that the Deferred Agreement in question was self policing. Can you kindly advise at your earliest convenience what (if any) DOJ systems, processes and control mechanisms are in place to monitor the purity of the Deferred Agreement? - Furthermore, if the Deferred Agreement is self-policing, can the DOJ kindly share any and all supporting material information that would prevent the agreement from being violated without the DOJ's general oversight? - Finally, we have made 28 highlights to Deferred Agreement <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yx88RMoeLyyfbNK0RtPl4r-m8N21_1Sp/view?usp=…> as a reference resource tool. Memo #1 and Memo #2 both outline instances that correspond with the associated highlight references. We are concerned that potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement are impacting our global enterprise. We are looking forward to learning more about the DOJ’s approach to assessing any potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement’s mandates. Respectfully yours with anticipation, 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

1 40