- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Fwd: CityCoins Tweeted: CityCoins are another tool in a city's toolbox. ...
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

Wow, MIA and NYCCoin are claiming to be 100x better than municipal bonds... With some sort of tax scheme of opportunity? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Twitter <info(a)twitter.com> Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:22 AM Subject: CityCoins Tweeted: CityCoins are another tool in a city's toolbox. ... To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FGunnarLarson…> <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F&t=1+1646976…> Your Highlights [image: CityCoins's avatar] CityCoins @mineCityCoins <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> CityCoins are another tool in a city's toolbox. CityCoins are a 100x improvement on municipal bonds. These bonds aren't held by citizens. They're issuing debt that falls on taxpayers to repay. That's tax from compulsion, not tax from opportunity. [image: reply] <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> 2 <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> [image: retweet] <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> 7 <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> [image: like] <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> 30 <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FmineCityCoin…> <https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FBigImpactHum…> -- *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

1 6

NuGenesis Seeks Litigation Funding for Claim Against FTX - Litigation Finance Journal
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

--- https://litigationfinancejournal.com/nugenesis-seeks-litigation-funding-for… NuGenesis (the purveyor of NuCoin), is reported to be exploring AI and litigation finance as investment tools in claims against FTX and Alameda Research’s alleged fraud. Cointelegraph characterizes NuGenesis as a well respected source for quality innovation in the digital asset ecosystem. After NuCoin was attacked by FTX, executives at NuGenesis began to employ AI technology to digest what could be happening behind the scenes at Alameda and the Japanese arm of FTX. Touted as ‘groundbreaking’ by Cointelegraph, NuGenesis’ crypto fraud detection software has been instrumental in uncovering alleged inconsistencies of fiduciary duty across FTX’s global enterprise. NuCoin is said to have tallied almost $55B in potential damages associated with potential FTX scams against the token. The FTX saga could yield new opportunities for litigation financiers in the crypto litigation space. As an added bonus, we have included 185 highlights to the Office of Legal Education’s “Prosecuting Computer Crimes” handbook for reference.

1 0

Fwd: MIA Coin and POX Kleptocracy: CORRUPTION FIN-2022-A001 - SAR 38(m).
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 4:38 PM Subject: MIA Coin and POX Kleptocracy: CORRUPTION FIN-2022-A001 - SAR 38(m). To: <Kleptocracy_Rewards(a)treasury.gov> Cc: <FRC(a)fincen.gov>, Alexi Anania <a(a)xny.io> Dear Department of the Treasury: >From the prompt of FinCEN's Resource Center, the details below are kindly submitted to your esteemed attention. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Sending you the very best regards. Thank you, Gunnar Larson -- *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: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 1:17 PM Subject: MIA Coin and POX Kleptocracy: CORRUPTION FIN-2022-A001 - SAR 38(m). To: <FRC(a)fincen.gov> Cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> Dear FinCEN: xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC thanks you for sending yesterday's advisory on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption. We have made 30 highlights to the FIN-2022-A001 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yF3qDQG19J-qN1vUPC36lQfVClq3HPXB/view?usp=…> advisory for reference. *The aim of today's memo is to learn FinCEN's insights into MIA Coin and the consensus algorithm Proof of Transfer (POX). xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC is concerned about potential MIA Coin and City Coin kleptocracy that may be affecting our global enterprise. * *FinCEN may note that NYCCoin is illegal in New York State, given the BitLicense mandate. As such, we are not concerned with NYCCoin's legality given the clear BitLicense mandate. * - On February 4, 2022 we submitted a City of Miami records request for any and all correspondence between the City of Miami concerning CityCoins, MIA Coin and Stacks (STX). Additionally, any and all related correspondence concerning CityCoins, MIA Coin, Stacks (STX), Digital World Acquisition Corp and Harvard Management Company. - Today, April 15, 2022 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OyVUBq8PcG7SVZ5lUp_oWyL0IDAR5uTP/view?usp=…> we have yet to receive the 13, 092 records. Attached you will find our latest correspondence with Miami, notifying them of our intention to contact FinCEN concerning MIA Coin and POX. - Conducting independent marketplace research, xNY.io - Bank.org, PBC established a premise to potential kleptocracy between the City of Miami and City Coins, of Iceland <https://who.is/whois/citycoins.co> international registration. Furthermore, MineMiamiCoin.com is registered in Germany <https://who.is/whois/minemiamicoin.com>. - Please find the City of Miami's resolution <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view?usp=…>approving gifts from City Coins ... Furthermore, City Coins suggests a $25,000 "reward" <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eb2Q-LZNApwQRyjbBcD5-_yEW0Id51QD/view?usp=…> (that may be confused as bribery) for Mayors who participate. MIA Coin is powered by POX <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wL2kN6aMfsyT-T7g01YJSBB8meMn2SWg/view?usp=…>, a computer protocol that may exploit the U.S. and international financial systems to launder illicit gains, including through the use of shell companies, offshore financial centers, and professional service providers who enable the movement and laundering. MIA Coin' POX protocol is a wealth extraction tool that unfairly rewards an inside group of miners, rewarding patronage networks that benefit his inner circle and regime. These practices harm the competitive landscape of financial markets and often have long-term corrosive effects on good governance, democratic institutions, and human rights standards. FinCEN, we are concerned Miami's City Coin <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrQwP46alrnQXRxIoXxm8kifZMVTRB_x/view> resolution potentially confirms Miami leaders as kleptocrats, using their position and influence to enrich themselves and their networks of corrupt actors. Finally, we understand that MIA Coin and POX operations are powered by international data warehouses, located in Iceland, Germany and Hong Kong. For these reasons, given FinCEN's alert on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption we kindly seek guidance. Sending you the very best regards. Thank you, Gunnar Larson -- *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 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network < fincenupdates(a)public.govdelivery.com> Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:46 PM Subject: FinCEN Updates: FinCEN Issues Advisory on Kleptocracy and Foreign Public Corruption To: <g(a)xny.io> *You are subscribed to FinCEN Updates. The information below is available at Fincen.gov.* *FinCEN Issues Advisory on Kleptocracy and Foreign Public Corruption* The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued an advisory on kleptocracy and foreign public corruption, urging financial institutions to focus their efforts on detecting the proceeds of foreign public corruption — a priority for the U.S. Government as it continues to implement the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVy…>. The advisory provides typologies and potential indicators of kleptocracy and other forms of foreign public corruption, namely bribery, embezzlement, extortion, and the misappropriation of public assets. *News Release:* https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-issues-advisory-kleptocrac… <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVy…> *Advisory: * https://www.fincen.gov/resources/advisories/fincen-advisory-fin-2022-a001 <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDIsInVy…>

1 6

Breaking News: Robinhood Rebrands as 'Libra'
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

*SILICON VALLEY - Embroiled in the naturally malevolent evolutionary controversy of brand fakery <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> in the name of manipulating humanity, Robinhood Markets (a financial services company) rocked the brand marketing world by finally coming to its senses while vindicating Mr. Hood’s legacy. The company has distanced itself from the old Robinhood firm image of “we take advantage of our customers” with a fresh rebrand as ‘Libra.’* *Celebrated humanitarian Richard Simmons applauded the name change. “Mr. Hood’s story of altruism is loved by young and old alike world-wide. Today Mr. Hood is vindicated from association to the former Robinhood’s tricky company shenanigans. The new ‘Libra’ image is a super smart act of serving our country well... I hope the all-stars at Bear Stearns will join me in congratulating the new ‘Libra’ brand,” Simmons said.* *The nature and timing of the brand change raised eyebrows in New York, a recent familiar reaction to news from our pal <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…>s from the Valley.Gleefully contemplating the long term impact on society, this reporter touts the courage of the real Mr. Hood for opposing forces similar to that of the former Robinhood.History will celebrate the newly minted Libra, which will be hailed for its valor in rebranding, even though it did so to escape the regulatory cloud that has hung over the Robinhood project since it first came into the public domain.(A Satirical Monograph on the News) *

1 2

Crypto Exchange OKX Inks F1 Mega Deal - Blockworks
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

https://blockworks.co/news/crypto-exchange-okx-inks-f1-mega-deal Crypto Exchange OKX Inks F1 Mega Deal Alliance with McLaren Racing includes branding at Crypto.com Miami Grand Prix, long-term collaborations in a deal worth hundreds of millions BYBEN STRACK <https://blockworks.co/author/benstrack>/ MAY 3, 2022 06:00 AM KEY TAKEAWAYS OKX has more than 20 million users across 180 markets Miami Grand Prix title sponsor Crypto.com became the first cryptocurrency sponsor of Formula 1 last year The upcoming Formula 1 race in Miami — already carrying the name of a crypto company — will also have a team sponsored by a competing firm in the space. Ahead of the Crypto.com Miami Grand Prix on May 8, exchange OKX has partnered with McLaren Racing in a multi-year deal worth “hundreds of millions,” a spokesperson told Blockworks. OKX branding will appear on McLaren cars during the event, as well as on the suits and helmets of McLaren F1 drivers Lando Norris and Daniel Ricciardo. “We choose our partners on the basis we can provide fans and users with meaningful experiences; we aren’t simply interested in brand exposure,” OKX Chief Marketing Officer Haider Rafique told Blockworks in an email. “We want to invest in the fans as well as our partners and lay a strong foundation for long-term future collaborations.” The deal comes shortly after Rafique joined OKX from competing exchange Okcoin. Before Okcoin, he was head of growth for Blockchain.com and was a head of product marketing at Microsoft. Rafique was a special adviser to the OKX executive team earlier this year and helped drive a multimillion-dollar partnership agreement with Manchester City. The company announced last month he will build a global marketing team to make crypto mainstream and lead the company’s international expansion efforts. OKX is the second-largest exchange by trading volume, according to data compiled by Blockworks, and reports having more than 20 million users across 180 markets. Crypto.com became the first cryptocurrency sponsor of Formula 1 in a reported $100 million deal, the company announced last June. It revealed in February that it would be the title sponsor of the Miami Grand Prix. Still, the deal is the first of its kind, an OKX spokesperson said, noting that no other crypto company has been the largest partner to a Formula 1 team before. Bybit in February became a “top tier ally” of Red Bull’s F1 team, behind title partner Oracle. “In a rapidly-evolving field, OKX is a long-established crypto brand that brings innovation, analytics and accuracy to accomplish great things,” McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown said in a statement. “The first-ever Miami Grand Prix is the perfect occasion for us to launch this significant partnership, through which we will collaborate with OKX to take our fan experience to all new levels.”

1 0

Justice Alito Warns of Threats to Freedom of Speech and Religion - The New York Times
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/politics/justice-alito-freedom-speech… In a commencement ceremony at a Catholic university, the justice said that fundamental principles were in peril at universities and American society. Listen to this article · 3:13 min Learn more Share full article Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in a black robe and a maroon tie. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has previously complained that people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are sometimes treated as bigots.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times Adam Liptak By Adam Liptak May 11, 2024 Sign up for the On Politics newsletter. Your guide to the 2024 elections. Get it sent to your inbox. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned on Saturday that freedom of speech was under threat at universities and that freedom of religion was in peril in society at large. “Troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles,” he said. He made his remarks at a commencement ceremony at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, a Catholic institution. “Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously, especially where it should find deepest acceptance,” he said. A university, he said, should be “a place for reasoned debate.” But he added that “today, very few colleges live up to that ideal.” The same is true, he said, for tolerance of religious views in society generally. “Freedom of religion is also imperiled,” he said. “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.” In other settings, Justice Alito has given a specific example, complaining that people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are sometimes treated as bigots. As the Supreme Court prepares to issue major decisions in the coming weeks, including ones on a criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump, abortion, gun rights and social media, members of its conservative majority have fanned out across the nation to offer varied takes on their work. At a judicial conference on Friday in Alabama, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke bitterly about being subjected to what he called “the nastiness and the lies.” The justice has been criticized for receiving lavish gifts and for failing to recuse himself from cases arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol despite his wife’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That same day, at a judicial conference in Texas, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh struck a sunnier tone, speaking of his dedication to neutral principles and the court’s efforts to find consensus. Those appearances were wide-ranging public conversations, while Justice Alito’s speech was brief and general. But it was laced with the justice’s characteristic pessimism. “It’s rough out there,” he said. “And, in fact, I think it is rougher out there right now than it has been for quite some time.” He received an extended standing ovation when a speaker introducing him noted that he had written the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion it had established. In his speech, Justice Alito said that respect for precedent, in law and life, was important. “If you read almost any opinion issued by a court in this country, you will see that the text is full of citations to past court decisions,” he said. “Those decisions, which we call precedents, are given great respect. They are not written in stone. Sometimes they must be changed, but they are not to be lightly discarded.” -- 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

1 0

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

Hong Kong and Singapore Litigation Investment Forecast <https://litigationfinancejournal.com/hong-kong-and-singapore-litigation-inv…> International arbitration has experienced an uptick in activity over the past decade, with litigation finance driving increased accessibility to quality arbitration outcomes. Hong Kong and Singapore have both passed regulations to authorize third party funding in each jurisdiction. New research sponsored <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, led by faculty of law professor Can Eken profiles Hong Kong and Singapore’s regulatory environment in granular detail. Eken compares and contrasts nuances between both markets, while asking what innovations Hong Kong and Singapore may embrace to further expand third party funding engagement across the international arbitration spectrum. Governments in Hong Kong and Singapore overwhelmingly embrace a ‘soft touch’ approach to litigation finance regulation. Forecasting the region’s growth prospects signal both Hong Kong and Singapore are in competition to be Asia’s arbitration capital, supported by friendly third party funding regulation. Eken suggests that with the high cost associated with international arbitration, viability is often framed by financial capacity. With such need, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as having pioneered international arbitration regulation, legalizing the use of third party funding agreements. As an added bonus, we have included 36 highlights <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqM4r9MPm7JDSBEo8QlHcG8uKDTrW13t/view?usp=…> to Eken’s 23 page essay for your general reference. -- *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

1 2

140 Highlights to BY ELECTRONICMAIL Jorge Dopico, Esq. Chief Attorney Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor New York, New York 10038 AD1-AGC-newcomplaints@nycourts.gov RE: Complaint by Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Against Attorney General Letitia Ann James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq.
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

LONG LIVE BRODY! Gunnar ---- 140 Highlights to BY ELECTRONICMAIL Jorge Dopico,Esq. Chief Attorney Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor New York, New York 10038 AD1-AGC-newcomplaints(a)nycourts.gov RE: Complaint by Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo Against Attorney General Letitia Ann James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOzEmOpxCBNfThWYqPPDaV0evqGFVFTd/view?usp=… A. INTRODUCTION. I am the 56th Governor of the State of New York and write to bring to the Attorney Grievance Committee’s (“Committee”)attention certain professional misconduct by New York Attorney General LetitiaAnn James (“AGJames” or the “Attorney General”),and two Special Deputies to the First Deputy Attorney General appointed by AG James, Joon Kim, Esq., and Anne Clark, Esq., to assist in an investigationof allegations of sexual harassment against me.1 The Complaint arises from the Office of the Attorney General’sinvestigationand related August 3, 2021“Report of InvestigationIntoAllegationsof Sexual HarassmentBy GovernorAndrewM. Cuomo” (the “Report”). A copy of the Report is attachedhereto as “ExhibitA.”

1 5

NH Atty Disbarred After Failed Try At Creating False Evidence
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

NH Atty Disbarred After Failed Try At Creating False Evidence <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1830043?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Emily Sawicki The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ordered the disbarment of an attorney who created false documents and later destroyed evidence in a years-long attempt to duck disciplinary proceedings over his alleged mishandling of client funds. Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1830043?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1830043?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

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 12 May '24

12 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