#attempt to defraud

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“HEAVY FINE FOR FALSE REGISTRATION,” Brantford Expositor. March 11, 1930. Page 2. ---- George De Palma Must Pay $200 or Go to Jail ---- A fine of $200 and costs or three months in jail was imposed this morning on George De Palma, 10 Sydenham street, for registering himself and a girl, under the age of 16 years, as Mr. and Mrs. Anderson at a local hotel. Magistrate Jones hears the plea of guilty and also listened to the youth's record. De Palma is out on suspended sentence for breaking and entering Ludlow Bros.' store one year ago last Christmas. He has been convicted twice on attempted burglary charges and was sent to the Industrial school for a sentence. on one of these occasions. The court passed sentence when it heard the record of the accused. The girl, being under the age of 16, will come before the Juvenile court. F. E. D. Wallace defended, pleading for a lenient view of the case.

The other couple, who made up a foursome at the hotel, will have the case heard to-morrow. A. H. Boddy, counsel, getting a further delay

[deadpresidents]

"What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 millions people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women's pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn't carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America's founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn't paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen."

-- "How Far Would He Go", TIME Magazine's interviews with Donald Trump, April 30, 2024.

I know we're saturated in coverage of Trump and it's easy (and probably better for our mental health) to usually ignore most of the articles when we see them, especially since he's so full of shit and infuriating. But it's also important to recognize that he is going to be the Republican nominee for President and he could absolutely be elected in November, and if you thought his first term was scary and dangerous, you need to understand that in a second term he's going to have people around him that are better prepared and VERY willing to do the crazy shit that he wants to do to this country. They aren't even hiding the fact that they are seeking vengeance against political opponents whom they feel have wronged them, and are ready to fundamentally dismantle the democratic foundations that are barely holding this country together after nearly 250 years.

Just look at what Trump says about the people who he incited to attack the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and halt the peaceful transfer of power that has happened every four years since 1789:

"Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. 'I call them the J-6 patriots,' he say. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, 'Yes, absolutely.' As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor."

Oh, and please note that Trump -- a former President of the United States and possible future President of the United States -- said on the record in these interviews with TIME: "There is a definite antiwhite feeling in the country and that can't be allowed either." We are at a point where political leaders are outright saying that in this country again, and it's because of Donald Trump.

So, take the time to recognize that Trump is straight-up telling us the country we're going to be living in if he wins again in November. And understand that your vote matters -- and WHO you vote for matters -- because, as I've been saying for years now, ELECTIONS HAVE FUCKING CONSEQUENCES.

[robpegoraro]

Attempted murder of democracy remains a crime

The Trump indictment made for some suprisingly unsettling reading, but we cannot forget that Trump and his fascism-curious minions really did stage orchestrated attempts to null out the ballots of millions of people.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they may yet grind whatever is left of Donald Trump’s reputation into radioactive dust. The 45th president’s arraignment Thursday on charges of overturning the 2020 election made him the 1,078th person to face charges tied to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection–but unquestionably the most important. And while United States of America v. Donald J. Trump represents…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Canonical enshittification

This is the Facebook playbook: you lure in publishers by promising them a traffic funnel ("post excerpts and links and we'll show them to people, including people who never asked to see them"), and then the rug-pull: "Post everything here, don't link to your own site. Become a commodity supplier to our platform. Abandon all your own ways of making money. Become entirely subject to the whims of our recommendation system."

Next will be: "We block links to other sites because they might be malicious."

Then some kind of "pivot to video."

Probably not video (though who knows?) but some other feature that a major rival has, which Twitter will attempt to defraud its captive, commodified suppliers into financing an entry into.

In case you were wondering, yes, this is canonical enshittification. Lure in business customers (publishers) by offering surpluses (algorithmic recommendation and an ensuing traffic funnel). Lock them in (by capturing their audience and blocking interop and logged-out reading).

Then rug the publishers, clawing back all the surpluses you gave them and more, draining them of all available capital and any margins they have, until they die or bite the bullet and leave.

I would also give good odds on this leading to a revivification of the "Pay us tens of thousands of dollars a month for a platinum checkmark and we'll actually show what you post to the people who asked to see it."

That will be pitched as the answer to publishers' complaints about not wanting to turn themselves into commodity Twitter inputs. It will be priced at the same (or more) as the revenues publishers expect to lose from being commodified, making it a wash.

All of this seems to me to be an "unfair and deceptive business practice" under Sec 5 of the FTC Act.

If I sign up to follow you because I want to see what you post, and Twitter shadowbans your posts unless they are formatted to maximize your dependence on Twitter, they have deceived me, and are being unfair to you.

This is *very* analogous to the Net Neutrality debate, where a platform blocks or deprioritizes the things its users ask to see, based on whether the suppliers of those things are its competitors.

I've written about how an end-to-end principle for social media could be enforced under Sec 5 of the FTCA, how it would address this kind of sleazy practice, how it would be easy to administer, and wouldn't form a barrier to entry for new market entrants:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/10/e2e/#the-censors-pen

[reasonsforhope]

Note: They're saying "alleged" because that's what journalists are supposed to do until there's a conviction. ABC isn't trying to cast doubt, they're trying to follow professional standards and also not get sued for libel.

"Former President Donald Trump, bent on staying in power, undertook a sweeping "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including repeatedly pushing lies about the results despite knowing that they were correct, and doubling down on those falsehoods as the Jan. 6 riot raged, a sweeping federal indictment alleges.

This is the third indictment faced by the former president, who -- as the Republican frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race -- continues to insist that the vote was rigged.

Prosecutors say the alleged scheme, which they say involved six unnamed co-conspirators, included enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors" targeting several states; using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations"; enlisting the vice president to "alter the election results"; and doubling down on false claims as the Jan. 6 riot ensued -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and stay in power.

The six alleged co-conspirators include several attorneys and a Justice Department official.

The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights...

In the history of the country, no president or former president had ever been indicted prior to Trump's first indictment in April."

-via ABC News, August 1, 2023

WE FUCKING DID IT

[qqueenofhades]

So it looks like Sinema, having gotten her requisite pound of flesh for her billionaire hedge fund buddies (basically, they agreed to keep the carried-interest tax loophole and replace it with an excise tax on stock buybacks), has finally agreed to support the Inflation Reduction Act, otherwise known as the $740 billion "pretty much Build Back Better but we are calling it something different" bill that Manchin and Schumer came out with. If/when it passes, which could be as soon as this weekend, the Democrats will have achieved -- with a 50-50 Senate with two habitual Manchurian candidates, a four-seat House majority, a rampantly fascist opposing party, a Supreme Court openly bent on destroying democracy and personal liberty, and an active criminal investigation into the previous administration -- at least the following:

The American Rescue Plan, aka the first post-inauguration $1.9 trillion Covid relief package, which was the largest investment in the working class since the New Deal;

The bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is the first major structural and transportation modernization and systemic overhaul for the country since the 1970s;

The first significant gun safety legislation in 30 years and since at least the Clinton administration;

Multiple executive orders now signed on protecting abortion rights and access to reproductive care, including travel out of state if necessary;

A bill in the works to officially codify same-sex marriage and thus protect it from SCOTUS;

Reauthorization and improvement of the Violence Against Women Act, including strong new protections for LGBTQ+ and Native American victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault, including the ability for Native courts to prosecute non-Native offenders for sex crimes for the first time in history;

Finally (FINALLY) making lynching a federal hate crime;

The largest climate legislation ever passed in America (this bill), which also establishes a federal minimum 15% corporate tax rate and lowers healthcare costs, including for essential medications like insulin, by, like, a lot;

Passage of the PACT Act, aka expanding healthcare for disabled veterans exposed to burn pits, also the biggest expansion in this field for a generation despite Republicans briefly killing it in an outburst of pettiness;

Consistent big packages of support for Ukraine, rebuilding of foreign alliances, huge bipartisan support for including Sweden and Finland in NATO (hahahaha fuck you Josh Hawley);

The CHIPS act, which creates tech and manufacturing jobs in America and was made even sweeter by how thoroughly they fucked over McTurtle to do it (since oh boy does he deserve a taste of his own medicine);

Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on SCOTUS, and not an awful white supremacist stand-in like Clarence Thomas, but a genuinely progressive and thoughtful jurist;

Cancellation of almost $6 billion in student loans for the poorest and most defrauded borrowers, such as those who attended scam for-profit "colleges";

And so on and so forth!!!

So like. Please tell me more about how the Democrats are incompetent, their leadership is bad, they are in Disarray TM, you are a terrible person if you support Biden or give them any credit at all, and you're just not excited to vote because they haven't done anything. Like yes! There is a lot more to do! Despite them suddenly deciding to play ball on this particular occasion, Manchin and Sinema still need to be made irrelevant as soon as possible! But as I said, this is happening with the thinnest of imaginable Congressional control, as the other party is literally trying to destroy democracy in real time before our faces. That is not irrelevant.

Also: ruby-red Kansas curb-stomped an attempt to outlaw abortion rights, and approximately 77% of the entire country supports this current bill. The generic Congressional ballots have all shown major movement toward Democrats, and frankly, I have a feeling that we have only just started to see the full impact of post-Roe fallout. So if you get off your asses, quit whining, and put the work in, we could actually win the midterms and then do EVEN MORE!

So yeah. Uh. Food for thought.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Forget hush money payments to porn stars hidden as business expenses. Forget showing off classified documents about Iran attack plans to visitors, and then ordering the pool guy to erase the security tapes revealing that he was still holding on to documents that he had promised to return. Forget even corrupt attempts to interfere with election results in Georgia in 2020.

The federal indictment just handed down by special counsel Jack Smith is not only the most important indictment by far of former President Donald Trump. It is perhaps the most important indictment ever handed down to safeguard American democracy and the rule of law in any U.S. court against anyone.

For those who have been closely following Trump’s attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, there was little new information contained in the indictment. In straightforward language with mountains of evidence, the 45-page document explains how Trump, acting with six (so far unnamed, but easily recognizable) co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to repeatedly make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, and to use those false claims as a predicate to try to steal the election. The means of election theft were national, not just confined to one state, as in the expected Georgia prosecution. And they were technical—submitting alternative slates of presidential electors to Congress, and arguing that state legislatures had powers under the Constitution and an old federal law, the Electoral Count Act, to ignore the will of the state’s voters.

But Trump’s corrupt intent was clear: He was repeatedly told that the election was not stolen, and he knew that no evidence supported his outrageous claims of ballot tampering. He nonetheless allegedly tried to pressure state legislators, state election officials, Department of Justice officials, and his own vice president to manipulate these arcane, complex election rules to turn himself from an election loser into an election winner. That’s the definition of election subversion.

He’s now charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to willfully deprive citizens the right to vote, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and obstructing that official proceeding. If you’re doing the math, that is four new counts on top of the dozens he faces in the classified documents case in Florida and the hush money case in New York.

So far Trump has not been accountable for these actions to try to steal an American election. Although the House impeached Trump for his efforts soon after they occurred, the Senate did not convict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in voting against conviction in the Senate despite undeniable evidence of attempted election subversion by his fellow Republican, pointed to the criminal justice system as the appropriate place to serve up justice. But the wheels of justice have turned very slowly. Reports say that Attorney General Merrick Garland was at first too cautious about pursuing charges against Trump despite Trump’s unprecedented attack on our democracy. Once Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to handle Trump claims following the release of seemingly irrefutable evidence that Trump broke laws related to the handling of classified documents, the die was cast.

It is hard to overstate the stakes riding on this indictment and prosecution. New polling from the New York Times shows that Trump not only has a commanding lead among those Republicans seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2024; he remains very competitive in a race against Joe Biden. After nearly a decade of Trump convincing many in the public that all charges against him are politically motivated, he’s virtually inoculated himself against political repercussions for deadly serious criminal counts. He’s miraculously seen a boost in support and fundraising after each indictment (though recent signs are that the indictments are beginning to take a small toll). One should not underestimate the chances that Donald Trump could be elected president in 2024 against Joe Biden—especially if Biden suffers any kind of health setback in the period up to the election—even if Trump is put on trial and convicted of crimes.

A trial is the best chance to educate the American public, as the Jan. 6 House committee hearings did to some extent, about the actions Trump allegedly took to undermine American democracy and the rule of law. Constant publicity from the trial would give the American people in the middle of the election season a close look at the actions Trump took for his own personal benefit while putting lives and the country at risk. It, of course, also serves the goals of justice and of deterring Trump, or any future like-minded would-be authoritarian, from attempting any similar attack on American democracy ever again.

Trump now has two legal strategies he can pursue in fighting these charges, aside from continuing to attack the prosecutions as politically motivated. The first strategy, which he will no doubt pursue, is to run out the clock. It’s going to be tough for this case to go to trial before the next election given that it is much more factually complex than the classified documents or hush money cases. There are potentially hundreds of witnesses and theories of conspiracies that will take much to untangle. Had the indictment come any later, I believe a trial before November 2024 would have been impossible. With D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan—a President Barack Obama appointee who has treated previous Jan. 6 cases before her court with expedition and seriousness—apparently in charge of this case, there is still a chance to avoid a case of justice delayed being justice denied.

If Trump can run out the clock before conviction and be reelected, though, he can get rid of Jack Smith and appoint an attorney general who will do his bidding. He could even try to pardon himself from charges if elected in 2024 (a gambit that may or may not be legal). He could then sic his attorney general on political adversaries with prosecutions not grounded in any evidence, something he has repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.

Trump’s other legal strategy is to argue that prosecutors cannot prove the charges. For example, the government will have to prove that Trump not only intended to interfere with Congress’ fair counting of the electoral college votes in 2020 but also that Trump did so “corruptly.” Trump will put his state of mind at issue, arguing that despite all the evidence, he had an honest belief the election was being stolen from him.

He also will likely assert First Amendment defenses. As the indictment itself notes near the beginning, “the Defendant has a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.” But Trump did not just state the false claims; he allegedly used the false claims to engage in a conspiracy to steal the election. There is no First Amendment right to use speech to subvert an election, any more than there is a First Amendment right to use speech to bribe, threaten, or intimidate.

Putting Trump before a jury, if the case can get that far before the 2024 elections, is not certain to yield a conviction. It carries risks. But as I wrote last year in the New York Times, the risks to our system of government of not prosecuting Donald Trump are greater than the risks of prosecuting him.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the conduct of this prosecution will greatly influence whether the U.S. remains a thriving democracy after 2024.

[i-am-the-oyster]

The total insanity of the Mills years and their immediate fallout is highly underrated - possibly Paul's most unhinged period, or second-most after 1968. Engagement ring hurling. Putin! Sporadic relationship cuteness that results in some certified bops but overall incredibly bizarre vibes. Celebrity Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? still completely blows my mind. He is charming, competitive, and viscerally uncomfortable with the whole enterprise. David Blaine being a cunt in a box!! Agreeing to aver on her website that it is 100% his own decision to dye his hair and that nothing has ever been HM's fault ever in her entire life. Unsatisfactory office space!! Paul randomly whipping For No One, Fixing a Hole, and Too Many People out of the vault while touring in '05! Whatever the fuck was going on with Riding to Vanity Fair!! Arguing about seal pups with the premier of Newfoundland on Larry King Live and then almost immediately afterwards bailing on the Entire Marriage!! Alleged Paul inexplicably being annoyed about breast-feeding. (Don't buy that one - largely bc I think Linda would have punted him directly into the sun if he'd tried that shit with her and it seems weird that he'd Forget how such things worked.) Alleged wine bottle shiv. (Again, I don't believe that actually happened, but Insane notwithstanding!!) That summer in the Hamptons when he got together with Nancy but first apparently shagged - or at least dated - every other available woman there. Rosanna Arquette clearly not holding anything against him for this, so I guess that ended well. HM's total meltdown live on British television that happens to coincide with the Nancy relationship getting serious, though no one put that together at the time. The mysterious "box of evidence" whose existence fluctuates, seemingly, with HM's moods. The entire divorce judgment (not a self-plug I swear it). HM attempting to defraud MPL via phony mortgage??? Exorbitant flower budgets!! HM insisting she only guest-hosted Larry King Live once and trying to gaslight me specifically, I guess!! (It was three times. I swear to god it was three. I watched them all out of an attempt at loyalty.) Lavatory Lil suddenly manifesting a decade later!!

It was relentlessly cuckoo bananas! No one remembers it! No one talks about it! I alone, seemingly, must bear all this cursed knowledge!!

Ahem. Sorry. The Fidelity advert triggered something in me. I'll hush now, lol.

This poetry requires no additions from me.

[ot3]

heyooo long time follower first time asker i just wanted to let u know u might want to take down ur reblog of that post about elizabeth holmes - her and her company theranos were grifters whose tech had no scientific basis and never functioned, and it led to a lot of inaccurate and traumatizing results on blood tests for patients, as well as some pretty horrifying employee abuses in an attempt to keep the faults in their machines under wraps 😬 if i remember correctly she went extremely to court for defrauding investors... it's actually a fascinating story but probably not one you'd want on ur blog without caveat. just a heads up ✌️

This ask is so funny....i promise you I know who Elizabeth holmes is. The thing is that original post was NOT joking it was 100% sincere but made like ten years ago when there was peak hype for theranos. The reason it's still going around is because of how nightmarishly it has aged. Hence ther heritage post tag I gave it

[lya-dustin]

The Dornish Princess

(Part ii of the Dornish Princess)

Cw: mentions of sex, fantasizing of murder, attempted murder via drowning

Fool.

That is the new name he was given.

Fool.

Fool for trusting you, for believing your words and a worse fool for loving you.

He cannot chase you and kill you for your betrayal, he was the regent and he must deal with the fall out of his own fucking foolishness.

With his brother at the Stranger’s door and no money to continue the war, his campaign into the Riverlands is postponed.

Postponed being a nicer word for it.

They are to surrender to his whore sister and bastard heirs and beg for mercy.

The negotiations had begun and Aemond has requested exile over death. He would never set foot in Westeros for as long as Rhaenyra lives.

No matter, after he gets his hands on you, it will he worth it.

Aliandra Martell offered her hand in marriage should he bring her your head.

Prince Consort of Dorne is good consolation reward.

His exile isn’t the terrible thing his mother thinks it is, his change of scenery matters not when he hunts you down.

He will enjoy killing you, he dreams of seeing the life leave your indigo eyes as he avenges his honor.

Aemond follows your trail even when he takes up the occupation of sword fro hire as Daemon once did. He hears how you defrauded a Braavosi key holder, how you robbed Sharako Lohar blind and just recently, drove the Rogares of Lys to complete and utter ruin.

Word had come from the spymasters that you lived in Volantis in a manse behind the Black Wall. You’d overstay your welcome once the lord you flatter with your serpent’s tongue and poison him with kisses as sweet as honey.

Where would you go from then? You weren’t welcome anywhere anymore.

You could never go home just as he can’t either.

He disguises himself as a servant, a slave rather. The Valyrian looks so coveted in Westeros were as common as horse shit in Essos. Even slaves had silver hair and purple eyes.

Something he’d learned to exploit as he earned his pay with blood.

Something he’ll exploit to finally end you.

You aren’t Y/N Sand nor Coryanne Martell here. You are merely a wealthy widow enjoying the fruits of your labor.

He stalks into your bath quietly, you assuming it is another servant carrying your hot flowery water pay no mind to him.

You are far more beautiful than he remembered, you grew into your looks just as he went from youth to man these years past.

Five years ago, you ruined his life and made damn sure you would never be forgotten.

“I will wash my own hair tonight.” You say as he takes your dark braid in his hands. Within a heart beat he’s holding your face under the water as he fulfills every fantasy he’s had these five long years.

“Did you miss me, Y/N?” he asks taunting you when he lets you come up for air.

“Not as much as you did, husband.” You gasp and sputter with a laugh. As if you’d known he’d come. “Took you long enough, Aemond the Fool.”

He narrowed his eye and wished he could just drown you in your tub and be done with it. But he doesn’t. He is still the fool he was at nineteen at twenty-four.

“Join me, you reek of dragon.” You say as you gather your bearings and pretend nothing had happened.

He could kill you later, hot water was a luxury even in this warm winter. A good fuck and a hot bath seemed like a better send off you deserved, but Aemond has stopped being so picky with whores these years.

“You need me for a scheme don’t you?” he concludes aa you wash his body with the same soaps you had used. You had done this before, back when he loved you and you ensnared him in your trap.

You had felt divine then, your soft caresses, your sweet lips and the oh so tight cunny you sheathed his cock with.

You haunted him till this fucking day, even after trying to forget you with every willing woman he could find. Not even the Red Priestess with her knowledge of the seven sighs couldn’t erase you out of his mind.

“A final one, an apology from me to you.” You say coming close enough to kiss him stupid.

He’d let you, only if your scheme is good enough for him.

“As if I’d believe anything that comes from your mouth, y/n.” he scoffed and yet snaked his arms around your waist to pull you onto his lap.

He'll discard of you once he is sated, your pretty head was worth as much as this manse. A place close to home too.

“Oh trust me, what I will show you will speak for itself, my sweet prince.” You whisper before leaving the bath all together.

The sight waiting for him in your rooms leaves him without words.

Sharing a room and the distinctive looks of House Targaryen, a boy of five and a boy of eight hold on to plush dragons. The younger a green as Vhagar and the other as red as Caraxes.

His child and Rhaenyra’s lost son, presumably.

“Lysandro bought Viserys from his captors and sought to ransom him back to your family along with my son. I don’t bite unless I have to, dearest husband.” You admit with a hard edge to your soft voice. Somehow he believes you.

“What do you want?” Aemond cannot do anything but stare at the boys, his more than his nephew.

His hair is silver and sleek as his is, a faint smattering of freckles like the ones he had as a boy and his mother’s wicked mouth pouting in his sleep.

“That you recognize Aelyx as trueborn, we were married in truth and he shouldn’t carry the stain of bastardry when he is innocent.” You speak honestly, as if you knew your luck had run out. “Take Viserys and my wealth and negotiate your return to your home. It should be more than what I stole from you.”

If you knew he hadn’t thought of killing you since you showed him his son, you’d think your hold on him was as strong as it was then.

Perhaps it was.

Damn you. Damn you to the seven hells for making a fool out of him.

The following morning he writes home saying he’d found his errant wife and a treasure greater than all the gold in Volantis.

If Rhaenyra lifted his exile, he’d personally deliver Viserys to her.

Aemond the Kinslayer gets a hero’s welcome despite being foolish enough to forgive you and wed you in truth.

But you are not content with just being his wife and the wealth you amassed. No, you like your husband were cursed with ambition.

“Have you ever considered conquering Dorne, your grace?” you ask Queen Rhaenyra who owes you the life of her youngest son even if Aemond took the life of her second born.

[mywingsareonwheels]

PSA for lovely immigrants to the UK on here

My partner just got a scam call with an automated robot voice claiming there was a problem with their visa.

(Specific wording: "hello, immigration bureau. There is a problem with your visa.")

The number called from was 07359830478.

Fortunately for us, neither of us is an immigrant to the UK so we didn't even need to think about taking it seriously. Partner just hung up. But we're both hating the idea of actual immigrants getting that call, especially a refugee, anyone else in a vulnerable position, and/or anyone whose English and/or tech knowledge isn't that confident. :-( But even someone who can work out it's a scam pretty fast might get an unneeded anxiety jolt, and immigrants to here get a rough enough fucking time as it is. :(

We reported the number as spam; looks like we can't report it as a scam as we didn't lose money, it was just very obviously the opening gambit of an attempt to defraud.

I'd be tremendously grateful if some of you could reblog. The more people forewarned that this kind of nonsense is happening the better.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Scenes in Toronto When Brokerage Offices are Raided,” North Bay Nugget. January 31, 1930. Page 1. ---- General scene of clerks carrying out box\xes from one of the brokerage firms of Toronto, where members were arrested on charges of conspiracy, bail being placed at $100,000. The drive is the biggest clean-up in stock brokerage business in the history of Canada and comes as a real sensation.  //// “Trading in Mining Stocks at Standstill Following Arrests of Prominent Stock Brokers,” North Bay Nugget. January 31, 1930. Page 1. === All Brokers' Assets Are Seized by the Government ---- Toronto, Jan. 31 - (By Canadian Press.) - Thousands of investors in mining securities having margin accounts with five large brokerage firms, whose active heads and chief employes were arrested yesterday on charges of conspiracy to defraud, awaited business on Standard Stock and Mining Exchange today with feelings akin to fear. On one hand developments were regarded as constructive in that the air would be cleared of rumors concerning brokerage methods indulged in by some operators which for months have been bandied back and forth in down-town circles. Elsewhere it was feared that stock holders would become panic stricken and throw their holdings overboard.

Are In Daze Toronto Jan 31 - (By Canadian Press) - Thousands of margin holders of mining stocks in many parts of Canada are wondering today precisely where they stand following the action yesterday by the Ontario Government in arresting the leading broker members of the Standard Stock and Mining Harhange seizing the companies books refusing their representatives the trading privileges on the floor and throwing at least one firm into the hands of a receiver

Assets Are Held Holders of mining stocks on margin are wondering if they can redeem stock held by the companies over which the government has taken control by furnishing collateral to purchase the stocks outright Hon. W.H. Price, Ontario Attorney General, said in connection with this matter last night. ‘It is not our position to decide just what in done with this collateral. We stepped in, seized every thing and prevented the possibility of transference. All these assets are now held by a Tilly, Johnston and Parmenter one of Canada's outstanding legal firms, and Messrs. Clarkson and Edwards, two of the most competent accountants in the province, will study the conditions of the firms and the action that will be taken in the interest of the clients.

Must Make Claim “I there are persons, as there undoubtedly are who state they own certain stock or collateral, let them make their claim. These claims in due course will be investigated and the claimants delivered their property.” ////

300 Affected Here By Development Yesterday Many of those who had thronged the offices of North Bay's brokerage houses at the height of the "bull" movement in the mining stocks last summer, assembled yesterday. afternoon in front of The Nugget store and read with avidity, the Toronto dispatch chronicling the arrests of nine brokers and the confiscation of their books by the police.

News Spread Rapidly Following the posting of the bulletin, the news travelled quickly and group after group arrived at the store to get the news first hand. Among those who were noticed in the crowd who eagerly scanned the news, were men prominent in the life of the city. Old and young seemed to be alike, keenly interested. Bankers rubbed shoulders with doctors, merchants or lawyers, while railwaymen laughed and joked with each other and speculated on the possible fate of the nine who have been added to the long list of brokers who have been called to the bar of justice to give an accounting of their transactions.

300 Involved Here Speaking to The Nugget this afternoon, a man who is conversant with the situation here, estimated that approximately 300 North Bay traders are affected by the events of the past few days. He added that there are about 50 traders here with accounts ranging from $2,000 to $10,000. One man who had an investment of $10.000 demanded his certificates four days ago, after he had been put off repeatedly by promises He only received them yesterday, and considers himself indeed fortunate.

The Nugget's informant also feels that the present situation is not a case of insolvency but that all will eventually get their money, or its equivalent.

Might Have Been Worse All are agreed, however, that had the debacle occurred six months ago, the number whose holdings would have been jeopardized in North Bay would have been close to a thousand. For some time past the feeling has existed here that the showdown has been delayed too long. Now that it has come, many are resigned to the worst, the nervous tension having been lessened.

It is alleged that orders to purchase stocks placed with certain brokerage houses were never executed and that in some instances, brokers used their client’s money to "bear” down the stock. For instance, a man decided to buy 100 shares of Teck-Hughes at say, $8 per share on margin. He would put up $300 as collateral, the broker advancing the balance. If there was a wide public "play" in this stock, the brokers would use their client's money to bear down the stock, until the man who had invested $300 would have little left and would eventually be sold out, if he could not answer the call for additional margin.

Bankers when asked to comment on the situation here, were inclined to be reticent. One felt that it would be a breach of faith for him to answer the questions that were put to him by The Nugget Questioned as to whether cheques of certain brokerage houses were being honored, he said that this, too, was a confidential matter He added, however, that "some are not being honored.”

Another bank manager said that as long as a patron had funds in his bank, his cheques would be honored. unless a government "hold" order was issued.

Belated Action Another man who has been a heavy trader said that the Alberta government should be given credit for starting the ball rolling in the investigation of the brokerage houses, by the issuance of warrants for the arrests of Solloway and Mills. He felt that the action in Ontario has been more or less belated. ////

Brokerage Situation at a Glance ---- Nine Toronto brokers arrested on charges of conspiracy to defraud the public. All released on bail of $100,000 until Feb. 7. Three material witnesses arrested in connection with these cases were released on bail of $25.000.

Warrants have been issued by Attorney General Price of Ontario, for arrest of I.W.C. Solloway and Harvey Mills, head of the coast to coast firm of that name. These will be served when the pair have faced charge preferred by the Alberta Goverment under the security frauds prevention act.

Montreal authorities hold warrants from Ontario Government for arrest of W. J. Wray, Toronto.

D.S. Patterson and Co. A. E. Moysey and Co., Stobie, Forlong and Co., Holloway Mills and Co. and Homer L Gibson and Co., are the firms involved in today's arrests.

All these companies have had their trading privileges suspended on the Standard Stock and Mining Exchange.

Solloway Mills and Co. and Stobie, Forlong and Co. had their trading privileges suspended on the Vancouver Exchange. The former company voluntarily withdrew its traders from the Calgary Exchange.

Stobie, Forlong and Co. made a voluntary assignment at Osgoode halll.

Hon W. H Price said he is waiting further information from Ottawa regarding the brokerage situation there.

Clients purchasing stocks on margin from companies over which the government took control will have their claims protected, Mr. Price announced.

The Manitoba Government attached banking accounts of a number of brokers in that province and added to the list of companies under survey by province and appointed auditors. The Government also initiated an audit in the Winnipeg office of Solloway & Mills and Stobie, Forlong, Matthews Limited

Heavy Bail Demanded Toronto, Jan. 31. (By Canadian Press) The complete list of brokers and employes under arrest is as follows:

Maurice E. Young of Homer Gibson and Co.

William J. Smart of Homer Gibson and Co.

D.S. Paterson of D. S. Paterson and Co.

Austin Campbell of D. S. Paterson and Co.

Edgar E. McLean of D. S. Paterson and Co.

James J. Heppleston of A. E. Moysey and Co.

W. J. Shutt of A. E. Moysey and Co.

Malcolm Stobie of Stobie. Forlong and Co.

C. J. Forlong of Stobie, Forlong and Co.

George Kimmerley of Solloway, Mill and Co.

Max Engles of Stobie, Forlong and Co.

Gordon Traper of Stobie, Forlong and Co.

The first nine listed above have been released on bail on $100,000 each while the last three were released on bail of $25,000 each.

[odinsblog]

George Santos:

• Lied about his mother being a victim of the 9/11 attacks despite living in Brazil

• Lied about being Jewish

• Lied about his grandparents surviving the Holocaust

• Lied about having employees killed in the Pulse Nightclub shooting

• Lied about graduating from Baruch College

• Lied about being the star of the Baruch volleyball team

• Lied about getting his MBA at NYU

• Lied about working at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup

• Lied about his employment at LinkBridge Investors

• Worked at an investment firm accused by the SEC of being a Ponzi scheme

• Charged in Brazil with credit card fraud

• Lied about being a landlord and owning 13 properties

• Lied about founding an animal charity and personally pocketed donations

• Stole money from a disabled vet whose dog was dying

• Accused of writing bad checks to purchase puppies, then selling the puppies

• Indicted on 2 counts of wire fraud

• Indicted on 2 counts of making materially false statements to the FEC

• Indicted on 2 counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC

• Indicted on 2 counts of aggravated identity theft

• Indicted on 1 count of access device fraud

• Accused of skimming credit cards from ATM machines in Seattle

• Defrauded donors and had them donate $50k to his LLC instead of his campaign

• Invented campaign donors, and some donors claimed to not have donated

• Spent campaign funds on personal expenses like Sephora, Hermes, OnlyFans and Botox

• Collected $24k in unemployment benefits while employed in 2020 and 2021

• Stole the identity of family members

• Used campaign donors’ credit card info to make additional campaign donations

• Submitted fraudulent campaign finance filings to the FEC

• Lied about personal loans to his campaign to inflate his fundraising numbers

• Reimbursed himself for loans he didn’t make

• Lied about his marriage and divorce to a woman

• Was a drag queen in Brazil

• Claimed he was the target of an assassination attempt

• Lied about acting in Hannah Montana and Suite Life of Zack & Cody

• Lied about acting in a movie with Uma Thurman

• Lied about helping to produce Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark

• Lied about being a journalist and executive for Brazilian media giant Globo

After Santos himself, I I really put the bulk of the blame on the DNC + DCCC for not finding out about even a quarter of these huge ass lies until he was already in office. (Sorry, but the Republican Party ain’t gonna do it).

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The surveillance advertising to financial fraud pipeline

Monday (October 2), I'll be in Boise to host an event with VE Schwab. On October 7–8, I'm in Milan to keynote Wired Nextfest.

Being watched sucks. Of all the parenting mistakes I've made, none haunt me more than the times my daughter caught me watching her while she was learning to do something, discovered she was being observed in a vulnerable moment, and abandoned her attempt:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2014/may/09/cybersecurity-begins-with-integrity-not-surveillance

It's hard to be your authentic self while you're under surveillance. For that reason alone, the rise and rise of the surveillance industry – an unholy public-private partnership between cops, spooks, and ad-tech scum – is a plague on humanity and a scourge on the Earth:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

But beyond the psychic damage surveillance metes out, there are immediate, concrete ways in which surveillance brings us to harm. Ad-tech follows us into abortion clinics and then sells the info to the cops back home in the forced birth states run by Handmaid's Tale LARPers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/29/no-i-in-uter-us/#egged-on

And even if you have the good fortune to live in a state whose motto isn't "There's no 'I" in uter-US," ad-tech also lets anti-abortion propagandists trick you into visiting fake "clinics" who defraud you into giving birth by running out the clock on terminating your pregnancy:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/15/paid-medical-disinformation/#crisis-pregnancy-centers

The commercial surveillance industry fuels SWATting, where sociopaths who don't like your internet opinions or are steamed because you beat them at Call of Duty trick the cops into thinking that there's an "active shooter" at your house, provoking the kind of American policing autoimmune reaction that can get you killed:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/swatting-sentence-casey-viner/index.html

There's just a lot of ways that compiling deep, nonconsensual, population-scale surveillance dossiers can bring safety and financial harm to the unwilling subjects of our experiment in digital spying. The wave of "business email compromises" (the infosec term for impersonating your boss to you and tricking you into cleaning out the company bank accounts)? They start with spear phishing, a phishing attack that uses personal information – bought from commercial sources or ganked from leaks – to craft a virtual Big Store con:

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/business-email-compromise

It's not just spear-phishers. There are plenty of financial predators who run petty grifts – stock swindles, identity theft, and other petty cons. These scams depend on commercial surveillance, both to target victims (e.g. buying Facebook ads targeting people struggling with medical debt and worried about losing their homes) and to run the con itself (by getting the information needed to pull of a successful identity theft).

In "Consumer Surveillance and Financial Fraud," a new National Bureau of Academic Research paper, a trio of business-school profs – Bo Bian (UBC), Michaela Pagel (WUSTL) and Huan Tang (Wharton) quantify the commercial surveillance industry's relationship to finance crimes:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31692

The authors take advantage of a time-series of ZIP-code-accurate fraud complaint data from the Consumer Finance Protection Board, supplemented by complaints from the FTC, along with Apple's rollout of App Tracking Transparency, a change to app-based tracking on Apple mobile devices that turned of third-party commercial surveillance unless users explicitly opted into being spied on. More than 96% of Apple users blocked spying:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/

In other words, they were able to see, neighborhood by neighborhood, what happened to financial fraud when users were able to block commercial surveillance.

What happened is, fraud plunged. Deprived of the raw material for committing fraud, criminals were substantially hampered in their ability to steal from internet users.

While this is something that security professionals have understood for years, this study puts some empirical spine into the large corpus of qualitative accounts of the surveillance-to-fraud pipeline.

As the authors note in their conclusion, this analysis is timely. Google has just rolled out a new surveillance system, the deceptively named "Privacy Sandbox," that every Chrome user is being opted in to unless they find and untick three separate preference tickboxes. You should find and untick these boxes:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/how-turn-googles-privacy-sandbox-ad-tracking-and-why-you-should

Google has spun, lied and bullied Privacy Sandbox into existence; whenever this program draws enough fire, they rename it (it used to be called FLoC). But as the Apple example showed, no one wants to be spied on – that's why Google makes you find and untick three boxes to opt out of this new form of surveillance.

There is no consensual basis for mass commercial surveillance. The story that "people don't mind ads so long as they're relevant" is a lie. But even if it was true, it wouldn't be enough, because beyond the harms to being our authentic selves that come from the knowledge that we're being observed, surveillance data is a crucial ingredient for all kinds of crime, harassment, and deception.

We can't rely on companies to spy on us responsibly. Apple may have blocked third-party app spying, but they effect nonconsensual, continuous surveillance of every Apple mobile device user, and lie about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

That's why we should ban commercial surveillance. We should outlaw surveillance advertising. Period:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/ban-online-behavioral-advertising

Contrary to the claims of surveillance profiteers, this wouldn't reduce the income to ad-supported news and other media – it would increase their revenues, by letting them place ads without relying on the surveillance troves assembled by the Google/Meta ad-tech duopoly, who take the majority of ad-revenue:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

We're 30 years into the commercial surveillance pandemic and Congress still hasn't passed a federal privacy law with a private right of action. But other agencies aren't waiting for Congress. The FTC and DoJ Antitrust Divsision have proposed new merger guidelines that allow regulators to consider privacy harms when companies merge:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0043-1569

Think here of how Google devoured Fitbit and claimed massive troves of extremely personal data, much of which was collected because employers required workers to wear biometric trackers to get the best deal on health care:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/google-fitbit-merger-would-cement-googles-data-empire

Companies can't be trusted to collect, retain or use our personal data wisely. The right "balance" here is to simply ban that collection, without an explicit opt-in. The way this should work is that companies can't collect private data unless users hunt down and untick three "don't spy on me" boxes. After all, that's the standard that Google has set.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/29/ban-surveillance-ads/#sucker-funnel

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[soberscientistlife]

Donald Trump has been INDICTED on FOUR CRIMINAL COUNTS for his 2020 election interference.

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)

Count 2: 18 U.S. C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)

Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)

Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights)

💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻

[literary-illuminati]

Book Review 39 – Lying for Money: How Legendary Frauds Reveal the Workings of the World

This is one of those books I��d heard mentioned in a dozen different places before I finally decided to read it. I think it was the review in Thing of Things that finally pushed me over the edge and convinced me to read it myself? Very happy I did, even if I had a severe case of deja vu reading a few particular passages (and even if it does suffer from a few of the usual pop nonfiction issues at times).

The title gets across the substance of the book clearly enough; this is, to paraphrase the author, a work of counter-economics. That is, an attempt to illuminate the workings of an advanced capitalist economy by showcasing the sorts of crimes that take advantage of its complexity and parsitize it. It’s nowhere near as dry or academic as all that, of course (Davies keeps up a chatty, conversational sort of tone throughout, and takes every chance to dunk on academic economics as a discipline that presents itself); most of the meat of the book is case studies and anecdotes of particularly famous or illuminating frauds, which are all great reading. Honestly reading about con artists is so fun I should really feel guiltier about how hypocritical my disdain for more traditional true crime is.

The books, if not central thesis, then definitely on of the main things it keeps coming back to, is that the optimal level of fraud in an economy is higher than zero. Fraud is fundamentally an abuse of trust, after all, and if no one’s trust is getting abused, then that probably means that an unjustifiable amount of resources are being spent checking up on every possible thing, and a great deal of productive work isn’t getting done because people are too paranoid to work with each other.

The term Davies uses is the Canadian Paradox. Which is the fact (anecdote, popular wisdom, whatever) that Canada, with its mostly trustworthy institutions and rule of law and developed financial system, has vastly more fraud than, say, Greek shipping (I don’t know why specifically Greek and specifically shipping. Specifically Canada because in the ‘90s the Vancouver Stock Exchange was apparently the most full of scams and fakes in the world). The reason for this being that Canadian investors more or less assume that anyone with a stock listing is probably on the level, because they’re usually right; Greek shipowners, by contrast, absolutely expect to get screwed over if they leave themselves vulnerable, and so do business exclusively with people who they have strong relationships and embedded social ties with. The overwhelmingly intended takeaway being that the Canadian equilibrium is the one to aspire to.

The book’s organized around Davies’ own taxonomy of fraud – he divides the broader category into four distinct (if overlapping) types based on the trust they abuse and so (in a broad sense) are crimes against. Those types being: 1) the Long Firm (neither of the words mean what you think they do here), which is just lying and defrauding someone, buying on credit, reselling and skipping town before the first bill comes due, etc 2) Counterfeiting, of currency yes, but also legal documentation, audited account books, hell even mining samples, providing forged documentation that people trust so they accept your lies 3) Control Frauds, when employees or trustees take advantage of their control over assets to juice the books and manipulate returns in ways that maximize ‘legitimate’ profits for themselves (distinct from embezzlement, which is just taking advantage of control over assets to, well, take them) and 4) Market Crimes, which intuitively might not seem like crimes at all, at least in a moral sense, but are regulated or criminalized or made taboo because people engaging in them damages the wider structure society or the market or capitalism or whatever relies upon.

The types of fraud, you’ll notice, get steadily more abstract and conceptual as you go on – the only thing that distinguishes most control fraud from managerial incompetence and over-optimism is a paper trail showing they knew what they were doing. The only thing that distinguishes a market crime form just, being good at business, is the opinion of whatever jurisdiction your in’s regulatory authorities. One gets the sense that these sorts of tricky conceptual crimes interest Davies more than more straightforward sorts of fraud, and his discussions of them certainly get more philosophical than the mostly technical descriptions of long firms and counterfeiting.

Of course, you don’t really read a book like this for the theorizing – I mean, I didn’t, anyway – but for the interesting and absurd case studies of historical frauds. Of which the book delivers in spades; everything from the ‘salad oil king’ of New Jersey with with his vats of water with a layer of oil floating on top, to Ponzi and his original scheme, to the counterfeiter who destabilized the Portuguese economy sufficiently to pave the way for a reactionary military coup, to the first actually comprehensible explanation of the whole Savings&Loans crisis in ‘80s America that I’ve ever read to, of course, the 2008 Mortgage Crisis.

One trait of historical frauds that gets more salient the more of them you read is that, because many of them involve taking advantage of some since-patched loophole in law or regulation, in retrospect it seems positively absurd that they could ever have worked. The book cautions against this point of view – given how bewilderingly complex the modern economy is, there are doubtless more absurd loopholes and abuses of what people will take on trust now than there have ever been. People just haven't written books about them yet.

Anyways, speaking of 2008 - the financial crisis was a generation-defining event for the people who got fucked over by it, but it clearly did a number on the paradigms of guys like Davies too. It gets a chapter to itself as an ‘innocent’ control fraud. That is, an institutional setup and incentive set that inevitably causes massive amounts of crime even though the people at the top actually profiting from it all are, technically speaking, innocent (and most of the low-level employees doing the crimes are mostly just trying to meet aggressive sales targets and keep their jobs. Which, hardly justifies a lot of the conduct, but they weren't profiting from the enterprise like the managers and executives.) The term Davies uses is ‘crimogenic’ – as in, an environment that incentivizes and will almost inevitably lead to the commission of crimes.

A note on the author – Davies was a regulator and then a market analyst in the UK for much of the early 21st century, and whatever the specifics is clearly someone with an insider’s view of financial markets and investment banking. Not really an apologist – or I mean, he is, to the extent that he clearly considers them useful institutions that do more good than harm for the world at large, and considers the present regulatory setup governing the markets if not just, then at least pragmatically useful. But about the culture and foibles of the financial services industry itself he’s pretty cynical. In any event, as the book goes on he starts peppering in personal anecdotes about how he was personally involved with some event on the periphery of the frauds he’s discussing or saw them happen live, which I mostly found charming but I can see how it would grate.

In any event, it’s a very chatty, casually written book, by a centre-left pro-regulation but incredibly finance-brained guy. So, you know, caveat lector if you’re going to find that totally insufferable. For myself I found it a fun, casual read, and a more educational one that I really expected.