Our mission: De-throne Microsoft Word to become the global standard for agreeing contracts online

Juro

juro

Laws make sure society stays in place. While some may argue that it’s human nature to do the right thing, an equal amount would counter the claim. I am one if those that believe laws keep society in place. However, there are some important weaknesses in the legal system. Enforcement of laws is done properly as long as the police is not corrupt; corruption is a topic for a later time as today I want to focus in what happens within the courts. Once a case is brought to court, a judge and a jury make the decision that can greatly affect the accuser or defendant. Criminal law aside, most civil cases are also faced off in courtrooms. While we accept that the modern system of courtroom judgements is proper, it’s important to step aside and realize that those making the decision in the courtroom have no real loss in case they make a wrong decision. Sure, the judge can have a weakened reputation from a poor judgement, but it would take a long series of poor judgements to reach that point. On the other hand, all those who faced the sour end of the poor judgement pay the price. The jury, meanwhile, faces no problems at all in case of a poor decision. Jurors have no stake and thus have every reason to think emotionally rather than logically when dealing with a case. They have the opportunity to exercise their biases (and even racism); the opportunity to negligibly make a decision that can greatly impact another person; the opportunity to be corrupted. In a perfect situation, jurors must think logically and must exercise absolute bipartisanship. Reality is that there is no reason for them to be as such. This is wrong. Broken. A tragic reality. Jurors Should have Something at Stake In order for jurors to properly handle a case, they must have a vested interest in the just outcome of the trial; they must have a reason to exert every effort to side with the true winner of a case. A new protocol, JUR, is going to turn this into a reality. JUR is an arbitration protocol that issues Smart Legal Agreements. These smart contracts are incorruptible blockchain records that can hold funds. Thus, JUR offers the optimal way to deal with transactions that require some form of agreement as they fund transfer will be handled by a trustless Smart Legal Agreement. Such a technology already exists, though. So what’s unique about Jur? PoS for the Jury What sets JUR aside is that it is pioneering a revolutionary concept of integrating a jury into its protocol. The jurors must stake funds. This sets a first ever precedent for jurors to think absolutely on the basis of logic, setting aside emotions and biases and then making a decision with absolute focus and proper intuition and reason. In case they don’t and are voting for the person that loses the case, the losing jurors lose their staked funds. This puts two incentives, first is that only the logically competent would pursue this opportunity, and the second is that their will be a reward for exerting the effort to vote for the right person. JUR is obviously not going to change the entire jury system as it only affects cases that involve arbitration, but this is still a big step in turning the legal system more effective. JUR is not only making a major technological breakthrough, but potentially a social one too. The movers and shakers in the legal system should have their eyes peered on whether a PoS for jurors leads to an improved justice system.

Jurors should provide a Proof of Stake.

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 16 of 21. VI Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. See ante, at 30–32. Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.[5] The majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in law. Consider the First Amendment context. Although the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing most speech, it “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech,” including its use “to prove motive or intent.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U. S. 476, 489 (1993). Evidentiary rulings and limiting instructions can ensure that evidence concerning official acts is “considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.” Huddleston v. United States, 485 U. S. 681, 691– 692 (1988). The majority has no coherent explanation as to why these protections that are sufficient in every other context would be insufficient here. It simply asserts that it would be “untenable” and would deprive immunity of its “‘intended effect.’” Ante, at 31 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756). The majority hazards an explanation that the use of official-acts evidence will “raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office.” Ante, at 31. That “unique risk,” however, is not a product of introducing official-acts evidence. It is simply the risk involved in any suit against a former President, including the private-acts prosecutions the majority says it would allow. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [5] The majority suggests, in a footnote, that a “prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act,” so long as the prosecutor does not “invite the jury to inspect” the act in any way. Ante, at 32, n. 3. Whatever that suggestion is supposed to accomplish, it does not salvage the majority’s nonsensical evidentiary rule. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 16 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 16 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VI Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. See ante, at 30–32. Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.[5] The majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in law. Consider the First Amendment context. Although the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing most speech, it “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech,” including its use “to prove motive or intent.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U. S. 476, 489 (1993). Evidentiary rulings and limiting instructions can ensure that evidence concerning official acts is “considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.” Huddleston v. United States, 485 U. S. 681, 691– 692 (1988). The majority has no coherent explanation as to why these protections that are sufficient in every other context would be insufficient here. It simply asserts that it would be “untenable” and would deprive immunity of its “‘intended effect.’” Ante, at 31 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756). The majority hazards an explanation that the use of official-acts evidence will “raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office.” Ante, at 31. That “unique risk,” however, is not a product of introducing official-acts evidence. It is simply the risk involved in any suit against a former President, including the private-acts prosecutions the majority says it would allow. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. supremecourt.gov [5] The majority suggests, in a footnote, that a “prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act,” so long as the prosecutor does not “invite the jury to inspect” the act in any way. Ante, at 32, n. 3. Whatever that suggestion is supposed to accomplish, it does not salvage the majority’s nonsensical evidentiary rule.

Presidential Immunity: What's an Official Act vs an Unofficial One?

Is a Former President Entitled to Immunity? The U.S. Supreme Court Discusses

"AI can enhance data collection, analysis, prediction, and evaluation processes"

"এআই ডেটা সংগ্রহ, বিশ্লেষণ, ভবিষ্যদ্বাণী এবং মূল্যায়ন প্রক্রিয়াগুলিকে উন্নত করতে পারে"

„KI kann die Prozesse der Datenerfassung, -analyse, -vorhersage und -auswertung verbessern“

"La IA puede mejorar los procesos de recopilación, análisis, predicción y evaluación de datos"

"L'IA peut améliorer les processus de collecte, d'analyse, de prédiction et d'évaluation de données"

"एआई डेटा संग्रह, विश्लेषण, भविष्यवाणी और मूल्यांकन प्रक्रियाओं को बढ़ा सकता है"

「AIはデータの収集、分析、予測、評価のプロセスを強化できます」

"AI는 데이터 수집, 분석, 예측, 평가 프로세스를 향상시킬 수 있습니다"

"A IA pode aprimorar os processos de coleta, análise, previsão e avaliação de dados"

«ИИ может улучшить процессы сбора, анализа, прогнозирования и оценки данных»

"Yapay zeka veri toplama, analiz, tahmin ve değerlendirme süreçlerini geliştirebilir"

"AI có thể tăng cường quá trình thu thập, phân tích, dự đoán và đánh giá dữ liệu"

“人工智能可以增强数据收集、分析、预测和评估过程”

Zero-Knowledge Hackathon Insights and Recommendations

জিরো-নলেজ হ্যাকাথন অন্তর্দৃষ্টি এবং সুপারিশ

Erkenntnisse und Empfehlungen zum Zero-Knowledge-Hackathon

Ideas y recomendaciones del Hackathon de conocimiento cero

Perspectives et recommandations du Zero-Knowledge Hackathon

शून्य-ज्ञान हैकाथॉन अंतर्दृष्टि और सिफारिशें

ゼロ知識ハッカソンの洞察と推奨事項

영지식 해커톤 통찰력 및 권장 사항

Insights e recomendações do Zero-Knowledge Hackathon

Анализ и рекомендации хакатона с нулевым разглашением

Sıfır Bilgi Hackathonu İçgörüleri ve Önerileri

Thông tin chi tiết và đề xuất về Hackathon không có kiến thức

零知识黑客马拉松的见解和建议

PARIS, France, April 25th, 2024, Chainwire Prize pool of over 1M€ value including media grant from Cointelegraph
Proof of Pitch is part of Proof of Talk, where All Global Leaders in Web3 Meet
10-11 June 2024, Museum of Decorative Arts (MAD), Louvre Palace, Paris In a ground-breaking shift from traditional pitch competitions, Proof of Pitch emerges as a transformative platform uniquely combining Artificial Intelligence (AI) insights with the strategic acumen of the world’s leading Web3 venture capitalists. Proof of Pitch participants will showcase their presentation to an exclusive audience of speakers and VCs, including CEOs, founders of leading blockchain companies, and top Web3 VC partners. Next to the competition’s main sponsor zkSync, distinguished partners and jurors are participating, including Pantera Capital, Borderless Capital, Binance Labs, Greenfield Capital, Arrington Capital, Animoca Brands, Spartan Group, X Ventures, Mechanism Capital and Cointelegraph. The Proof of Pitch winner will be awarded a first-place grand prize award of 1M€ value in a combination of cash investments by participating VCs, Accelerator services, visibility (such as a 30k media grant from Cointelegraph), and many other value-adding elements. All participants will also receive a detailed 12-page investment report to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their pitch, outlining strengths to focus on and weaknesses to improve. This is equivalent to a team of analysts spending weeks analyzing the participant's startup. Zohair Dehnadi, Co-Founder, Proof of Talk and Partner, X-Ventures: “Unlike conventional pitch competitions, Proof of Pitch enables global businesses and leadership to intelligently tap into the power of Web3, providing valuable and sustainable insights for investors and the startup community at large instead of having just another light-touch startup competition with glittering prizes which ultimately do not add any real business value. Be part of our prestigious Proof of Pitch experience and elevate yourself! See you in June!” Revolutionizing Startup Evaluation: The AI Advantage At the heart of Proof of Pitch, a pioneering AI-driven tool is redefining startup assessments, providing deep, nuanced insights at an unprecedented pace. Developed by XVentures through a rigorous, year-long collaboration involving top VCs and data scientists, this AI, known as Pitch Scan LLM tool, can scrutinize a start-up’s business model, conducting thorough due diligence, and evaluate the team behind the idea, market size, and competitive landscape—within minutes rather than weeks. Every participant will be furnished with a detailed 10-page report, with a strategic roadmap for success in the ever-evolving Web3 domain. Beyond Funding: Prizes That Foster Growth This initiative is a revolutionary approach aimed at identifying, nurturing, and elevating start-ups set to redefine the innovative horizons of Web3. Winning at Proof of Pitch extends well beyond obtaining financial support. Winners are embraced by a full spectrum of resources, from AI-powered analytics to mentorship by Web3 visionaries, alongside direct introductions to leading venture capitalists. This holistic support system is designed to refine strategies, accelerate growth, and establish market leadership. Unprecedented Visibility Among The Elite Gain exclusive exposure by standing among the top 10% of applicants, showcased to a distinguished audience including CEOs, founders of leading blockchain enterprises, and top-tier Web3 venture capitalists. This exposure is more than mere visibility—it’s a golden ticket to captivate the attention of the industry’s elite, secure pivotal investments, and forge transformative connections. A Vanguard Call to Web3 Innovators Proof of Pitch calls upon start-ups at the cutting edge of Web3 innovation to dazzle the industry's titans, venture through the vanguard of technology, and stake a claim in the digital future. This unparalleled opportunity allows participants to showcase their visionary ideas, propel their start-ups forward, and create a lasting impact in the domain of digital innovation. Proof of Pitch invites those who are interested to dive into this revolutionary journey, an avenue for transcending traditional pitch norms. Navigate through the forefront of Web3 innovation. Proof of Talk seeks to welcome over 2500 participants. Combined with a stellar speaker line-up featuring CEOs, founders, and leaders of the Web3 and digital assets industry, the summit features impact-focused networking and a refined agenda. A few of the speakers include: ● Joseph Lubin, CEO and Founder at Consensys ● Jenny Johnson, CEO, Franklin Templeton ● Tim Draper, Founder, Draper Associates ● Ophelia Snyder, Cofounder President, 21Shares ● Mihailo Bjelic, Co-Founder, Polygon ● Raoul Pal, Crypto Macro Economist ● Yat Siu, Chairman, Animoca Brands ● Stani Kulechov, CEO, Avara ● Staci Warden, CEO, Algorand Foundation ● Tim Grant, CEO, Deus X Capital ● Digital asset leads from over 30 major TradFi banks ● Partners from 100+ attending VCs The summit’s agenda also actively reflects Web3’s growing importance, with over 20 panels, 10+ workshops, and over a dozen keynotes and firesides on key topics shaping Web3’s future. These include real-world asset tokenization, AI-blockchain integration, gaming evolution, and smart contract security. Participants in this year's Proof of Pitch can showcase their innovative ideas and gain valuable exposure. Participants have the opportunity to connect with industry experts and potential investors who can help elevate their businesses to the next level. Those who are interested can apply here. About Proof of Talk Proof of Talk is setting a new standard in the Web3 conference landscape, positioning itself not just as another web3 conference but as a pivotal forum where the promise of decentralization comes to life. The summit uniquely combines the essence of traditional economic forums with the dynamic, decentralized Web3 community, fostering an innovative ecosystem of dialogue and action. It stands as a platform for change, where every voice, from the seasoned economist to the radical Web3 founder, contributes to a collective vision of a decentralized economic future. By facilitating engaging discussions and unparalleled networking, participants shape this new landscape. Learn more at www.proofoftalk.io About X Ventures X Ventures is a Germany-based digital assets investment fund dedicated to supporting and empowering entrepreneurs in the Web3 industry. Alongside its investment activities, X Ventures founded www.xschool.io, aiming to provide accessible education to future leaders worldwide. Website: https://www.xventures.de Contact Shanna Molina Cognito shanna.molina@cognitomedia.nl This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. PARIS, France, April 25th, 2024, Chainwire PARIS, France, April 25th, 2024, Chainwire Prize pool of over 1M€ value including media grant from Cointelegraph Proof of Pitch is part of Proof of Talk, where All Global Leaders in Web3 Meet 10-11 June 2024, Museum of Decorative Arts (MAD), Louvre Palace, Paris Prize pool of over 1M€ value including media grant from Cointelegraph Proof of Pitch is part of Proof of Talk, where All Global Leaders in Web3 Meet 10-11 June 2024, Museum of Decorative Arts (MAD), Louvre Palace, Paris In a ground-breaking shift from traditional pitch competitions, Proof of Pitch emerges as a transformative platform uniquely combining Artificial Intelligence (AI) insights with the strategic acumen of the world’s leading Web3 venture capitalists. Proof of Pitch participants will showcase their presentation to an exclusive audience of speakers and VCs, including CEOs, founders of leading blockchain companies, and top Web3 VC partners. Proof of Pitch Proof of Pitch Next to the competition’s main sponsor zkSync, distinguished partners and jurors are participating, including Pantera Capital, Borderless Capital, Binance Labs, Greenfield Capital, Arrington Capital, Animoca Brands, Spartan Group, X Ventures, Mechanism Capital and Cointelegraph. The Proof of Pitch winner will be awarded a first-place grand prize award of 1M€ value in a combination of cash investments by participating VCs, Accelerator services, visibility (such as a 30k media grant from Cointelegraph), and many other value-adding elements. All participants will also receive a detailed 12-page investment report to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their pitch, outlining strengths to focus on and weaknesses to improve. This is equivalent to a team of analysts spending weeks analyzing the participant's startup. Zohair Dehnadi, Co-Founder, Proof of Talk and Partner, X-Ventures: “Unlike conventional pitch competitions, Proof of Pitch enables global businesses and leadership to intelligently tap into the power of Web3, providing valuable and sustainable insights for investors and the startup community at large instead of having just another light-touch startup competition with glittering prizes which ultimately do not add any real business value. Be part of our prestigious Proof of Pitch experience and elevate yourself! See you in June!” Revolutionizing Startup Evaluation: The AI Advantage At the heart of Proof of Pitch, a pioneering AI-driven tool is redefining startup assessments, providing deep, nuanced insights at an unprecedented pace. Developed by XVentures through a rigorous, year-long collaboration involving top VCs and data scientists, this AI, known as Pitch Scan LLM tool, can scrutinize a start-up’s business model, conducting thorough due diligence, and evaluate the team behind the idea, market size, and competitive landscape—within minutes rather than weeks. Every participant will be furnished with a detailed 10-page report, with a strategic roadmap for success in the ever-evolving Web3 domain. Beyond Funding: Prizes That Foster Growth This initiative is a revolutionary approach aimed at identifying, nurturing, and elevating start-ups set to redefine the innovative horizons of Web3. Winning at Proof of Pitch extends well beyond obtaining financial support. Winners are embraced by a full spectrum of resources, from AI-powered analytics to mentorship by Web3 visionaries, alongside direct introductions to leading venture capitalists. This holistic support system is designed to refine strategies, accelerate growth, and establish market leadership. Unprecedented Visibility Among The Elite Gain exclusive exposure by standing among the top 10% of applicants, showcased to a distinguished audience including CEOs, founders of leading blockchain enterprises, and top-tier Web3 venture capitalists. This exposure is more than mere visibility—it’s a golden ticket to captivate the attention of the industry’s elite, secure pivotal investments, and forge transformative connections. A Vanguard Call to Web3 Innovators Proof of Pitch calls upon start-ups at the cutting edge of Web3 innovation to dazzle the industry's titans, venture through the vanguard of technology, and stake a claim in the digital future. This unparalleled opportunity allows participants to showcase their visionary ideas, propel their start-ups forward, and create a lasting impact in the domain of digital innovation. Proof of Pitch invites those who are interested to dive into this revolutionary journey, an avenue for transcending traditional pitch norms. Navigate through the forefront of Web3 innovation. Proof of Talk seeks to welcome over 2500 participants. Combined with a stellar speaker line-up featuring CEOs, founders, and leaders of the Web3 and digital assets industry, the summit features impact-focused networking and a refined agenda. A few of the speakers include: ● Joseph Lubin, CEO and Founder at Consensys ● Jenny Johnson, CEO, Franklin Templeton ● Tim Draper, Founder, Draper Associates ● Ophelia Snyder, Cofounder President, 21Shares ● Mihailo Bjelic, Co-Founder, Polygon ● Raoul Pal, Crypto Macro Economist ● Yat Siu, Chairman, Animoca Brands ● Stani Kulechov, CEO, Avara ● Staci Warden, CEO, Algorand Foundation ● Tim Grant, CEO, Deus X Capital ● Digital asset leads from over 30 major TradFi banks ● Partners from 100+ attending VCs The summit’s agenda also actively reflects Web3’s growing importance, with over 20 panels, 10+ workshops, and over a dozen keynotes and firesides on key topics shaping Web3’s future. These include real-world asset tokenization, AI-blockchain integration, gaming evolution, and smart contract security. Participants in this year's Proof of Pitch can showcase their innovative ideas and gain valuable exposure. Participants have the opportunity to connect with industry experts and potential investors who can help elevate their businesses to the next level. Those who are interested can apply here . here here About Proof of Talk Proof of Talk is setting a new standard in the Web3 conference landscape, positioning itself not just as another web3 conference but as a pivotal forum where the promise of decentralization comes to life. The summit uniquely combines the essence of traditional economic forums with the dynamic, decentralized Web3 community, fostering an innovative ecosystem of dialogue and action. It stands as a platform for change, where every voice, from the seasoned economist to the radical Web3 founder, contributes to a collective vision of a decentralized economic future. By facilitating engaging discussions and unparalleled networking, participants shape this new landscape. Learn more at www.proofoftalk.io www.proofoftalk.io www.proofoftalk.io About X Ventures X Ventures is a Germany-based digital assets investment fund dedicated to supporting and empowering entrepreneurs in the Web3 industry. Alongside its investment activities, X Ventures founded www.xschool.io, aiming to provide accessible education to future leaders worldwide. Website: https://www.xventures.de https://www.xventures.de https://www.xventures.de Contact Shanna Molina Cognito shanna.molina@cognitomedia.nl This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. here. here.

Proof of Pitch: Transforming The Pitch Competition Landscape With AI-Driven Insights And Top Web3 VC

পিচের প্রমাণ: এআই-চালিত অন্তর্দৃষ্টি এবং শীর্ষ ওয়েব3 ভিসি সহ পিচ প্রতিযোগিতার ল্যান্ডস্কেপ রূপান্তর করা

Proof of Pitch: Transformation der Pitch-Wettbewerbslandschaft mit KI-gestützten Erkenntnissen und Top Web3 VC

Prueba de presentación: transformar el panorama de la competencia de presentaciones con información basada en inteligencia artificial y los mejores capitalistas de riesgo Web3

Preuve de pitch : transformer le paysage de la compétition de pitch avec des informations basées sur l'IA et le meilleur VC Web3

पिच का प्रमाण: एआई-संचालित अंतर्दृष्टि और शीर्ष वेब 3 वीसी के साथ पिच प्रतियोगिता परिदृश्य को बदलना

ピッチの証明: AI 主導の洞察とトップ Web3 VC でピッチ競争の状況を変革

프레젠테이션 증명: AI 기반 통찰력과 최고의 Web3 VC를 통해 프레젠테이션 경쟁 환경 변화

Prova de argumento de venda: transformando o cenário da competição de argumentos de venda com insights baseados em IA e os principais VC da Web3

Proof of Pitch: преобразование конкурентной среды с помощью искусственного интеллекта и ведущих венчурных инвесторов Web3

Satış Konuşmasının Kanıtı: Yapay Zeka Odaklı Analizler ve En İyi Web3 VC ile Satış Konuşması Rekabet Ortamını Dönüştürüyor

Bằng chứng về quảng cáo chiêu hàng: Thay đổi bối cảnh cạnh tranh quảng cáo chiêu hàng bằng thông tin chi tiết dựa trên AI và Web3 VC hàng đầu

推介证明：利用人工智能驱动的洞察力和顶级 Web3 VC 改变推介竞争格局

In the presentation below, Clément Lesaege, co-founder of , presented the attack costs of different oracle networks and how to calculate the potential profit from corrupting them. Kleros https://youtu.be/bzqZnUC5VkI?si=T2azT5qDPdzunW4Y&embedable=true Below is a glossary of key concepts mentioned during Clement’s talk, intended as a supplement to his video presentation. About Kleros is a decentralized protocol built on the Ethereum blockchain that leverages crowdsourcing and game theory to arbitrate disputes quickly, and economically. The protocol’s core product is the Kleros court, where disputes are settled through a majority vote by randomly selected jurors incentivized to participate using , the native token of the platform. Kleros $PNK 51% Attacks A 51% attack or a majority attack occurs when more than half of the power to submit information is controlled by a single person or group of people. Essentially, this group has the ability to submit whatever information that is beneficial to them. Due to the decentralized nature of blockchains and Oracle protocols, 51% attacks will always be a risk. Because of this, protocols must utilize methods to make attacks economically unfeasible. Check out for a deep dive into all things related to oracle manipulation. this article Arbitration Protocols Arbitration protocols are decentralized systems that operate on predefined rules and smart contracts and are designed to address on-chain disputes. When disputes arise, both parties submit their case details and evidence to a panel of randomly selected jurors who evaluate the information and vote on the verdict. These jurors are rewarded, using the native token, when they arbitrate honestly or may have their staked tokens slashed in case of misconduct. Examples of arbitration protocols include and . are some popular examples of on-chain arbitration. Kleros Aragon Court Here Forking Forking refers to the process of creating a new version of a blockchain’s protocol, resulting in the splitting of the original blockchain into two separate chains. Forks occur when there are fundamental disagreements or updates within the community about the direction or rules of the blockchain. There are two main types of forks, namely . hard forks and soft forks Re-Staking In a network, participants lock up a certain amount of their cryptocurrency as collateral to become validators or participate in the consensus process. Re-staking involves taking the rewards earned from staking, such as transaction fees or newly minted tokens, and adding them back to the initial stake, effectively compounding the amount of staked tokens. PoS This allows participants to benefit from both the initial staked amount and the additional rewards generated. MEV Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) refers to the profits that miners or validators can potentially make by reordering and including transactions in a specific order within a block. On the blockchain, transaction ordering can affect the final outcome and pricing of transactions. Profits from MEV are gained by miners who engage in practices such as front-running, back-running, and sandwich attacks. This involves prioritizing transactions that are likely to profit, such as executing trades just ahead of large transactions or exploiting arbitrage opportunities between different trading platforms. A prominent example of MEV is the on the decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol . flash loan attack bZx Learn more about Kleros here: Kleros Website Kleros Documentation Kleros Twitter Clément Lesaege Twitter The Blockchain Oracle Summit is the world’s only technical summit that dives deep into the use cases, limitations, and impacts of oracles on the wider blockchain ecosystem. Leading speakers worldwide gathered in Paris to share their work and experience building and using Oracle solutions. Article by . Michael Abiodun

How to Calculate The Attack Costs Of Different Oracle Networks: The Key Concepts

বিভিন্ন ওরাকল নেটওয়ার্কের আক্রমণ খরচ কিভাবে গণনা করা যায়: মূল ধারণা

So berechnen Sie die Angriffskosten verschiedener Oracle-Netzwerke: Die Schlüsselkonzepte

Cómo calcular los costos de ataque de diferentes redes Oracle: los conceptos clave

Comment calculer les coûts d'attaque de différents réseaux Oracle : les concepts clés

विभिन्न Oracle नेटवर्कों की हमले लागत की गणना कैसे करें: मुख्य अवधारणाएँ

さまざまなOracleネットワークの攻撃コストを計算する方法: 重要な概念

다양한 Oracle 네트워크의 공격 비용을 계산하는 방법: 주요 개념

Como calcular os custos de ataque de diferentes redes Oracle: os principais conceitos

Как рассчитать стоимость атаки на различные сети Oracle: ключевые понятия

Farklı Oracle Ağlarının Saldırı Maliyetleri Nasıl Hesaplanır: Temel Kavramlar

Cách tính toán chi phí tấn công của các mạng Oracle khác nhau: Các khái niệm chính

如何计算不同预言机网络的攻击成本：关键概念

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 11 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. The Defendant’s Witness Tampering While on bail pending trial on this case, Bankman-Fried twice attempted to tamper with witnesses. On January 15, 2023, Bankman-Fried contacted the former General Counsel of FTX US, Ryne Miller, over Signal and by email, writing in part: “I would really love to reconnect and see if there’s a way for us to have a constructive relationship, use each other as resources when possible, or at least vet things with each other,” and suggested they speak further by phone. Bankman-Fried and Miller had not spoken since the bankruptcy more than two months earlier, and the Government had already informed Bankman-Fried of its extensive investigation. Miller through his counsel informed the Government of this reach-out, and the Government brought the matter to the Court’s attention. The Court stated that on its face the message “appears to have been an effort to . . . sing out of the same hymn book” (Dkt. 17.1 at 5), and expressed concerns at the time that the then-existing bail conditions would not be sufficient to prevent witness tampering. The Court imposed more substantial bail conditions including restrictions of the defendant’s use of electronic devices. Despite these warnings, Bankman-Fried again attempted to tamper with a witness in July 2023. On July 20, 2023, the New York Times published an article entitled Inside the Private Writings of Caroline Ellison, Star Witness in the FTX Case (the “Article”). The Article quoted from private electronic journal entries written by Ellison, but in Bankman-Fried’s possession, that describe her feelings and insecurities with respect to her work at Alameda and her personal relationship with Bankman-Fried. After Bankman-Fried’s counsel confirmed that Bankman-Fried was the source for private documents quoted in the Article, the Government alerted the Court that Bankman-Fried had provided private and potentially embarrassing writings of Ellison—his exgirlfriend, former CEO of Alameda, and cooperating witness—to the New York Times in order to discredit her, paint her in an unfavorable light, and influence a future jury’s perception of the case. (Dkt. 176). In a letter to this Court, Bankman-Fried claimed he had done “nothing improper” by covertly leaking Ellison’s writings, but agreed to an order limiting extrajudicial statements about the case. (Dkt. 178). Bankman-Fried also asserted that he had merely given “comment on a story in progress.” (Dkt. 178 at 4). Reviewing data from a pen register on Bankman-Fried’s phone and email, however, the Government learned that over the prior several months, Bankman-Fried had sent over 100 emails to, and had over 1,000 phone calls with, members of the media, including over 100 phone calls with one of the Article’s authors. Many of these communications occurred prior to the publication of other articles about Ellison. Of course, Bankman-Fried’s contacts with the press—regardless of the volume—were not inherently problematic and did not form a basis for revocation of bail; rather the frequency and nature of the communications belied Bankman-Fried’s factual claim that he had merely given “comment on a story in progress” (Dkt. 178 at 4), rather than attempted to inject unfavorable information about Ellison into the press and turn potential jurors against her. At a conference on July 26, 2023, the Government requested that the Court revoke Bankman-Fried’s bail and order him detained. At Bankman-Fried’s request, the Court ordered additional briefing from the parties, and held a bail hearing on August 11, 2023. After hearing from the parties, this Court found that there was probable cause to believe that Bankman-Fried twice committed attempted witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) while on pretrial release, giving rise to the rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(B) that no conditions would assure the safety of the community. (Dkt. 17.2 at 25-38). This Court found that the presumption had not been overcome, and that, in light of Bankman-Fried’s continued evasions of his pretrial release conditions, Bankman-Fried was unlikely to abide by conditions of release. (Id. at 38-40). The Court’s revocation of Bankman-Fried’s bail was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Bankman-Fried, No. 23-6914, Dkt. 32.1 (September 21, 2023). The Second Circuit held that the record supported this Court’s “conclusion that there was probable cause to believe” that Bankman-Fried “attempted to tamper with two witnesses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), and specifically that he acted with unlawful intent to influence those witnesses.” (Id. at 1). The Circuit further explained that this Court “correctly determined that when a person engages in speech to commit a criminal offense such as witness tampering, the speech falls outside the zone of constitutional protection.” (Id. at 2). The record before this Court with respect to bail revocation likewise demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Bankman-Fried twice attempted to tamper with witnesses after he was indicted and while awaiting trial. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Examining Witness Tampering Charges Leveled Against Sam Bankman-Fried

This Cop Sabotaged His Own Cases to Undermine a Prosecutor: Why He Did So

Phineas Finn was again brought into the Court

Phineas Redux by Anthony Trollope, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . THE DUCHESS TAKES COUNSEL. here THE DUCHESS TAKES COUNSEL. Phineas Finn, when he had been thrice remanded before the Bow Street magistrate, and four times examined, was at last committed to be tried for the murder of Mr. Bonteen. This took place on Wednesday, May 19th, a fortnight after the murder. But during those fourteen days little was learned, or even surmised, by the police, in addition to the circumstances which had transpired at once. Indeed the delay, slight as it was, had arisen from a desire to find evidence that might affect Mr. Emilius, rather than with a view to strengthen that which did affect Phineas Finn. But no circumstance could be found tending in any way to add to the suspicion to which the converted Jew was made subject by his own character, and by the supposition that he would have been glad to get rid of Mr. Bonteen. He did not even attempt to run away,—for which attempt certain pseudo-facilities were put in his way by police ingenuity. But Mr. Emilius stood his ground and courted inquiry. Mr. Bonteen had been to him, he said, a very bitter, unjust, and cruel enemy. Mr. Bonteen had endeavoured to rob him of his dearest wife;—had charged him with bigamy;—had got up false evidence in the hope of ruining him. He had undoubtedly hated Mr. Bonteen, and might probably have said so. But, as it happened, through God's mercy, he was enabled to prove that he could not possibly have been at the scene of the murder when the murder was committed. During that hour of the night he had been in his own bed; and, had he been out, could not have re-entered the house without calling up the inmates. But, independently of his alibi, Mealyus was able to rely on the absolute absence of any evidence against him. No grey coat could be traced to his hands, even for an hour. His height was very much less than that attributed by Lord Fawn to the man whom he had seen hurrying to the spot. No weapon was found in his possession by which the deed could have been done. Inquiry was made as to the purchase of life-preservers, and the reverend gentleman was taken to half-a-dozen shops at which such instruments had lately been sold. But there had been a run upon life-preservers, in consequence of recommendations as to their use given by certain newspapers;—and it was found as impossible to trace one particular purchase as it would be that of a loaf of bread. At none of the half-dozen shops to which he was taken was Mr. Emilius remembered; and then all further inquiry in that direction was abandoned, and Mr. Emilius was set at liberty. "I forgive my persecutors from the bottom of my heart," he said,—"but God will requite it to them." In the meantime Phineas was taken to Newgate, and was there confined, almost with the glory and attendance of a State prisoner. This was no common murder, and no common murderer. Nor were they who interested themselves in the matter the ordinary rag, tag, and bobtail of the people,—the mere wives and children, or perhaps fathers and mothers, or brothers and sisters of the slayer or the slain. Dukes and Earls, Duchesses and Countesses, Members of the Cabinet, great statesmen, Judges, Bishops, and Queen's Counsellors, beautiful women, and women of highest fashion, seemed for a while to think of but little else than the fate of Mr. Bonteen and the fate of Phineas Finn. People became intimately acquainted with each other through similar sympathies in this matter, who had never before spoken to or seen each other. On the day after the full committal of the man, Mr. Low received a most courteous letter from the Duchess of Omnium, begging him to call in Carlton Terrace if his engagements would permit him to do so. The Duchess had heard that Mr. Low was devoting all his energies to the protection of Phineas Finn; and, as a certain friend of hers,—a lady,—was doing the same, she was anxious to bring them together. Indeed, she herself was equally prepared to devote her energies for the present to the same object. She had declared to all her friends,—especially to her husband and to the Duke of St. Bungay,—her absolute conviction of the innocence of the accused man, and had called upon them to defend him. "My dear," said the elder Duke, "I do not think that in my time any innocent man has ever lost his life upon the scaffold." "Is that a reason why our friend should be the first instance?" said the Duchess. "He must be tried according to the laws of his country," said the younger Duke. "Plantagenet, you always speak as if everything were perfect, whereas you know very well that everything is imperfect. If that man is—is hung, I—" "Glencora," said her husband, "do not connect yourself with the fate of a stranger from any misdirected enthusiasm." "I do connect myself. If that man be hung—I shall go into mourning for him. You had better look to it." Mr. Low obeyed the summons, and called on the Duchess. But, in truth, the invitation had been planned by Madame Goesler, who was present when the lawyer, about five o'clock in the afternoon, was shown into the presence of the Duchess. Tea was immediately ordered, and Mr. Low was almost embraced. He was introduced to Madame Goesler, of whom he did not before remember that he had heard the name, and was at once given to understand that the fate of Phineas was now in question. "We know so well," said the Duchess, "how true you are to him." "He is an old friend of mine," said the lawyer, "and I cannot believe him to have been guilty of a murder." "Guilty!—he is no more guilty than I am. We are as sure of that as we are of the sun. We know that he is innocent;—do we not, Madame Goesler? And we, too, are very dear friends of his;—that is, I am." "And so am I," said Madame Goesler, in a voice very low and sweet, but yet so energetic as to make Mr. Low almost rivet his attention upon her. "You must understand, Mr. Low, that Mr. Finn is a man horribly hated by certain enemies. That wretched Mr. Bonteen hated his very name. But there are other people who think very differently of him. He must be saved." "Indeed I hope he may," said Mr. Low. "We wanted to see you for ever so many reasons. Of course you understand that—that any sum of money can be spent that the case may want." "Nothing will be spared on that account certainly," said the lawyer. "But money will do a great many things. We would send all round the world if we could get evidence against that other man,—Lady Eustace's husband, you know." "Can any good be done by sending all round the world?" "He went back to his own home not long ago,—in Poland, I think," said Madame Goesler. "Perhaps he got the instrument there, and brought it with him." Mr. Low shook his head. "Of course we are very ignorant;—but it would be a pity that everything should not be tried." "He might have got in and out of the window, you know," said the Duchess. Still Mr. Low shook his head. "I believe things can always be found out, if only you take trouble enough. And trouble means money;—does it not? We wouldn't mind how many thousand pounds it cost; would we, Marie?" "I fear that the spending of thousands can do no good," said Mr. Low. "But something must be done. You don't mean to say that Mr. Finn is to be hung because Lord Fawn says that he saw a man running along the street in a grey coat." "Certainly not." "There is nothing else against him;—nobody else saw him." "If there be nothing else against him he will be acquitted." "You think then," said Madame Goesler, "that there will be no use in tracing what the man Mealyus did when he was out of England. He might have bought a grey coat then, and have hidden it till this night, and then have thrown it away." Mr. Low listened to her with close attention, but again shook his head. "If it could be shown that the man had a grey coat at that time it would certainly weaken the effect of Mr. Finn's grey coat." "And if he bought a bludgeon there, it would weaken the effect of Mr. Finn's bludgeon. And if he bought rope to make a ladder it would show that he had got out. It was a dark night, you know, and nobody would have seen it. We have been talking it all over, Mr. Low, and we really think you ought to send somebody." "I will mention what you say to the gentlemen who are employed on Mr. Finn's defence." "But will not you be employed?" Then Mr. Low explained that the gentlemen to whom he referred were the attorneys who would get up the case on their friend's behalf, and that as he himself practised in the Courts of Equity only, he could not defend Mr. Finn on his trial. "He must have the very best men," said the Duchess. "He must have good men, certainly." "And a great many. Couldn't we get Sir Gregory Grogram?" Mr. Low shook his head. "I know very well that if you get men who are really,—really swells, for that is what it is, Mr. Low,—and pay them well enough, and so make it really an important thing, they can browbeat any judge and hoodwink any jury. I daresay it is very dreadful to say so, Mr. Low; but, nevertheless, I believe it, and as this man is certainly innocent it ought to be done. I daresay it's very shocking, but I do think that twenty thousand pounds spent among the lawyers would get him off." "I hope we can get him off without expending twenty thousand pounds, Duchess." "But you can have the money and welcome;—cannot he, Madame Goesler?" "He could have double that, if double were necessary." "I would fill the court with lawyers for him," continued the Duchess. "I would cross-examine the witnesses off their legs. I would rake up every wicked thing that horrid Jew has done since he was born. I would make witnesses speak. I would give a carriage and pair of horses to every one of the jurors' wives, if that would do any good. You may shake your head, Mr. Low; but I would. And I'd carry Lord Fawn off to the Antipodes, too;—and I shouldn't care if you left him there. I know that this man is innocent, and I'd do anything to save him. A woman, I know, can't do much;—but she has this privilege, that she can speak out what men only think. I'd give them two carriages and two pairs of horses a-piece if I could do it that way." Mr. Low did his best to explain to the Duchess that the desired object could hardly be effected after the fashion she proposed, and he endeavoured to persuade her that justice was sure to be done in an English court of law. "Then why are people so very anxious to get this lawyer or that to bamboozle the witnesses?" said the Duchess. Mr. Low declared it to be his opinion that the poorest man in England was not more likely to be hung for a murder he had not committed than the richest. "Then why would you, if you were accused, have ever so many lawyers to defend you?" Mr. Low went on to explain. "The more money you spend," said the Duchess, "the more fuss you make. And the longer a trial is about and the greater the interest, the more chance a man has to escape. If a man is tried for three days you always think he'll get off, but if it lasts ten minutes he is sure to be convicted and hung. I'd have Mr. Finn's trial made so long that they never could convict him. I'd tire out all the judges and juries in London. If you get lawyers enough they may speak for ever." Mr. Low endeavoured to explain that this might prejudice the prisoner. "And I'd examine every member of the House of Commons, and all the Cabinet, and all their wives. I'd ask them all what Mr. Bonteen had been saying. I'd do it in such a way as a trial was never done before;—and I'd take care that they should know what was coming." "And if he were convicted afterwards?" "I'd buy up the Home Secretary. It's very horrid to say so, of course, Mr. Low; and I dare say there is nothing wrong ever done in Chancery. But I know what Cabinet Ministers are. If they could get a majority by granting a pardon they'd do it quick enough." "You are speaking of a liberal Government, of course, Duchess." "There isn't twopence to choose between them in that respect. Just at this moment I believe Mr. Finn is the most popular member of the House of Commons; and I'd bring all that to bear. You can't but know that if everything of that kind is done it will have an effect. I believe you could make him so popular that the people would pull down the prison rather than have him hung;—so that a jury would not dare to say he was guilty." "Would that be justice, ladies?" asked the just man. "It would be success, Mr. Low,—which is a great deal the better thing of the two." "If Mr. Finn were found guilty, I could not in my heart believe that that would be justice," said Madame Goesler. Mr. Low did his best to make them understand that the plan of pulling down Newgate by the instrumentality of Phineas Finn's popularity, or of buying up the Home Secretary by threats of Parliamentary defection, would hardly answer their purpose. He would, he assured them, suggest to the attorneys employed the idea of searching for evidence against the man Mealyus in his own country, and would certainly take care that nothing was omitted from want of means. "You had better let us put a cheque in your hands," said the Duchess. But to this he would not assent. He did admit that it would be well to leave no stone unturned, and that the turning of such stones must cost money;—but the money, he said, would be forthcoming. "He's not a rich man himself," said the Duchess. Mr. Low assured her that if money were really wanting he would ask for it. "And now," said the Duchess, "there is one other thing that we want. Can we see him?" "You, yourself?" "Yes;—I myself, and Madame Goesler. You look as if it would be very wicked." Mr. Low thought that it would be wicked;—that the Duke would not like it; and that such a visit would occasion ill-natured remarks. "People do visit him, I suppose. He's not locked up like a criminal." "I visit him," said Mr. Low, "and one or two other friends have done so. Lord Chiltern has been with him, and Mr. Erle." "Has no lady seen him?" asked the Duchess. "Not to my knowledge." "Then it's time some lady should do so. I suppose we could be admitted. If we were his sisters they'd let us in." "You must excuse me, Duchess, but—" "Of course I will excuse you. But what?" "You are not his sisters." "If I were engaged to him, to be his wife?—" said Madame Goesler, standing up. "I am not so. There is nothing of that kind. You must not misunderstand me. But if I were?" "On that plea I presume you could be admitted." "Why not as a friend? Lord Chiltern is admitted as his friend." "Because of the prudery of a prison," said the Duchess. "All things are wrong to the lookers after wickedness, my dear. If it would comfort him to see us, why should he not have that comfort?" "Would you have gone to him in his own lodgings?" asked Mr. Low. "I would,—if he'd been ill," said Madame Goesler. "Madam," said Mr. Low, speaking with a gravity which for a moment had its effect even upon the Duchess of Omnium, "I think, at any rate, that if you visit Mr. Finn in prison, you should do so through the instrumentality of his Grace, your husband." "Of course you suspect me of all manner of evil." "I suspect nothing;—but I am sure that it should be so." "It shall be so," said the Duchess. "Thank you, sir. We are much obliged to you for your wise counsel." "I am obliged to you," said Madame Goesler, "because I know that you have his safety at heart." "And so am I," said the Duchess, relenting, and giving him her hand. "We are really ever so much obliged to you. You don't quite understand about the Duke; and how should you? I never do anything without telling him, but he hasn't time to attend to things." "I hope I have not offended you." "Oh dear, no. You can't offend me unless you mean it. Good-bye,—and remember to have a great many lawyers, and all with new wigs; and let them all get in a great rage that anybody should suppose it possible that Mr. Finn is a murderer. I'm sure I am. Good-bye, Mr. Low." "You'll never be able to get to him," said the Duchess, as soon as they were alone. "I suppose not." "And what good could you do? Of course I'd go with you if we could get in;—but what would be the use?" "To let him know that people do not think him guilty." "Mr. Low will tell him that. I suppose, too, we can write to him. Would you mind writing?" "I would rather go." "You might as well tell the truth when you are about it. You are breaking your heart for him." "If he were to be condemned, and—executed, I should break my heart. I could never appear bright before the world again." "That is just what I told Plantagenet. I said I would go into mourning." "And I should really mourn. And yet were he free to-morrow he would be no more to me than any other friend." "Do you mean you would not marry him?" "No;—I would not. Nor would he ask me. I will tell you what will be his lot in life,—if he escapes from the present danger." "Of course he will escape. They don't really hang innocent men." "Then he will become the husband of Lady Laura Kennedy." "Poor fellow! If I believed that, I should think it cruel to help him escape from Newgate." About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Anthony Trollope (2006). Phineas Redux. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18640/pg18640-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

THE DUCHESS TAKES COUNSEL.

Oracle vs. Google (2014) Court Filing, retrieved on May 9, 2014, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 14 of 16. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II. GOOGLE’S CROSS-APPEAL Google cross-appeals from the portion of the district court’s final judgment entered in favor of Oracle on its claim for copyright infringement as to the nine lines of rangeCheck code and the eight decompiled files. Final Judgment, Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-cv3561 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2012), ECF No. 1211. Specifically, Google appeals from the district court’s decisions: (1) granting Oracle’s motion for JMOL of infringement as to the eight decompiled Java files that Google copied into Android; and (2) denying Google’s motion for JMOL with respect to rangeCheck. When reviewing a district court’s grant or denial of a motion for JMOL, we apply the procedural law of the relevant regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court’s JMOL decision de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2009). To grant judgment as a matter of law, the court must find that “the evidence presented at trial permits only one reasonable conclusion” and that “no reasonable juror could find in the non-moving party’s favor.” Id. at 938-39 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Oracle explains that the eight decompiled files at issue “contain security functions governing access to network files” while rangeCheck “facilitates an important sorting function, frequently called upon during the operation of Java and Android.” Oracle Response to Cross Appeal 60-61. At trial, Google conceded that it copied the eight decompiled Java code files and the nine lines of code referred to as rangeCheck into Android. Its only defense was that the copying was deminimis. Accordingly, the district court instructed the jury that, “[w]ith respect to the infringement issues concerning the rangeCheck and other similar files, Google agrees that the accused lines of code and comments came from the copyrighted materials but contends that the amounts involved were so negligible as to be de minimis and thus should be excluded.” Final Charge to the Jury (Phase One), Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-3561 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012), ECF No. 1018, at 14. Although the jury found that Google infringed Oracle’s copyright in the nine lines of code comprising rangeCheck, it returned a noninfringement verdict as to eight decompiled security files. But because the trial testimony was that Google’s use of the decompiled files was significant—and there was no testimony to the contrary—the district court concluded that “[n]o reasonable jury could find that this copying was de minimis.” Order Granting JMOL on Decompiled Files, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, at *6. As such, the court granted Oracle’s motion for JMOL of infringement as to the decompiled security files. On appeal, Google maintains that its copying of rangeCheck and the decompiled security files was de minimis and thus did not infringe any of Oracle’s copyrights. According to Google, the district court should have denied Oracle’s motion for JMOL “because substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Google’s use of eight decompiled test files was de minimis.” CrossAppellant Br. 76. Google further argues that the court should have granted its motion for JMOL as to rangeCheck because the “trial evidence revealed that the nine lines of rangeCheck code were both quantitatively and qualitatively insignificant in relation to the [Java] platform.” Id. at 78. In response, Oracle argues that the Ninth Circuit does not recognize a de minimis defense to copyright infringement and that, even if it does, we should affirm the judgments of infringement on grounds that Google’s copying was significant. Because we agree with Oracle on its second point, we need not address the first, except to note that there is some conflicting Ninth Circuit precedent on the question of whether there is a free-standing de minimis defense to copyright infringement or whether the substantiality of the alleged copying is best addressed as part of a fair use defense. Compare Norse v. Henry Holt & Co., 991 F.2d 563, 566 (9th Cir. 1993) (indicating that “even a small taking may sometimes be actionable” and the “question of whether a copying is substantial enough to be actionable may be best resolved through the fair use doctrine”), with Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1192- 93 (9th Cir. 2003) (“For an unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to be actionable, the use must be significant enough to constitute infringement. This means that even where the fact of copying is conceded, no legal consequences will follow from that fact unless the copying is substantial.”) (internal citation omitted)).[18] Even assuming that the Ninth Circuit recognizes a stand-alone de minimis defense to copyright infringement, however, we conclude that: (1) the jury reasonably found that Google’s copying of the rangeCheck files was more than de minimis; and (2) the district court correctly concluded that the defense failed as a matter of law with respect to the decompiled security files. First, the unrebutted testimony at trial revealed that rangeCheck and the decompiled security files were significant to both Oracle and Google. Oracle’s expert, Dr. John Mitchell, testified that Android devices call the rangeCheck function 2,600 times just in powering on the device. Although Google argues that the eight decompiled files were insignificant because they were used only to test the Android platform, Dr. Mitchell testified that “using the copied files even as test files would have been significant use” and the district court specifically found that “[t]here was no testimony to the contrary.” Order Granting JMOL on Decompiled Files, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, at *6. Given this testimony, a reasonable jury could not have found Google’s copying de minimis. Google emphasizes that the nine lines of rangeCheck code “represented an infinitesimal percentage of the 2.8 million lines of code in the 166 Java packages—let alone the millions of lines of code in the entire [Java] platform.” Google Cross-Appeal Br. 78-79. To the extent Google is arguing that a certain minimum number of lines of code must be copied before a court can find infringement, that argument is without merit. See Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 425 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[N]o bright line rule exists as to what quantum of similarity is permitted.”). And, given the trial testimony that both rangeCheck and the decompiled security files are qualitatively significant and Google copied them in their entirety, Google cannot show that the district court erred in denying its motion for JMOL. We have considered Google’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm both of the JMOL decisions at issue in Google’s cross-appeal. [18] At least one recent district court decision has recognized uncertainty in Ninth Circuit law on this point. See Brocade Commc’ns Sys. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 10- cv-3428, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8113, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013) (“The Ninth Circuit has been unclear about whether the de minimis use doctrine serves as an affirmative defense under the Copyright Act’s fair use exceptions or whether the doctrine merely highlights plaintiffs’ obligation to show that ‘the use must be significant enough to constitute infringement.’”) (citing Newton, 388 F.2d at 1193; Norse, 991 F.2d at 566). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 10-CV-3561 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. law.justia.com

Google Maintains Its Copying of Code Did Not Infringe Any of Oracle’s Copyrights

The Code and Structure Google Copied Were Not Entitled to Copyright Protection

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 17 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here DISCUSSION II. Analysis C. Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s Aiding and Abetting of Ripple’s Violations The SEC also moves for summary judgment on its aiding and abetting claim against Larsen and Garlinghouse. See SEC Mem. at 66. To establish liability for aiding and abetting a securities violation, the SEC must show: (1) the existence of a securities law violation by the primary (as opposed to the aiding and abetting) party; (2) knowledge of this violation on the part of the aider and abettor; and (3) substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the primary violation. SEC v. Apuzzo, 689 F.3d 204, 206 (2d Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). Courts cannot consider the three requirements in isolation from one another because “[s]atisfaction of the knowledge requirement will depend on the theory of primary liability, and there may be a nexus between the degree of knowledge and the requirement that the alleged aider and abettor render substantial assistance.” SEC v. Espuelas, 905 F. Supp. 2d 507, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting SEC v. DiBella, 587 F.3d 553, 566 (2d Cir. 2009)). Indeed, courts have found that “‘[a] high degree of substantial assistance may lessen the SEC’s burden in proving scienter’ and vice versa.” SEC v. Wey, 246 F. Supp. 3d 894, 928 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Apuzzo, 689 F.3d at 215). As to the first requirement, the Court has already held that Ripple’s Institutional Sales constituted the unregistered offer and sale of investment contracts in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act. See supra § II.B.1. With respect to the second requirement, to show knowledge of Ripple’s violations, the SEC must demonstrate Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s “general awareness of their overall role in Ripple’s illegal scheme.” MTD Order at 15; see SEC v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 305 F. Supp. 3d 486, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Dodd-Frank Wall St. Reform & Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, § 929O (2010) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)). The SEC need not demonstrate that Larsen and Garlinghouse were aware that Ripple’s transactions and schemes were illegal. See SEC v. Mattessich, 407 F. Supp. 3d 264, 272–73 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Rather, the SEC must show that Larsen and Garlinghouse knew, or recklessly disregarded, the facts that made Ripple’s transactions and schemes illegal under statutory and caselaw. See id Based on the record, Defendants have raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Larsen and Garlinghouse knew or recklessly disregarded the facts that made Ripple’s scheme illegal. See MTD Order at 15. It is not clear whether Larsen and Garlinghouse knew or recklessly disregarded that securities laws, rather than laws under other regulatory regimes, applied to XRP. For instance, Larsen and Garlinghouse testified that they did not believe XRP was a security because multiple foreign regulators, including regulators in Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom, had determined that XRP was not a security. SEC Add. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 1744, 1782. Larsen and Garlinghouse also stated that when the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network labeled XRP a “virtual currency” in 2015, they understood this as an “official United States government declaration that XRP [was] a currency” and “exempt from [U.S.] securities laws.” Id. ¶¶ 1734, 1759–60. Larsen further testified that he understood the 2018 speech by the then-Director of the SEC Division of Corporate Finance, Bill Hinman—in which he stated that neither bitcoin nor ether (another digital asset) were securities—to further reinforce the SEC’s position that XRP was not a security. See id. ¶¶ 1742–43. The October 2012 Perkins Coie memorandum, which Larsen reviewed, advises, “[a]lthough we believe that a compelling argument can be made that [XRP tokens] do not constitute ‘securities’ under the federal securities laws, given the lack of applicable [caselaw], we believe that there is some risk, albeit small, that the [SEC] disagrees with our analysis.” Defs. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 993; see ECF No. 846-30 at 6. Larsen testified that after receiving the memorandum, Ripple took specific steps to ensure compliance with the advice contained within the memorandum. Defs. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 1730. Likewise, Defendants have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Larsen and Garlinghouse knew or recklessly disregarded facts about each of the Howey elements. For example, Defendants have adduced evidence that Larsen and Garlinghouse did not know that Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP satisfied the Howey “common enterprise” element because they did not believe that the proceeds from the sales were pooled and understood that Ripple did not manage, operate, or control the XRP Ledger or the broader “XRP ecosystem.” See id. ¶¶ 1748–50. Based on the disputed facts in the record, therefore, a reasonable juror could find that Larsen and Garlinghouse did not know or recklessly disregard Ripple’s Section 5 violations. See Apuzzo, 689 F.3d at 206. As to the third requirement, Defendants concede that Larsen, as Ripple’s CEO prior to 2017, provided substantial assistance, and Garlinghouse, after becoming Ripple’s CEO in January 2017, provided substantial assistance. See Defs. Opp. at 71. However, Larsen claims that he did not provide substantial assistance during his time as Executive Chairman of Ripple’s Board, starting in 2017. See id. To satisfy the substantial assistance component of aiding and abetting, the “SEC must show that the defendant in some sort associated himself with the venture, that he participated in it as in something that he wished to bring about, and that he sought by his action to make it succeed.” Apuzzo, 689 F.3d at 206 (cleaned up). In other words, the defendant must “consciously assist the commission of the specific crime in some active way.” SEC v. Mudd, 885 F. Supp. 2d 654, 670–71 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (cleaned up). Here, Larsen has raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether he provided “substantial assistance” beginning in 2017. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The record establishes that, starting in 2017, Larsen moved away from a day-to-day operational role at Ripple. See SEC Add. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 1722–29. But after he stepped down as CEO, Larsen also continued his role on the XRP Sales Committee, which approved Ripple’s sales of XRP. See Defs. 56.1 Resp. Part 2 ¶ 1099, ECF No. 835-1. The Court concludes, therefore, that a reasonable jury could find that, starting in 2017, Larsen did not “consciously assist [Ripple’s Section 5 violations] in some active way.” Mudd, 885 F. Supp. 2d at 670–71 (cleaned up). Accordingly, the SEC’s motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting claim against Larsen and Garlinghouse is DENIED. Continue Reading . here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN retrieved on September 7, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox

SEC v. Ripple: Court Strikes Down SEC's Charge Against Ripple Founders

Judgement Day.

Let me tell you how I came up with the idea of writing this article. “I woke up early last week, grabbed my cup of coffee after a quick shower, and opened up the window to watch the amazing sunrise. At that moment, I asked myself, Why don’t I write an article about B2B content ideation?” That’s it, Wait a second. You don’t seem to believe this story. Well, yeah, you are damn right. I made it up—it is a lie because first of all, I’m not fit for the 5 AM cold-shower club. Plus, there is no way on earth for any content marketer to come up with ideas just with imagination and even brainstorming. The pain of staring at an empty Google Doc with no clue of what to type down is what actually pushed me to write this piece. The idea for this article materialized as a result of me knowing that many content marketers: struggle to come up with content ideas that resonate put themselves in a loop of sharing the same 2015-fashion type of articles spend hours looking for analytics tools instead of jumping on a half an hour call with customers blindly copy competitors’ strategies and messaging search for sales-related-stats instead of recording a sales call think that TOFU content is all about tips and tactics think that content marketing is nothing but keyword research heavily rely on Gen AI and so on… So yeah, that’s what actually made me write this article. I can make this list longer, and I bet you also have something to add, but we won’t be giving a holistic look at the content marketing field in this article. We are going to talk about the way you should think before working on content - the function you should apply to ideate product-led topics and match the points by being intentional with your content. But hey… Why would you listen to me? I’m just a writer who is just getting a foot in the industry. B2B Yes, I have a decent grasp of knowledge on the topic, but it is what experts shared with me that brought on Aha! moment. I will be sharing all of that today. Let me step aside and introduce the experts to you: Lauren Lang, Director of Content and Brand Communications at Constructor 13+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here Tom Bangey, Senior Director of Content & Community at Juro 6+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here Content Lead at Eric Doty, Dock 8+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here Head of Content at Adima Timar, Userpilot 8+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here Content Marketing Manager at Tamara Omerovic, Databox 7+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here Former Content strategist at Elise Marion, system1 6+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here CEO& Founder at Vince Moreau, ScaleCrush 7+ years of experience in the content field LinkedIn- Here Enough of me, let’s see what experts have to say about their experience. Note: This article is nothing more than real-life experiences gathered for you to improve your thinking and help with planning your next steps. There are no tips. no tactics, and definitely no freaking hacks or shortcuts. Enjoy! On B2B SaaS Content Ideation What is your number 1# source of content ideas and how do you leverage it? Talk to your customers and sales prospects. All the tech tools and AI and competitor analysis can’t beat spending half an hour with a customer finding out about their problems at work. I would try and turn the notes from that conversation into thematic analysis, and also break down the projects and problems they talk about into disaggregated tasks that can be targeted individually or collectively in content. Tom@Juro: Sometimes it’s difficult for marketing to interact with customers for a variety of reasons. In that case, I’ve found the sales team to be my biggest source of content ideas, especially for product-focused content. They are the closest to understanding customer objections, pain points, and questions that influence the purchase decision, and they are used to thinking strategically about how to use whatever tools are at their disposal (including content) to close the deal. Lauren@Constructor: Here is a graphic, CMO&Founder at - shared with me once for an article, which is relevant to Lauren’s last insight: Andy Crestodina - Orbit Media The easiest source of content topics is starting with problems the product solves directly. For example, how to make a sales proposal, how to create a price quote, and why you should use a mutual action plan instead of a spreadsheet. Eric@Dock: Beyond those product-led sources, I also source ideas from: Topics frequently mentioned by guests on our podcast (it’s a good indicator of a trending topic that may not show up in keyword tools yet) Recorded sales calls, customer support tickets, and discussions with our founder Keyword research On Content ideation, Competitive analysis Does your competitive analysis affect your content ideation process? Yes, we analyze competitors and understand what topics they are strongest with and where they are lacking. We also look at content gaps and prioritize keywords based on buying intent, the possibility of showcasing the product in a contextual way, and pillars (we have months when we focus mostly on one or two pillars) Adina@Userpilot: Absolutely. Knowing the strategies and tactics that our competitors are using is critical to finding the places where we can differentiate ourselves in the market. In AI, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and there are even more tech buzzwords. Being able to educate customers and help them separate the signal from the noise is incredibly important, but first, you have to understand where your competition is coming from. Lauren@Constructor: Yes and no. Sometimes competitors have good ideas, sometimes they have terrible ideas. When they have good ideas, you can use them. When they don’t, discard their stuff. Vince@ScaleCrush: We do leverage competitive analysis, simply as a shortcut - if they’ve won some valuable traffic for a particular keyword, we can skip the keyword research and planning phase and just create content to target that keyword. Note of caution: a competitor ranking for a keyword is just evidence that they have traffic - not that the traffic itself has any value. Vanity traffic is vanity traffic, even if you take it from competitors! Tom@Juro: I don’t pay too much attention to competition in the ideation process itself. I look at the competition to prioritize my idea to-do list (i.e. what’s most unique). Eric@Dock: On SEO Content Ideation How do you incorporate SEO into your content ideation process? We have a highly focused and ROI strategy. Our blog is responsible for over 80% of the MRR so the focus is on producing BOFU content first and then choosing keywords that help build topical authority around our main pillars. Adina@Userpilot: SEO For any idea or keyword I’m toying with, I’ll normally spend some time in Ahrefs looking at related keywords. I’ll keep my eye out for underserved or low-difficulty keywords. Eric@Dock: But again, SEO plays a bigger factor in how we prioritize which ideas to work on rather than how we come up with ideas. I attach a handful of keywords to each content idea to come up with a rough SEO potential for each idea. I weigh that against other factors like relevance to our product, trendiness or timeliness, and overall just how excited we are about the topic. For our organic channels, we segment our content ideas longlist into high, mid, and low-intent keywords. If you only target high-intent then your website looks a bit spammy, so we mix it up a bit; and then the only logical thing to do is work through the backlog, prioritizing based on search volume, keyword difficulty, and funnel performance of similar pages. Tom@Juro: We do customer & market research, competitive analysis- and existing content audits. That gives us enough to determine overarching topics, which we then do keyword research for. Keyword research is the last step in the process Vince@ScaleCrush: :). We try to keep an eye on SEO, but in retail tech, we’re in a very saturated market where SEO simply doesn’t make sense as our primary distribution channel. We typically create content ideas based on customer needs and then do SEO research to find search terms with similar intent that we can incorporate into the pieces. But customer needs come first. Lauren@Constructor: On Content ideation, Team collaborations Do your teammates in Sales, Customer success, or product development work on content ideas with you, if yes, in what manner they do contribute? We typically collaborate via our preferred project management tool where the dedicated team simply shares their insights in the form of a task. We also have an initiative called “Customer Insights” where the Sales, Account Management, and Onboarding Teams share raw and verbatim insights on things customers say about their use cases, experience, and questions about using the product. Insights are captured through emails, chats, call snippets, and full calls and are available to anyone for product development, content ideation, and more. Tamara@Databox: I would also like to mention that Product Development teams at Databox not only share content ideas with us but also build additional features and tools like online calculators and performance scores to help marketing with lead generation activities directly. Yes — working cross-departmentally is so important in content ideation. You get to use the knowledge accumulated across the customer journey to identify any pain points that may be challenging your customers. You can also focus on important areas of your product that customers may need to be more comprehensively educated on. Using the topics gathered from my team, I use the cumulative knowledge to research keywords that align with those pain points and craft content based on that research. Elise@System1: Yes! Content creation is a team sport. When you’re dealing with enterprise software and a variety of user personas, it’s impossible for content marketing to get as granular as some of the other teams. But it’s in that granularity where the best ideas for content come from, so we often ask our product, sales, and CS teams for ideas and contributions. I’m very intentional about building a collaborative content culture. Lauren@Constructor: Yes, we do also leverage internal knowledge, but you need to take everything with a grain of salt. People have lots of assumptions about the market and sometimes they’re wrong. Vince@ScaleCrush: Our founder wears many of those hats, so most of our ideation takes place as ad hoc casual chats between the two of us. I also meet with our one account executive regularly just to chat about what content would be useful for him to do his job. For example, he might flag that he needs a case study for a particular customer vertical. Eric@Dock: Content strategy is derived from our company master plan and ICP, so there’s no risk that content isn’t aligned with other teams. However, if we’re targeting a specific persona we will sense-check the content by utilizing colleagues who talk to them all the time. For example, when we produce new contract templates for our website- part of what we do at Juro-, we’ll work with our colleagues in CS to make sure they fit with customers—for example, a is one of the most common contracts in Juro, according to customer data, which validates it as a priority for us. If no customers managed SOWs in Juro, it might not be worth ranking for. Tom@Juro: template statement of work On Content ideation, ( Not-to-do’s) What is your not-to-do thing while trying to come up with content ideas? If you need to ask ChatGPT for content ideas then perhaps you don’t know your ICP as well as you think you do! Generative AI can be enormously helpful in parts of the content workflow. Still, top-ranking organic content needs (by definition) to be in the top 0.1% of content, which means it probably can’t be written by a predictive model. Tom@Juro: Don’t blindly rely on keyword research or SEO tools during your content ideation process. The best SEO tool you can use to create powerful and engaging content is actually your brain. Your brain can comprehend the intent behind user search queries better than any tool and come up with creative ideas, unique perspectives, and compelling narratives that resonate with readers, which is a crucial aspect of SEO. Therefore avoid relying too heavily on SEO tools in a way that may stifle creativity or lead to a "copycat" mentality, where you mimic your competitors' content strategies without considering what truly sets your brand apart. Tamara@Databox: The biggest thing is to leave yourself time to come up with ideas. Once you’re on the content flywheel, it’s easy to get stuck in a heads-down production schedule where you never take time to lift your head up and look around for more creative ideas. Eric@Dock: From an SEO perspective, avoid the trap of trying to rank for high-volume, top-of-funnel keywords that don’t relate directly to your product for as long as you can (or at least early in your company’s lifecycle). Start with all the mid-funnel searches your product solves directly. They’ll be easier to rank for and better for lead generation. Too many thought leadership articles that might just bring a bit of traffic in the month but no conversions. Adina@Userpilot: Avoid posting content for the sake of posting it. Content should align with a strategy. Don’t start with keywords in mind - don’t look at search volume too much, and don’t write about something if you don’t think you have expertise. Vince@ScaleCrush: My company is an AI company, so I’m actually very bullish on AI. But I would advise against using ChatGPT to help you come up with original content. By its very nature, ChatGPT is going to rehash only what already exists, which is exactly what you likely shouldn’t be creating in most cases. Great content comes from innovation and creativity, from seeing and filling the gaps in what already exists. Treating content like a commodity will give you commodity content – and commodity content doesn’t stand out or drive conversions. Lauren@Constructor: The bottom line As I told you, no tips and tactics here. Your approach to content ideation is your own tips and tactics. Some articles out there on the SERPs will pull up some stats and facts and tell you to do this and that. although they might be right sometimes, it is none of their goddamn business, it’s yours, your product, and your audience, you decide what works better. There are no plans and standards in the content field anymore, everything is subjective. Rethink and adapt, rethink and adapt, rethink and adapt. And hey! If there is one thing to consider doing from this article, it is 100 percent, talking to your customers. Cheers

Mastering B2B Content Ideation: Insights from 7 Industry Experts

This story was originally published on by , ProPublica, and Mike Hayes for . ProPublica Jake Pearson ProPublica As members of the New York City Council convened last month to discuss the Law Department’s budget, they asked the city’s top lawyer to account for the rising cost of police misconduct. The topic had been driving headlines for weeks. In February, an analysis of payout data had shown that in NYPD-related settlements and judgments in 2022, a five-year high. the city shelled out $121 million Weeks later, officials announced that millions more in taxpayer dollars would go toward what lawyers for demonstrators called a to settle claims involving the NYPD’s violent response to racial justice protests in 2020. “historic” deal Of particular concern to of the council’s Committee on Governmental Operations was and New York Magazine on how city lawyers aggressively fight these kinds of misconduct claims, even in the face of compelling evidence that officers crossed the line. some members reporting by ProPublica “I found it really troubling,” said Council Member Lincoln Restler of ProPublica’s reporting, which focused on the unit that handles the most high-profile police misconduct cases, the Special Federal Litigation Division, or Special Fed. “And I am concerned about the approach of the Law Department over many years.” In response, Sylvia Hinds-Radix, the head of the Law Department, told Restler and the committee that she “vociferously” disagreed with any characterization that agency lawyers fought claims tooth and nail “without evaluating what is before us.” “We have the obligation to defend those things we do,” she said. “And the cases that need to be settled, we evaluate them and settle them.” Left unmentioned in Hinds-Radix’s March 22 testimony was any reference to Jawaun Fraser, whose case provided an almost textbook example of her department’s hardball approach, a strategy that confounded even the judge overseeing the lawsuit. Just a day earlier, a federal jury in Manhattan had awarded Fraser $2 million after city lawyers spent the previous three years fighting him in civil court. Fraser had sued New York and three NYPD detectives after spending two years in prison on a robbery conviction that was later overturned. A jury found not just that officers had fabricated evidence against him but that the city itself was liable for massive failures in NYPD training. Yet for years, city lawyers had treated it as what’s called a “no-pay” case, steadfastly refusing to settle while labeling Fraser a “drug dealer” who was unworthy of “a dime.” They maintained that position even as Fraser’s lawyers revealed numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the arresting officers’ own testimonies — and as evidence mounted that the NYPD had, for decades, failed to properly train its 35,000-officer force on their legal obligations to disclose certain material, like past lawsuits, that could impact officers’ credibility in court. That violation flew in the face of bedrock legal protections codified by Supreme Court rulings from a half-century ago, beginning with the marquee 1963 case Brady v. Maryland, which requires the government to turn over information favorable to the accused. Amid the revelations, the senior district court judge overseeing the case took the rare step of declaring that she’d “never understood why this was a no-pay case, and I understand it less now.” The judge, Colleen McMahon, went on to say that in her 22 years on the bench, she’d never seen documentation of the city’s constitutional failures “like the evidence I’ve heard in this case.” “I am pretty appalled by what I have heard,” the judge said. A Law Department spokesperson defended Special Fed’s litigation of Fraser’s lawsuit, saying in a statement that after evaluating “all the facts and evidence” agency lawyers “challenged this case all the way to trial.” “While we are disappointed with the verdict, we respect it,” said department spokesperson Nick Paolucci. But Thomas Giovanni, who served as a top official in the Law Department from 2014 until last December, said the agency’s police defense practice too often seeks to justify misconduct after the fact, rather than proactively identifying problems, settling them early and pushing its client to reform. “Are we the oncologist,” he asked of the city lawyer, “or are we the janitor?” Some civil rights lawyers in the city say the Law Department’s conduct in the Fraser case suggests the latter. Fraser’s civil lawsuit centered on a botched buy-and-bust operation that NYPD narcotics officers conducted in a Manhattan public housing project on Oct. 21, 2014 — and the lawsuit history of the detectives who played key roles in Fraser’s arrest. In sworn filings, the police said Fraser confronted an undercover police officer that day, robbing him of a fake New York state license and $20 in drug buy money. Fraser, then 18, denied this, saying that the officer offered up his ID as proof that he wasn’t a cop, and that the detectives framed Fraser for robbery after he merely took a photo of it. Even though no drugs or buy money were discovered on Fraser that day, he was charged based on the detectives’ claims that he stole the undercover officer’s ID. The case hinged on the officers’ testimony versus Fraser’s, and a jury eventually convicted him of a robbery charge. He was sentenced to two years in prison. What that jury didn’t know, and what Fraser’s appellate lawyers , was that six officers involved in his arrest had been named in a total of 35 civil lawsuits. only discovered years after his conviction Yet Fraser’s defense lawyer said he only received two cases from a prosecutor ahead of trial — a lack of disclosure that would later prompt a judge to overturn Fraser’s conviction in 2019. The following year he filed a lawsuit in civil court seeking accountability — and compensation — for the actions of the NYPD detectives who had put him behind bars. In her opening statement last month, though, Special Fed attorney Caroline McGuire’s pitch to jurors was that Fraser was actually guilty of the robbery and was now trying to “trick you into awarding him money.” She pointed to comments Fraser had made to a parole board in which he appeared to accept responsibility for his “crime” — a position Fraser said he only took after older inmates counseled him to express remorse if he wanted to get paroled. McGuire argued that Fraser had been lucky to get his conviction overturned, going so far as to say that his own defense lawyer was partly at fault for the whole ordeal because he hadn’t looked up lawsuits against the officers “despite the fact that it would have taken him only five minutes.” McMahon stopped her. “My first instruction of law, under the Brady rule, a defense lawyer has no obligation to look for lawsuits,” the judge explained. “You had better watch it,” she warned McGuire. After the city lawyer finished, the judge went even further, excusing the jury and summoning to the podium the chief of Special Fed, Patricia Miller, who was watching from the gallery. “Ms. Miller, do you have an explanation for why one of your assistants would come into my courtroom and suggest that a defense lawyer has an obligation to go look up material that he doesn’t have any obligation under Brady to look up?” she asked. Miller told the judge that McGuire hadn’t intended to mislead the jury and was in fact trying to make a point about the relevance of the lawsuits — an argument McGuire’s co-counsel then reiterated. But the judge rejected the city’s position entirely: “I’m here to tell you what came out of Ms. McGuire’s mouth was not permissible,” McMahon said. Over the next week, Fraser’s lawyers pointed out multiple inconsistencies in the various police accounts of Fraser’s arrest, casting doubt on the official narrative of events. Among them: The undercover officer claimed that Fraser had stolen his ID, but no officer testified seeing a detective recover it from Fraser. In fact, only a photocopy of it was later submitted as evidence. Fraser’s lawyers also elicited testimony that went to several officers’ credibility, showing that the undercover officer and another detective had never told the prosecutor in Fraser’s case about a combined eight lawsuits they’d been named in, which alleged false arrest and other civil rights violations, and which settled for $246,500 in total. (The district attorney’s office, which has its own obligation to search for such material, also conducted an incomplete search in Fraser’s case, failing to turn up all the lawsuits the office knew about, a prosecutor testified in Fraser’s civil trial.) As it turned out, the NYPD itself had for decades failed to train its employees on their legal duties to inform the people they arrest of important information that might help their cases. Thousands of pages of internal training materials turned over in the Fraser case revealed that it wasn’t until 2014 — 51 years after Brady was decided and only after New York’s highest court affirmed that records of civil lawsuits had to be turned over — that the NYPD put in writing officers’ disclosure obligations. And even then, the department at first mischaracterized them, not clarifying its instructions until 2017 to include not just information which could exonerate an accused person, but also material that goes to officers' own credibility, such as civil lawsuits. The failure of basic disclosure became all the more remarkable when Fraser’s lawyers learned that the department maintained an extensive database of civil lawsuits against officers — though it would remain largely inaccessible to the cops referenced in it, as well as to prosecutors. A top NYPD lawyer in charge of the database testified that officers and assistant district attorneys interested in finding out about lawsuits could email her. To raise awareness about its existence, she started giving oral presentations to cops about their obligations to know their lawsuit histories beginning in 2014, instructing them about “Googling yourself.” The supervisors who received those training sessions were then supposed to tell rank-and-file officers at roll calls ahead of their tours about their legal responsibilities, the NYPD lawyer said on the stand, a scenario that Judge McMahon likened to the 1980s police procedural “Hill Street Blues.” “I’m flabbergasted by what I have heard in the last two days, I got to tell you, I’m flabbergasted,” McMahon said on March 17. In response to all this, Special Fed’s closing arguments to the jury were fairly straightforward: If they believed that Fraser had committed the 2014 robbery, and thus hadn’t been framed, the rest was moot. To bolster their position, the attorneys returned to Fraser’s two parole board appearances in 2017 and his comments there, including what seemed to be an acknowledgement that he was dealing drugs on the day of his arrest. By his own admission, Fraser had as a teenager sold crack. But he maintained at his civil trial that he’d given up the trade by the time of his arrest and was proud to have landed a job as a sheet metal union apprentice. The jury believed Fraser, and after the weeklong trial deliberated for about a day before finding unanimously in his favor. The city’s approach to the Fraser case may now cost taxpayers more than double what they would otherwise have been liable for. Two years before the jury verdict, Fraser’s lawyers say, they offered to put the matter to rest for $1.6 million, inclusive of attorneys fees. “From then until time of trial, they told us they had no interest in discussing settlement,” said Joel Rudin, one of Fraser’s lawyers. When he asked his adversary at Special Fed why, the answer that came back was revealing. According to Rudin, the city lawyer said he had been told that “higher-ups had made a decision it was a no-pay case,” and that the NYPD “didn’t want to settle.” While the NYPD can offer its opinion on proposed settlements to city lawyers, former Special Fed attorneys say the decision to offer a deal is exclusively theirs — and the city charter gives the city’s chief financial officer, the comptroller, the ultimate authority on whether to cut checks. (The Law Department did not address ProPublica’s questions about the settlement discussions in Fraser’s case.) With attorneys’ fees, the total city cost in Fraser’s case could now jump to $4 million, including a total of $425,000 in punitive damages assigned to three officers in the case. The NYPD did not say whether the detectives have faced any internal disciplinary action or changes to their duties. In a statement, a department spokesperson said officials are “disappointed in the verdict, and remain committed to meeting our disclosure obligations.” The police and law departments also noted that the NYPD has enhanced its efforts to raise awareness around discovery rules in the past decade and took steps to ensure that disclosures are “complete and timely.” As for its approach to civil litigation, the Law Department “takes seriously its obligation to carefully evaluate the merits of each case and challenge claims at trial as necessary,” the agency spokesperson said. But to Fraser’s lawyers and others in the city’s civil rights bar, Special Fed’s posture — and its apparent deference to the NYPD — helps enable the kind of police misconduct at the heart of cases like Fraser’s. A report released this month by the city comptroller found that citywide last fiscal year and that its settlement costs — $237.2 million — were the highest among all city agencies. the NYPD accounted for a third of all tort payouts “There’s still this kind of dismissive approach” in the NYPD about being sued, said Michael Bloch, another of Fraser’s attorneys. “And that is a really fundamental problem that, unfortunately, I think is going to continue to result in people like Jawaun being falsely convicted of crimes.” Indeed, the verdict in Fraser’s case also exposes the city to additional liability in future cases involving NYPD officers’ failure to turn over impeachment material. (Fraser’s lawyers have already identified at least three convictions that were overturned in recent years because of such disclosure failures.) Meanwhile, prosecutors are also dealing with the fallout from the civil case. Given the finding that the undercover officer and another detective had fabricated evidence in Fraser’s case, a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said officials in a post-conviction review unit are examining current and past cases that have relied on the officers. Defendants in about 20 open cases brought by the city’s Special Narcotics Prosecutor are being notified of the jury’s verdict, and officials in that office are reviewing past cases as well, a spokesperson there said. Both officers are still on the job. A lawyer for their union didn’t respond to questions. For his part, Fraser said measuring cost is harder than tallying amounts on a verdict sheet. The whole ordeal forced him to leave New York, which he said is no longer “my happy place,” and where he is wary of the police. He now lives in quieter surroundings in suburban New Jersey. He has no plans to return to the city that he called home before he was imprisoned. But the worst part by far was losing those formative years with his children. From his son’s first day of day care to his daughter’s first song and dance at school, these are times with his kids that he said he can never get back. “Sometimes the kids don’t remember it, but I don’t even have that memory to tell them about it,” he said. “Because we didn’t get to do it, because I was incarcerated.” Photo by on Tingey Injury Law Firm Unsplash

His Conviction Was Overturned After Two Years in Prison - The City Refused to Admit It Was Wrong

দুই বছর কারাগারে থাকার পরে তার দোষী সাব্যস্ত করা হয়েছিল - শহরটি ভুল ছিল স্বীকার করতে অস্বীকার করেছিল

Seine Verurteilung wurde nach zwei Jahren Gefängnis aufgehoben – die Stadt weigerte sich, die Unrichtigkeit einzugestehen

Su condena fue anulada después de dos años de prisión; la ciudad se negó a admitir que estaba equivocada

Sa condamnation a été annulée après deux ans de prison – La ville a refusé d'admettre que c'était faux

दो साल जेल में रहने के बाद उनकी सजा पलट दी गई - शहर ने यह मानने से इनकार कर दिया कि यह गलत था

彼の有罪判決は2年間の懲役後に覆された - 市はそれが間違っていたと認めることを拒否した

그의 유죄 판결은 감옥에서 2년 만에 뒤집혔습니다 - 시는 그것이 틀렸다는 것을 인정하지 않았습니다

Sua condenação foi anulada após dois anos de prisão - a cidade se recusou a admitir que estava errado

Его приговор был отменен после двух лет тюремного заключения – город отказался признать, что это было неправильно

Mahkumiyeti İki Yıl Hapis Sonrası Bozuldu - Şehir Yanlış Olduğunu Kabul Etmeyi Reddetti

Bản án của anh ta đã được lật lại sau hai năm ngồi tù - Thành phố từ chối thừa nhận điều đó là sai

他的定罪在入狱两年后被推翻——市政府拒绝承认这是错误的

This story was originally published by by . ProPublica Ryan Gabrielson One morning in September 2017, Judge Christopher Plourd opened an unusual hearing at the Imperial County Superior Courthouse, a half-hour north of the California-Mexico border. It involved three illegal drug possession cases that were unrelated to one another. Each of the cases had relied on the results of chemical field test kits used by corrections officers at nearby state prisons. The kits indicated crumbs and shreds of paper that guards found on the inmates contained heroin and amphetamine. But a state forensic laboratory later analyzed the debris utilizing a far more reliable test and found no trace of illegal drugs. The defendants were factually innocent. Rather than simply close the cases, defense attorneys asked the court to determine whether the NIK Public Safety brand field tests used in California’s prisons were too unreliable to show to grand jurors. In effect, they put on trial the evidence most commonly used to secure convictions in drug cases in the U.S. Plourd ruled in early 2018 that the test kit “does not meet a scientific admissibility standard” and therefore “does not support the grand jury indictment.” In other words, the tests were guilty. The Imperial County cases are believed to be the first time a judge blocked field tests from contributing to indictments. In the years since, defendants and inmates in multiple states have scored additional legal victories against agencies using the kits and the companies selling them. “For years, these tests have had this unjustified scientific veneer,” said Des Walsh, founder of the Roadside Drug Test Innocence Alliance, which advocates for the use of more accurate testing technology. “Finally, we believe the tide is turning with this dawning awareness of the unacceptably high rate of false positives.” In a , ProPublica documented law enforcement’s widespread use of field tests to make arrests and secure convictions despite serious flaws. No government agency regulates their use. 2016 series of stories The officers who perform the tests to make arrests on the street often have little or no training in their use. Since then, the new court rulings have contributed to a growing movement to change the way drug cases are prosecuted in America. Courts across the country have long known that field tests are error prone and require forensic laboratories to confirm the results for jury trials. However, nearly all drug convictions in the U.S. come by plea deals during initial hearings, where chemical kits are the primary evidence of guilt. Courts have overturned 131 drug convictions in the past 10 years after laboratory analysis determined the alleged drugs were legal substances, according to a database maintained by the National Registry of Exonerations. A large majority of those wrongful convictions originated in Harris County, Texas, where the crime lab analyzed its backlog of suspected drugs from closed cases and discovered the evidence in hundreds of convictions did not contain drugs. The defendants in those cases had pleaded guilty at preliminary hearings. The tests are small plastic pouches holding vials of chemicals. They’re cheap, roughly $2 apiece, and easy to use. Officers open the pouch and add the substance to be tested. The tests are designed to produce specific colors when mixed with drugs like heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine. But dozens of items, including foods and household cleaners, trigger similar reactions. During the Imperial County hearing, an executive at the Safariland Group, the nation’s largest field test manufacturer, testified the company keeps a list of more than 50 legal substances that cause positive results. Court records show chocolate sometimes turns the liquid a similar shade of green as heroin in the NIK kits. Safariland Group did not respond to a request for comment. More evidence of the tests’ inaccuracy came in October 2021, when former inmates filed a class-action lawsuit against the Massachusetts Department of Correction. The prisons used test kits on all incoming mail, including letters from attorneys. When correspondence tested positive, inmates were sometimes put in solitary confinement and lost eligibility for parole. The lawsuit alleged that the prison system’s use of field tests violated the inmates’ right to due process. Court records show that between August 2019 and August 2020, lab analysis found that 38% of the inmate mail that tested positive did not contain the alleged drug. Shortly after the inmates filed their lawsuit, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Brian David ordered the Correction Department to immediately stop using the chemical kits until the litigation was finished. In the order, David characterized the NARK II brand kits used in Massachusetts’ prisons as “arbitrary and unlawful guesswork.” The inmates are also suing Sirchie Acquisition Co., manufacturer of the NARK II kits, and Premier Biotech, a retailer that sells them, in federal court for negligence, alleging the companies misrepresented the kits’ risk of false positives and provided inaccurate instructions to the state prisons. In September, a federal judge ruled that field test sellers can potentially be held liable for harm caused by erroneous results. Both of the lawsuits are ongoing. Sirchie did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment. Sirchie, Premier Biotech and the Massachusetts Correction Department have denied the inmates’ claims in court records. Compounding field tests’ inherent flaws, police officers and prison guards rarely understand how the kits work, according to court records and interviews. During the hearing in Imperial County, multiple guards testified about the training they received on the field tests and how they described the results to grand jurors. David Eustaquio, an officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told the court he had used the chemical kits more than 200 times during his career, according to transcripts. He said he’d never had to explain the results beyond saying the color change meant the test was positive for an illegal drug. “Do you know what the accuracy rate is for these NIK tests?” Kelly Jafine, an Imperial County deputy public defender, asked Eustaquio. “No, I do not,” he said. Jafine then asked if the prison had taught him about false positive results during training on the chemical kits. “No,” Eustaquio answered, “I was not.” Photo by on Max Fleischmann Unsplash

Roadside Drug Tests May Become Obsolete: Here's Why

রাস্তার পাশের ওষুধের পরীক্ষাগুলি অপ্রচলিত হয়ে উঠতে পারে: কেন তা এখানে

Drogentests am Straßenrand könnten obsolet werden: Hier ist der Grund

Las pruebas de detección de drogas en la carretera pueden volverse obsoletas: este es el motivo

Les tests de dépistage de drogues en bordure de route pourraient devenir obsolètes : voici pourquoi

सड़क किनारे ड्रग परीक्षण अप्रचलित हो सकते हैं: यहां जानिए क्यों

路上薬物検査は時代遅れになるかもしれない: その理由は次のとおりです

길가 약물 검사가 더 이상 쓸모 없게 될 수 있습니다: 그 이유는 다음과 같습니다.

Os testes de drogas na estrada podem se tornar obsoletos: aqui está o porquê

Yol Kenarındaki Uyuşturucu Testleri Eski Hale Gelebilir: İşte Nedeni

Thử nghiệm ma túy bên đường có thể trở nên lỗi thời: Đây là lý do tại sao

路边药物测试可能会过时：原因如下

Stories, News & Mentions about JURO

Juro’s Stories on HackerNoon