What's good for thee is not for me

You know what really bugs me (well, today, anyway)?  It's these laws that are enforceable on "we" the people but "them" the politicians are immune.  

I mean, the whole point of the Revolution of 1776 was, among other things, to provide representation in government by the people and for the people.

Instead, what we have are laws that stick it to we the people in favor of select corrupt politicians (and in my book, if you're going to use laws to your benefit and then not allow your constituents whom you are supposed to be representing the same courtesy - you are corrupt).

For example:

1. Campaign Finance & Bribery

Citizens:

• Bribing or receiving money for official acts is a federal felony (18 U.S.C. § 201).

• Private citizens have been convicted and imprisoned for giving or receiving even small bribes.

Politicians:

• Many accept massive campaign donations or “Super PAC” support from those seeking favorable policy.

• Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) made it nearly impossible to prosecute large-scale political donations as bribery.

• The McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) Supreme Court decision drastically narrowed what counts as an “official act” — making bribery cases against politicians almost impossible to win.

Why immune: lobbying and campaign donations are protected as “speech”; bribery laws are narrowly interpreted to protect politicians but are broadly interpreted when prosecuting everyone else.

 3. Tax Evasion and Financial Disclosure

Citizens:

• IRS aggressively pursues underreporting, false deductions, and unreported income.

• Thousands are prosecuted yearly for tax evasion.

Politicians:

• Members of Congress and high officials rarely face IRS audits.

• Some have failed to disclose millions in stock trades, rental income, or gifts without criminal consequence (usually resolved with a fine or “amended filing”).

Why immune: disclosure violations are civil; IRS rarely audits sitting members; ethics committees are political, not judicial.

 4. Obstruction of Justice / Perjury

Citizens:

• Lying to the FBI, Congress, or courts = felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

• Many citizens and government employees have been prosecuted for false statements.

Politicians:

• Members of Congress or executive officials frequently give misleading or false testimony under oath with no prosecution (e.g., high-profile hearings).

• Enforcement is inconsistent and usually requires the DOJ to prosecute itself or its political allies.

Why immune: political pressure; DOJ discretion; speech or debate clause.

5. Insider Trading

Citizens:

• Regular investors are routinely prosecuted by the SEC and DOJ for trading on material, nonpublic information (MNPI).

• Penalties: prison (up to 20 years), civil fines, disgorgement of profits, and permanent bans from trading.

Politicians:

• Members of Congress have received briefings with MNPI (e.g., COVID-19 briefings before market crashes).

• Despite clear suspicious trades, no member has ever been convicted under the STOCK Act or Securities Exchange Act.

Why immune: difficult to prove “nonpublic” and “intent” elements; political pressure; Congress regulates itself.

It's to this last one that I base my claim because it seems that Congress (you know, the group(s) that is supposed to be representing we the people?) purposely makes laws that secretly include loopholes to help politicians evade prosecution.

As this all relates to Congressional insider trading, while politicians in the U.S. are not techically exempt from insider trading laws, because enforcement is extremely weak (and taking into account the many, MANY loopholes that politicians are aware of and take advantage of), prosecution is nearly impossible in practice.

Here’s a breakdown of why this happens.

The law technically applies to politicians.  The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 prohibit anyone (including members of Congress) from trading stocks based on material, nonpublic information (MNPI).  However, for decades, it wasn’t clear whether information obtained through official government work counted as MNPI.

 

Well, it was clear to regular, every day people who could see what was going on but for whatever reason, politicians (who can't see past the end of their elongated noses) could never see any discrepancies. 

 

The STOCK Act (2012) tried to fix this.  After public outrage over reports that members of Congress were trading stocks based on information learned through their duties, Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act in 2012.

The Act explicitly affirmed that Members of Congress, their staff, and executive officials are subject to insider trading laws.  It required disclosure of trades within 45 days and it prohibited the use of nonpublic information gained through official position for personal gain.

BUT...

Congress quietly weakened the Act in 2013 — removing the online disclosure database and softening transparency requirements (remember the part about the loopholes?).  Consequently, enforcement was left to federal prosecutors and the SEC, who almost never (note the NEVER part) pursue these cases. 

There have been a few notable cases where the DOJ investigate insider trading by Congressional "leaders," like:

Sen. Richard Burr (R–NC): As Senate Intelligence Chair, Burr received private briefings about the emerging coronavirus threat.  Consequently, he sold major holdings days after those briefings and before markets collapsed.

• Date of Trades: February 13, 2020 — just before the U.S. stock market crash caused by COVID-19 fears.
• Value of Trades: Between $628,000 and $1.72 million in 33 separate transactions. 

The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): In March 2020, Feinstein came under scrutiny for stock sales shortly before the market crashed due to COVID-19. Feinstein was one of them.

• Date of Trades: January–February 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Value of Trades: Estimated between $1.5 million and $6 million in Allogene Therapeutics stock (a biotech company). 

The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute (though Feinstein offered to pay a small civil fine -  usually up to $50,000, (though the exact amount was not reported publicly). 

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA): accused of selling stocks shortly after attending a closed-door Senate Health Committee briefing on COVID-19 (January 24, 2020), during which public officials warned about the virus’s likely impact.

• Date of Trades:  January 31 – February 14, 2020 (more than two dozen additional transactions took place over these two weeks.
• Value of Trades: Estimated total trades: 27 separate transactions, worth between $1.3 million and $3.1 million. 

The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute. 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): In late January 2020, following a closed-door Senate briefing (led by Trump administration officials) about the emerging risks of COVID-19, Inhofe sold off significant stock holdings just before the market dropped sharply.

• Date of Trade:  January 27, 2020
• Value of Trade: Roughly $395,000 to $850,000 worth of stocks in multiple companies, including Apple, PayPal, Brookfield Asset Management, etc.

The DOJ investigated by declined to prosecute.  

Can you see the running theme, here? 

More recently, several member of congress have continued to engaged in insider trading despite the increased scrutiny, such as:

 

Who: Rep Van Hoyle (D-Oregon) 

What: In September 2025, she was "weeks or months" late in disclosing 217 stock trades by her husband, per her congressional financial disclosure.

How Much:  The trades' combined value is giving between $45,215 and $3,355,000.  Her office later said the specific combined value was about $500,000. 

 

Who: Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-South Carolina)

What:  Disclosed multiple trades made by her or her spouse in 2025, including stock sales and purchases.

How Much:  The trades improperly disclosed total somewhere between $4.14 million and $13.62 million in value.  Some individual transactions: buying and ETF (iShares Bitcoin Trust, "IBIT") in the $100,000-$250,000 range.

 

Who:  Rep. Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey)

What:  In September 2025, he filed a financial disclosure more than a year late under the STOCK Act for a stock sale.

How Much:  The sale was for up to $50,000 of Toronto-Dominion Bank stock in a retirement account.

 

Who:  Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania)

What:  An ethics panel found he violated the House code of Conduct in 2025 in relation to stock purchases by his wife after he allegedly learned confidential information about a plant staying open. 

How Much:  The profit from that transaction was $64,476.

 

Of course, there have been several proposed reforms to close the loopholes enjoyed by congressional "leaders."

 

Bipartisan “Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act” — would force members to place assets in a blind trust or divest.

 

Trust in Congress Act — similar goals, stronger penalties. 

The

Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act - First introduced in 2023 by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the bill did not advance out of committee during the 118th Congress.  The bill (S. 1498 in the 119th Congress) was reintroduced in the Senate on April 28, 2025, by Senator Hawley.  Renamed the Honest Act, on July 30, 2025, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-7 to advance the bill. It aims to restore trust in government by prohibiting certain investments for elected officials. Its core provisions include: 

• Banning members of Congress and their spouses from holding, trading, or purchasing individual stocks.
• Allowing investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or U.S. Treasury bonds.
• Requiring lawmakers to divest from individual stocks within 180 days of the bill's enactment or within 180 days of taking office.
• Applying the ban to future presidential administrations

What is particulary interesting about the Honest Act is that it does have some particularly sharp teeth in the way of penalties if/when Congressional "leaders" violate it, such as:

• Daily fines: Fines of $1,000 or more per day that a violation continues. 
• Forfeiture of profits: Disgorgement of any profits made from prohibited investments. 
• Increased penalties: Higher fines for failing to make required disclosures under the STOCK Act. 
• Forfeiture of assets: The potential loss of assets or property involved in a violation. 
• Criminal penalties: Prison time and larger fines, as specified by criminal statutes 

 

...Buuuuut none of these bills have passed - yet (as of 2025).

So, teeth or no, odds are none of these bills will pass committees or even make it to the desk of the POTUS to be signed. 

The bottom line is this:  Where countless ordinary citizens are prosecuted while no politician has ever faced charges for insider trading strongly suggests that the insider trading “rules” for Congress are weak and effectively unenforceable in practice on purpose. 

Essentially, what's good for thee is not for me

The failure of government to police itself demonstrates systemic bias, structural loopholes, and political protection, rather than any lack of wrongdoing by the politicians themselves...and it's well past time to change all this.   

So, let's hope Sen. Hawley has the cojones (and the Republicans can get out their own way long enough) to get the "Honest" Act passed into law.

You'll Feel Like a Secret Agent

Here's a bar bet fact.  Did you know that every day, all around the world, Google.com processes 8 BILLION queries?  Of those 8 billion search queries using the general search bar at Google.com, only about 0.1% use Advanced Search.

Wait, what???  

At about the point, you should be asking yourself, what's Advanced Search?!  As noted, there are a few ways to search Google.  First is to conduct a general, natural language search using the general search bar at Google.com which is what 7.992 billion users do daily.  The other 8 million savvy users use the Advanced Search features.  While most all browsers have advance search features,  Google has a couple other features up its sleeves to help you get what you're looking for/at.

Before I get into this, I have to warn you, dear reader, that what I'm about to expose you to is pretty deep state sort of stuff.  Most people are happy to live their lives in utter ignorance.  For the rest of us, just getting along isn't enough.  So, ONLY if you're willing to be 1,000,000,000.9% vested, you might want to hit the pause button here, take the blue pill and go back to to your "regular"  programming.

For the rest of you...

To help understand the difference between "Regular" searching and "Advanced Search," we have to look at results.

Let's run a search using the "normal" search bar in google and run a search for: 

Law cases since 2005 where an amusement park was held liable for injuries to guests 

While Google doesn't say how many results were returned anymore, you do get an inkling that you got a lot of stuff that may or may not be directly relevant to what you're looking for/at:

The thing with Google is that anything after the first page is going to be questionable.  It might be relevant but probably isn't and it gets more and more frustrating the further away you get from that first page of results.

 

Now, let's run a search in Advanced Search.  To do this, Type Advance Search in the Google Search bar, thus:

 

Hit Enter and you'll get (or should get):

 

 Click "Advanced Search" and you'll see:

 

For this search, we're going to be using the rows:

• All These Words
• This Exact Word or Phrase
• Any of These Words
• Numbers Ranging From

Using our above search (Law cases since 2005 where an amusement park was held liable for injuries to guests), we can extract a few keywords to help our search.

Under "All These Words," I'm going to enter the words:  negligence liable.   A simple definition of negligence is you didn't mean to do it.  A simple definition of liable is that you are responsible.  I want these words because they form the basis of most injury cases.  Also, just because you didn't mean to do it (or something), doesn't mean you aren't liable for injuries to another.

 

Under "This Exact Word or Phrase," I'm going to search for: "amusement park" or "theme park" or "held liable."  I put quotes around two or more words because I want to keep those two words together in just that order (i.e. I don't want park amusement because that doesn't make sense).  Also, I'm using the word "or" to indicate that I'll take what I can get.  Like a hail Mary pass

 

Under "Any of These Words," I'm going to enter: injuries injury accident harm death.  Notice that I don't use commas between the words.  I've just gotten in the habit of not using commas and just type the words as I need.

 

Finally, under "Numbers Ranging From," I'll use my date range of cases from 2005 to 2025.

 

 Hit enter and you'll get something that looks like:

 

While this is just the AI summary of the results, we can see several of our search terms like "Amusement park," "held liable," injuries, and negligence.  As we scroll down, we can find results related to our search query:

 

As you look at each result, you can see our search terms specific to our search as well as the years (which are within our search parameter of 2005-2025).

 

The problem with all this is that while nice, these results don't actually get us what we're seeking.  Specifically, we were looking for legal CASES related to injuries at amusement parks.

 

To see cases FOR FREE, we're going to need to search under Scholar.Google.com.  To get there, simply search for scholar.google.com in the search bar, hit enter and voila! 

What you should notice is options.  If you want to search for general scholarly articles, select "Articles."  If what you want is case law (as is what we're looking for, here), select "Case Law."

 

When you select Case Law, you will be give another set of options.  Specifically, do you want cases from Federal courts, courts from the jurisdiction from where you are using Google (since I am presently in Utah, "Utah courts" is identified), or would you like to select cases from other jurisdictions (i.e. "Select courts").

 

While there are amusement or theme parks in Utah, it isn't well known to have such.  So, let's expand our search to include Cases from California (theme park of the nation), Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.  Then we'll type in our search query with a bunch of "OR" statements:

 

Hit enter and you'll get something that looks like:

Two things to note.  First, scrolling down, you'll find cases from California, Texas, Utah, Florida, and South Carolina and some federal cases (which are the jurisdictions we selected to specifically search).  You can also select any year(s) between 2005-2025.

 

The other thing to note is that you'll see me saying "you'll see something like..." What this means is that every time I hit enter, the results I get are going to be a little different.  If you were to run the same search using the same parameters in another month, you'll get different results.  It's not that the results are wrong - just updated from when I ran my search.

 

And there you have it.  Dark deep search techniques available to everyone but used only by the few, the proud, the research gods.

 

Do this long enough and you start getting goose bumps.

No John Hancock, There

Have you ever wondered why things exist (or are purported to exist)?

Take, for example, Bigfoot.  Have  you (or anyone) ever seen a clear picture of Bigfoot?  I mean, with all the tech we have these days, why is it no one can get a clear picture of the Big guy?!

Or, how about UFOs?  Have you ever seen a UFO?  Have you ever been teleported up to (or by) a UFO?  And what's with their fascination with cows and butt probes?  I've seen images of "aliens" and they look hominoid to me. Why don't they just do butt stuff on themselves and leave us earthlings alone?!?

Finally, what's up with this Autopen we hear so much about?

Recently, there has been much talk of POTUS Biden's (or someone - or several someone's) use of an autopen in the White House and I got to wondering.  What exactly is an auto pen, what is it's function (outside of the obvious) and why does it exist?

An autopen—also known as a "robot pen" or signing machine—is a mechanical device programmed to replicate a person's signature using a real pen or writing instrument. Earlier versions traced a signature from a plastic template (a matrix) that a stylus followed; modern versions use digital files stored on a smart card or USB device to reproduce the signature with consistent pressure and precision.

Historically, Thomas Jefferson used an early version (polygraph machine) in the early 1800s. Presidents such as Truman, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, and Obama have all used autopens—typically for routine correspondence or when they were working abroad and stuff needed to get signed at home. 

For Example: In May 2011, President Obama used an autopen to sign a Patriot Act extension while in France to meet a deadline. In May 2024, President Biden used an autopen for a short FAA funding extension while in San Francisco.

The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has opined that a president may validly sign legislation by directing the use of an autopen—meaning the physical act isn’t required if authorization is clear.

At the heart of the "autopen scandal," is/was whether Biden had full faculty of mind when he either signed the hundreds of clemency orders on his last day in office or if someone else was in charge of things and Biden didn't know (or was incapable of knowing) what was going on.

In 2005, the Justice Department released an OLC opinion confirming that autopen use is valid—but only when the President has made the decision to sign and explicitly authorizes the signature.  That memo emphasized that what matters is the president’s intent and direction, not his physical presence. 

This brings me to my next question.  If Biden didn't know what was going on, would the use of the autopen be tantamount to forgery?  As it turns out, if the autopen were used without the knowledge or authorization of the President, that scenario would indeed constitute forgery—and could carry criminal consequences.

Forgery is broadly defined as the creation or imitation of someone’s signature without permission or authorization, with the intent to deceive others into believing it's genuine.

Legal expert and Professor Emeritus of Law at George Washington University Law School, John Banzhaf stated on June 3, 2025, in a press release distributed via PRLog that if an autopen is used without the president’s knowledge, it would violate federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 471 (forgery) and possibly § 495. 

The implication is clear: even though the signature may look authentic, it's still fraudulent if not properly authorized.

For reference sake, following are relevant statutes related to forgery issues at the federal level:

18 U.S.C. § 471 (Forgery of U.S. Obligations or Securities):

Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 

18 U.S.C. § 472 (Uttering Counterfeit Obligations)

Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 495 (Forgery or Alteration of Government Documents):

Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States or any officers or agents thereof, any sum of money; or

Whoever utters or publishes as true any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or officer of the United States, any such writing in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements)

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Note that: Section 1001 is not related to forgery per se, but it does criminalize knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements in government matters and it could apply if a forged presidential signature was used to misrepresent authority.

So, why is any of this important?  It's important because if someone operates the autopen and signs documents in the name of the president without his knowledge or authorization, it’s not just improper—it’s forgery. Such misuse undermines trust, violates federal law, and could render any such documents invalid, opening them up to legal challenges.

The (or a) problem which all this is that this scenario is unprecedented.  Never in the history of the country has there been such a pall cast on the office of the POTUS.  Consequently, no judicial precedent exists.  Legal experts and media commentators repeatedly note that while autopen use has been controversial, no federal or state court has ever adjudicated a case on unauthorized autopen use.   

Since there’s no direct case law on unauthorized autopen use, the best way to understand how courts might treat it is by looking at analogous case law on forgery and delegation of authority. 

Following are some useful parallels:

1. Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650 (1962)

• Facts: Defendant falsely endorsed U.S. Treasury checks.

• Issue: Whether signing someone else’s name “per procuration” (on their behalf) constituted forgery under 18 U.S.C. § 495. 

• Holding: Forgery requires that the writing purports to be that of someone else, without authorization.

• Relevance: This complicates autopen analysis. It suggests that delegated signing - if authorized - may not be forged, even when done mechanically.  But unauthorized autopen use could still be considered forgery under different reasoning.  As such, if someone used an autopen without POTUS authorization, it would squarely fit into this definition of forgery.

2. United States v. Hunt, 456 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2006)

• Facts: Defendant signed a government official’s name without authority.

• Holding: The Supreme Court held that not all unauthorized signatures are forgery. The key test is whether the “false making” element is present. Agency endorsement (“per procuration”) without fraudulent intent may not automatically be forgery.  So, courts treat unauthorized signing—even when mechanically reproduced—as forgery if intent to defraud exists.

• Relevance: Supports the position that autopen misuse without direct presidential authorization (meaning the POTUS purposefully said "do it this way") would constitute forgery.

3. Benson v. McMahon, 127 U.S. 457 (1888)

• Holding: The Court emphasized that forgery isn’t limited to pen-and-ink signatures—it includes signatures produced by plates, printing, or other mechanical means.

• Relevance: This aligns closely with autopen concerns—meaning mechanical reproduction of a signature, when unauthorized, still constitutes forgery, even if it looks authentic.

4. Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675 (1931)

• Holding: The Court upheld a forgery charge under criminal statutes that covered “any deed, power of attorney, order … or other writing” used to obtain money from the United States.

• Relevance: While not about autopens specifically, the case illustrates that a forged ministerial instrument—even a non-handwritten one—if used to obtain government benefits, can be criminally prosecuted.

5. Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498 (1839)

• Facts: Examined validity of land patents signed by clerks “by direction” of the President.

• Holding: Signatures affixed under presidential authorization are binding.

• Relevance: Early support for the idea that the president can delegate the mechanical act of signing.

6. Ex parte Hennen, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 230 (1839)

• Facts: Addressed presidential appointment and removal power.

• Holding: The president may delegate ministerial tasks to subordinates but retains discretion over core decisions.

• Relevance: Reinforces distinction—delegating the act is fine, but not the decision-making. With autopen, the decision is the president’s; the act is delegated.

Bottom line, what does this all mean for the autopen?  

 

I suspect that where there is authorized autopen use (like under Wilcox v. Jackson), use of the autopen is valid, because the President made the decision and delegated only the physical act.  

 

However, where there is unauthorized autopen use (like under Gilbert v. U.S. or Hunt), the use of the autopen would constitute forgery, because the signer acted without authority, even if the signature looks authentic.

 

So, cue the governmental inquisition and let the bloodletting commence. 

Word of the Month for October 2025: DeepFake

The other day, as I was perusing through Internet-land, I came across an article about a CEO who had been the target of a deepfake.

Wait, what?!  What's a deepfake?

A DEEPFAKE is media in which a person’s face, voice, or body is digitally altered to make it appear as though they did or said something they never did. For example:

• A video of a politician giving a speech they never gave.

• A celebrity’s face swapped into a movie scene.

• An audio clip mimicking a person’s voice to scam someone.

So, back to CEO.  Apparently, CEO allegedly sent out an voicemail to all his employees to get them to send him their personal information.

Seemed sketchy since CEO hadn't  made this types of request before.  Turns out he didn't and that the email was a outed as deepfake before anyone lost any data.

Sounds pretty funky, huh?  Think I'm making this all up (because who can mimic another person's voice and mannerisms.).  Well, turns out these deepfakes happen a LOT.  For example:

AI Voice Fraud — Executive Impersonation Leading to Wire Transfers

• UK Energy Firm (~2019): Scammers used AI to clone the voice of a German parent company’s CEO, perfectly mimicking accent and “melody,” and convinced the UK-based CEO to wire €220,000 (approximately $243,000 USD) to a fake supplier.

Deepfake Video Conference — $25.6M Hong Kong Scam

• Hong Kong (2024): In a highly sophisticated scheme, employees participated in a video conference featuring deepfakes of their CFO and other colleagues. This led to HK$200 million (~$25.6 million USD) being transferred to fraudsters.

Deepfake Voice — $35M Bank Heist in Hong Kong

• Hong Kong (2020): A bank manager received what sounded like a phone call from a director using AI-generated voice, instructing a $35 million transfer for a supposed acquisition. The fraudulent request was combined with emails from supposedly real associates, making the scam convincingly authentic.

Rising Trend of Executive Deepfake Scams

• Several major companies have been targeted by voice or video deepfake scams aiming to extract sensitive information or payments. Details include:

  • Ferrari (2024): A deepfake impersonated CEO Benedetto Vigna in a video call to authorize a fraudulent wire transfer. An executive assistant foiled the scam by asking a security question only the real CEO would know.
  • Arup (2024) : Fraudsters impersonated the CFO in a video call and convinced a finance employee to transfer $25 million 
  • WPP advertising group (2024): A deepfake of CEO Mark Read, using a voice clone and public photos, was used in a scam to solicit money and details from a senior executive. The attempt failed due to employee vigilance.
  • LastPass (2024): An employee received an AI-generated audio call and WhatsApp messages impersonating CEO Karim Toubba. The employee became suspicious due to the "forced urgency" and unusual communication channel, and reported it.
  • Crypto Exchange (2023): Binance warned about deepfake impersonation scams after its executives were targeted. In one case, a deepfake video of a CEO was used to steal credentials. 
  • UK Energy Company (2019): An employee wired $243,000 to a fraudulent account after being tricked by a deepfake audio clone of their CEO

 

While the law is still catching up, major concerns involving deepfakes include privacy, defamation, fraud, and harassment. Ramifications vary by context:

1. Defamation / Reputation Harm

   • If a deepfake falsely portrays someone in a damaging way, they may sue under defamation laws.

2. Fraud & Identity Theft

   • Deepfakes used to impersonate someone (e.g., voice cloning for scams) may lead to wire fraud, identity theft, or securities fraud charges.

3. Harassment / Nonconsensual Pornography

   • A large portion of harmful deepfakes involve placing individuals’ faces into explicit content without consent. Many states are passing laws criminalizing this.

4. Election & Political Law

   • Some states (e.g., Texas, California) have statutes restricting deepfakes in election advertising or political campaigns.

5. Intellectual Property

   • Using a celebrity’s likeness without permission may violate right of publicity laws.

6. Federal & International Movement

   • In the U.S., there’s no single federal “deepfake law” yet, but bills have been proposed.

   • The EU’s AI Act and China’s regulations require labeling or banning certain deepfakes.

So, who is/are creating these deepfakes and why?  Money aside, it depends on who you ask and the intent of the entities.  Essentially, there are two groups: Malicious actors and Non-malicious creators.

Malicious actors

• Individuals and groups: Malicious individuals can create deepfakes for purposes such as extortion, revenge, or harassment.
• Fraudsters and scammers: These criminals use deepfakes for financial fraud and phishing attacks. Recent high-profile cases have involved impersonating company executives on video calls to deceive employees into transferring large sums of money.
• State-sponsored groups and political actors: Foreign intelligence operatives and political parties use deepfakes for disinformation campaigns, election interference, and undermining public trust. 

Non-malicious creators

• Content creators and artists: Artists use deepfakes for creative expression, to create memes, or for satire and parody of public figures.
• Researchers and academics: These individuals develop and experiment with deepfake technology to advance AI and machine learning, and to create detection methods for malicious deepfakes.
• The entertainment industry: Filmmakers and visual effects artists use deepfakes for high-tech digital effects, such as de-aging actors or creating digital clones. 

My next question would be (and is, since this is a legal-related blog) how have different jurisdictions handled (or have started to handle) these deepfakes?

Minnesota — civil & criminal deepfake protections

• Civil cause of action (nonconsensual sexual deepfakes): Minn. Stat. § 604.32 — “Cause of action for nonconsensual dissemination of a deep fake depicting intimate parts or sexual acts.” (Defines “deep fake,” creates private cause of action, remedies).
• Election-related criminal prohibition: Minn. Stat. § 609.771 (as amended by HF1370/2023) — criminalizes knowingly using deepfake technology to influence an election under specified timing/intent rules. (See HF1370 enacted language and SOS overview.).

California — private right and expanding statutes (nonconsensual digitized sexual material)

• Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.86 (existing right / cause of action for digitized sexually explicit material) — California already had statutory civil remedies for digitized/“deepfake” sexually explicit material; recent legislative action (AB 621 / AB 2839 and related bills) expanded and clarified definitions, added remedies and presumptions against deepfake-porn services. See AB 621 committee analysis for text and changes
• Criminal/other provisions: Recent California updates (and Penal Code cross-references) explicitly treat AI-generated intimate material in various contexts.

Texas — election deepfake statute

• Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 255.004 (from SB 751, 2019) — one of the earliest state statutes addressing “deepfakes” in election communications (text focuses on video misrepresentations in campaigns). Texas has also passed other bills addressing AI-created intimate imagery.

Virginia — nonconsensual intimate image / deepfake pornography

• Va. Code § 18.2-386.2 et seq. — Virginia’s statute criminalizes creation/distribution of nonconsensual sexually explicit images, and has been applied to deepfakes (statute text and practitioner summaries describe penalties and elements).

New York — amendments to intimate image dissemination law

• NY legislation (e.g., S.1042/A. proposed amendments) — New York bills and amendments explicitly fold “digitized”/deepfake images into unlawful dissemination of intimate images; see NY Senate amendment language (S1042A) that inserts deepfake/digitization language into the statute. (Check final compiled bill text where enacted.)  

OK, OK, so the statutes in place don't actually deal with people stealing personal data or squeezing someone for money - rather for sexual gratification and election interference - which  are both important but given the rate at which cyber criminal are expanding operations, it's easy to see that governmental entities are lagging behind the times.

This is not to say that there has not be any action in the courts.  In fact, there are a number of cases that have dealt with deepfakes in recent years.

Lawsuits related to non-consensual deepfake pornography

• City of San Francisco vs. Deepfake Websites (2025): The City Attorney's office sued websites that generate nonconsensual explicit deepfakes, resulting in a settlement with one company, Briver LLC, for $100,000 and a permanent injunction. The city is continuing litigation against the remaining defendants, some of which are located internationally.
• Kyland Young vs. NeoCortex, Inc. (2023): The reality TV star sued the developer of the deepfake software Reface, alleging the app violated his right of publicity under California law. This case highlights how deepfake apps can be misused. 

Cases concerning intellectual property and likeness

• George Carlin Estate vs. Dudesy Podcast (2024): The estate for the late comedian sued the Dudesy podcast for using AI to create a deepfake comedy special titled George Carlin: I'm Glad I'm Dead. The lawsuit was settled quickly, but it brought attention to using AI to replicate an artist's likeness and voice.
• Disney & Universal vs. Midjourney (2025): Major studios filed a lawsuit against the AI image generator Midjourney for the "wholesale appropriation" of their characters, such as Darth Vader and Minions, to train its AI. The suit alleges copyright infringement and dilution of their intellectual property.
• Amazon vs. Illinois Biometric Privacy Class Action (2025): The facial recognition startup Clearview AI agreed to a $50 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit for scraping billions of facial images from the internet without user consent. The suit was brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). 

Lawsuits involving election interference and misinformation

• New Hampshire Robocall Case (2024): A political consultant was charged with orchestrating a deepfake robocall campaign that used an AI-generated voice mimicking President Biden to deter Democratic voters from casting ballots.
• X (formerly Twitter) vs. California (2025): Elon Musk's social media company X challenged and won a legal victory against a California law restricting election-related deepfakes. A federal judge blocked the law, citing concerns that it could lead to censorship of protected political speech, such as parody. 

Other ongoing deepfake-related litigation

• Elon Musk vs. Tesla Wrongful Death Lawsuit (2023): As part of a wrongful death lawsuit involving a Tesla, the company's attorneys questioned the authenticity of a video showing Musk making statements about Tesla's self-driving safety. Musk was ordered to testify under oath to determine the video's authenticity, highlighting how deepfakes can affect the admissibility of evidence in court.
• Mark Walters vs. OpenAI (2025): A radio host sued OpenAI for defamation after ChatGPT generated a false summary that accused him of embezzlement. The court granted summary judgment in favor of OpenAI, ruling that ChatGPT's output was not a factual assertion given the known fallibility of the technology.

and the list goes on and on and...  The point to all this is that while AI is helpful, it can also be a pain in the neck because if you can't believe your own eyes, what can you believe in?

 

I guess the bottom line to all this is stay informed, be aware of your surroundings, and know that everyone is out to get you.

That's not paranoia, that's just gut-reaction common sense.