San Bernardino, California

Today, San Diego civil rights firm McKenzie Scott PC filed a federal civil rights lawsuit [case number 5:26-cv-05407] against the County of San Bernardino on behalf of the Serna family, whose beloved Rottweiler, Daisy, was shot and killed by a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputy who entered their fenced backyard without a warrant on May 4, 2026. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, follows the County’s rejection of the family’s government claim on August 7. It names the County and the deputy who shot Daisy – identified only as “Doe 1,” because more than four months after the shooting, the County still refuses to say who he is.

Home security footage shows the deputy entered the family’s fenced backyard – without a warrant – at approximately 11:55 a.m., while looking into a stolen vehicle parked nearby that had nothing to do with the home.

Daisy did not die immediately, according to the Complaint and video footage it cites. Rather than render aid, the deputy summoned additional personnel, who entered the property in a second warrantless intrusion and spent roughly twenty minutes searching for the expended shell casing while Daisy bled to death at the side of the yard. One deputy can be heard on video remarking, “I think he’s [Daisy] dead now,” while poking her body with a baton; another is heard joking about “kill[ing] the f***ing dog.” Deputies then took Daisy’s body without the family’s permission and allowed it to be destroyed before the family could retrieve her, and let the family’s surviving dog, Raven, out into the street, where she was impounded.

“The County has had the video since the day it happened. It has had more than four months to tell this family the name of the deputy who shot their dog in their own backyard, and it has refused,” said San Diego civil rights attorney Tim Scott, lead counsel for the Serna family. “A department that will not even say who pulled the trigger is not going to hold itself accountable. So we are asking a federal jury to do it.”

The complaint alleges that Daisy’s killing is the latest in a decade-long pattern of SBSD deputies entering private property and shooting dogs they knew or should have expected to find there – and of the County, each time, defending the conduct, disciplining no one, and changing nothing.

The lawsuit also points to the County’s own written policy. SBSD Manual section 3.174.20, “Firearm Discharge – Animal,” authorizes a deputy to kill an animal “when necessary to prevent injury to the member or another person” – any injury, however minor – but says nothing about when a deputy may enter a fenced yard, about planning for a dog he knows is there, or about non-lethal alternatives.

“Twenty years ago, the Ninth Circuit told every law enforcement agency in the West that an officer who knows a dog is present has to have a plan that is not a bullet,” Scott added. “San Bernardino County’s policy does not require one. The County logs every animal its deputies shoot and then does nothing with the list. Daisy died in her own backyard because the County decided that was an acceptable outcome, and this family intends to make the County explain that decision to a jury.”

The complaint asserts nine causes of action under federal and California law, including Fourth Amendment claims for the warrantless entries and the killing of Daisy, a Monell claim against the County for its pattern and practice and its failure to train and discipline, and claims under California’s Bane Act. All four members of the household – Jesus Serna, Vanessa Gonzalez, and their two minor children – are plaintiffs. The family seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages against the individual deputies, injunctive relief, and a jury trial.

Federal courts have long held that shooting a family pet is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and that a fenced backyard is protected to the same extent as the home itself. In San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose (2005), the Ninth Circuit held that officers who know dogs are present and arrive with no non-lethal plan – leaving themselves “without any option but to kill the dogs” – act unreasonably, and recognized that “the emotional attachment to a family’s dog” is not comparable to a mere possessory interest in property. California law separately allows emotional-distress damages when a pet is killed by an intentional or grossly negligent act, or its remains are misappropriated.

Video of the incident is available at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qBgp4EVGakM. The complaint is available upon request.

About McKenzie Scott PC

McKenzie Scott is a San Diego civil rights law firm dedicated to protecting individual liberties and holding government entities accountable. The firm specializes in civil rights violation cases, including police misconduct, First Amendment rights, in-custody jail deaths, civil liberties, and public interest litigation. McKenzie Scott’s attorneys have successfully represented numerous families in excessive force and wrongful death cases against law enforcement agencies, including securing the then-largest excessive-force verdict in American history ($85 million in K.J.P. v. San Diego) and the largest wrongful death settlement paid by the County in San Diego County’s history ($16 million in the Hayden Schuck case).

For more information, please visit www.mckenziescott.com.

Media Contact Details
Jason Kitchen
McKenzie Scott San Diego Civil Rights & Criminal Defense Lawyers
Email: Send Email
Phone: 5179744724
Website: mckenziescott.com

The proposed Forecast Expiry Label would make observation periods, invalidation conditions and revision histories visible, helping readers recognise when an assessment remains relevant and when it needs another look.

Cape Town, South Africa, September 16, 2026

When a market analysis is written, it usually has a clear context: the price at the time, the available data and the developments the analyst expects to follow. But when that analysis becomes a screenshot, circulates through a group chat or resurfaces weeks later, much of that context can disappear. What remains may be a conclusion that still sounds certain.

To address this problem, independent crypto market analyst and market-education contributor Duane Brecklin is proposing the Forecast Expiry Label, a method for attaching an observation window, scope, invalidation conditions and review date to crypto market analysis. The premise is straightforward: readers should have a way to tell whether an assessment still applies to the market in front of them.

The proposal builds on the focus of his earlier South African cross-border crypto research, extending the discussion from the circumstances surrounding asset movements to the boundaries within which market assessments should be used.

Old Analysis Keeps Circulating After Its Assumptions Have Changed

Crypto market commentary can be read and shared at any time. An article addressing short-term price behaviour may be saved as a long-term outlook. A chart prepared for one trading pair may be detached from its original explanation and used to interpret another market.

For readers, understanding the chart is only part of the challenge. Less obvious questions often matter just as much: What period was the author discussing? Which conditions supported the assessment? Do those conditions still hold?

The Forecast Expiry Label would bring that information into view, rather than leaving it in a footnote or buried among unstated assumptions. Under the proposal, an analysis would identify the asset and trading pair, observation window, primary and alternative scenarios, data sources, invalidation conditions, next review date, and relevant holdings or conflicts of interest.

These details need not become a lengthy technical statement. They should answer practical questions: What does this analysis cover? When should it be checked again? What would make it unsuitable for continued use?

Expiry Calls for Review, Not an Escape from Being Wrong

The proposal distinguishes between an observation period ending and the conditions supporting an assessment breaking down.

The first calls for a fresh examination of the evidence. An old view should not automatically remain valid simply because no update has appeared. The second requires a timely response, even if the scheduled review date has not yet arrived. When new information conflicts with the original assumptions, a date on the calendar is no reason to keep the conclusion unchanged.

An expiry label should not provide an excuse for a missed forecast, either. If an analysis makes a claim about market behaviour within a specified period, its review should accurately record the outcome. The purpose of an expiry date is to make accountability clearer, not to let an unfulfilled prediction quietly disappear.

That distinction matters to readers. They need more than an updated answer. They also need to understand why yesterday’s assessment changed, which evidence prompted the change and which questions remain unresolved.

Maintained, Revised or Withdrawn—Each Outcome Needs a Record

Under the proposal, a reviewed analysis could be marked as maintained, revised or withdrawn.

Maintaining an assessment would require an explanation of why its supporting evidence still holds. Revising it would mean retaining the earlier version and identifying the assumptions that changed. Withdrawing it would signal that the original assessment is no longer suitable as a reference and should no longer be relied upon.

Each status would carry a timestamp and an explanation. Revisions and withdrawals, in particular, should not happen solely through edits that overwrite the original text. Otherwise, later readers may struggle to understand what changed, while people who saved an earlier screenshot may continue using a conclusion the author has already abandoned.

Withdrawing an analysis is not always comfortable. But the value of research also lies in how it responds to evidence that contradicts expectations. Making that process visible gives readers a fuller understanding of analytical work than showing only the conclusions that eventually proved correct.

The Method’s Limitations Belong in the Same Record

The Forecast Expiry Label is currently a proposal for discussion. It is not an established industry standard, nor does it imply improved forecasting accuracy.

It cannot remove market volatility, replace scrutiny of data quality or automatically make subjective analysis objective. Methods including Elliott Wave analysis can produce different interpretations depending on the observation scale, starting point and analytical choices. Adding a label would simply make those conditions easier to examine.

For Duane Brecklin, the proposal addresses a specific and often overlooked part of market education: ensuring that analysis retains its essential context and limitations after it has been shared.

An assessment can take a clear position and later turn out to be wrong. Readers should at least be able to see what supported it—and when that support changed.

About Duane Brecklin

Duane Brecklin is an independent crypto market analyst and market-education contributor focused on crypto asset market structure, analytical methods and risk communication. His work examines the conditions under which market assessments apply and how those assessments should be reviewed.

This material is provided for general information and market-education purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in substantial losses.

Media Contact Details
Duane Brecklin
Email: Send Email
Website: www.duanebrecklin.com

New launchpad enables crypto communities to launch tokens, accumulate public-company shares and coordinate around corporate ownership

Cayman

Genius Foundation today announced the launch of genius.fun, a new BNB Chain launchpad designed to help online communities coordinate capital and pursue ownership in publicly traded companies.

Genius.fun connects internet-native tokens with tokenized public-company shares, enabling decentralized communities to organize around a company, accumulate its equity and pursue shareholder initiatives, board representation or even hostile takeovers. By applying crypto-native markets and permissionless coordination to public-company ownership, it offers an alternative to structures traditionally dominated by investment banks, private-equity firms and activist funds.

Armaan Kalsi, CEO of Shuttle Labs, commented, “We’re excited by the Genius Foundation’s efforts to create a new primitive for crypto-native corporate power. We’re excited to see what happens when crypto native communities launch capital formation vehicles with 2 clicks and, for example, potentially do things like vie for board seats. A new capital formation vehicle with power to affect the real world is inherently exciting.”

From Memes to Real Ownership

Meme tokens have traditionally represented attention, identity and speculation. Genius.fun aims to turn that attention into coordinated economic power by allowing communities to launch tokens associated with public companies and pair them with tokenized shares.

Market activity can support further share accumulation, while eligible tokenized positions may be redeemed for the underlying equity. This creates a path beyond price exposure, allowing communities to pursue shareholder initiatives, activist campaigns, board representation or an acquisition strategy.

Built for Permissionless Coordination

Creators can pair tokens with BNB, USDT, USDC, Ondo, bStocks, xStocks or 4Stocks, with additional markets expected through gPerps. They can earn up to 1.25% of trading fees, while 0.25% supports buybacks and supply locking.

Token progress can be tracked from launch to graduation directly on its trading page. Tokens graduate at 15 $BNB through PancakeSwap, genius.fun’s graduation DEX partner.

Crypto-Anarchy Meets the Public Markets

Genius.fun is built on the belief that capital formation should not belong exclusively to investment banks, private-equity firms and activist funds. A meme can capture global attention within hours, while a token can turn that attention into a liquid market and a decentralized treasury that accumulates real assets.

The platform applies crypto’s culture of disruption, openness and voluntary coordination to public-company ownership. Its vision is that crypto’s next era will be defined not simply by bringing traditional assets on-chain, but by what global communities do with them once they get there.

The First On-chain Hostile Takeover

Genius.fun is working toward a future in which an online community can identify a public company, launch a market around it, accumulate a significant equity position and use that ownership to demand a voice.

At sufficient scale, that could mean pursuing a board seat, organizing an activist campaign or even attempting a hostile takeover. These strategies have historically been dominated by institutional investors and Wall Street firms. Genius.fun is exploring what happens when internet-native communities have the tools to pursue them as well.

A token launch can be the starting point. From there, communities can grow their market, build a treasury and coordinate around a company they want to influence.

Create your token. Choose your pair. Build your treasury. Take your seat.

Genius.fun is live at https://genius.fun.

About Genius Foundation

Genius Foundation builds crypto-native infrastructure for permissionless markets, collective ownership and decentralized economic coordination.

Its mission is to advance crypto’s original promise: replacing gatekeepers with open systems, converting online communities into economic forces and giving individuals the ability to organize capital on their own terms.

Genius.fun is the Foundation’s BNB Chain-based launchpad connecting token creation, tokenized public equities and community-led ownership.

Disclaimer: Participation in digital-asset and tokenized-securities markets involves significant risk. The availability, redemption and legal treatment of tokenized shares may depend on the applicable provider, jurisdiction and regulatory framework. References to corporate governance, board representation and takeover activity describe the platform’s intended use cases and long-term vision; they do not guarantee that any community will acquire a particular ownership interest or governance right. Nothing in this announcement constitutes an offer to buy or sell securities or financial, legal or investment advice.

Media Contact Details
Jeffrey Chow
Email: Send Email