gork = nancy

 If you're interested in tracking and potentially copying Nancy and Paul Pelosi's stock trades, several tools and websites can help you access their publicly disclosed trading activity. Here are some options based on available resources:

1. Autopilot: This app allows users to mirror the stock trades of prominent figures, including Nancy Pelosi (via her husband Paul Pelosi’s trades). It pulls data from congressional financial disclosures and executes trades automatically in your brokerage account. It’s designed for ease of use, letting you invest alongside their reported moves.
2. Capitol Trades: A free platform that tracks U.S. politician stock trades, including those of Nancy Pelosi. It compiles data from mandatory disclosures and provides details on stocks, assets, and transactions, making it a straightforward option for monitoring their activity.
3. Quiver Quantitative: This site offers detailed insights into congressional trading, including Nancy Pelosi’s portfolio. It tracks trades, estimated returns, and top holdings, calculated from disclosure filings. You can see specifics like trade volume and sectors they favor.
4. Unusual Whales: Known for its financial data tools, this platform tracks congressional trades and even powers ETFs like NANC (named after Nancy Pelosi), which follows Democratic lawmakers’ investments. It provides real-time updates and historical performance data.
5. House Stock Watcher: This site updates daily with stock trades reported by U.S. Representatives, including Nancy Pelosi. It’s a simple way to see raw disclosure data as it’s filed, though it requires more manual effort to act on the information.

A few things to keep in mind: Under the STOCK Act, congressional members must disclose trades within 45 days, so the data isn’t real-time—by the time it’s public, the market may have shifted. Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, handles the trading, and Nancy Pelosi has stated she doesn’t own stocks or influence these decisions. Past performance (e.g., reports of 65% returns in 2023 or over 700% in a decade) doesn’t guarantee future results, and investing carries risks, especially with options-heavy strategies like theirs.

For the most automated experience, Autopilot stands out. For free, detailed tracking, Capitol Trades or Quiver Quantitative are solid choices. Pick based on how hands-on you want to be—manual research or automatic copying. Always do your own due diligence before investing.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a financial adviser; please consult one. Don't share information that can identify you.

SCIP ( Structural Concrete Insulated Panels)

Structural Concrete Insulated Panels (SCIPs) are a type of construction technology that typically involve a core of insulating material, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, sandwiched between layers of concrete, often reinforced with steel mesh or trusses. While your question asks about a "SCIP patent," there isn’t a single definitive patent that universally defines all SCIP systems, as the technology has evolved over time with various inventors and companies contributing innovations. However, I can provide insight into one of the foundational patents related to this concept and clarify the broader context.

One of the earliest and most notable patents associated with what we now recognize as SCIP technology was issued to Victor P. Weismann in 1967. U.S. Patent No. 3,305,991, titled "Reinforced Modular Foam Panels," describes a system that aligns closely with modern SCIP designs. Filed on October 22, 1964, and granted on February 21, 1967, this patent outlines a construction panel comprising a lightweight foam core (like polystyrene) flanked by wire mesh on both sides, connected by steel trusses or ties penetrating the foam. The assembly is designed to be coated with a cementitious material, such as shotcrete, on-site to form a composite structural panel. Weismann’s invention, developed in Pasadena, California, is often cited as a pioneering step in SCIP technology, emphasizing lightweight, insulated, and strong concrete walls.

This patent’s key features include:

• Core Material: A lightweight, insulating foam (e.g., expanded polystyrene).
• Reinforcement: Galvanized wire mesh on both sides, connected by vertical steel wire trusses.
• Construction Method: The panel is finished on-site by applying concrete (via shotcreting) to both sides, creating a solid, insulated wall.

Since Weismann’s patent, numerous variations and improvements have emerged, but it laid foundational principles for SCIP systems. Other patents have built upon this concept, adapting materials, connectors, or manufacturing processes. For example:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,649,662 (issued May 16, 2017) describes a "Seamless Reinforced Concrete Structural Insulated Panel" using calcium sulfoaluminate cement and a foam core, focusing on factory precasting rather than on-site shotcreting.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,745,943 (issued June 10, 2014) covers a method for precast insulated concrete panels, including tilt-up applications, with insulation embedded during casting.

These later patents reflect refinements in the technology, but Weismann’s 1967 patent is widely recognized as an origin point for SCIP-like systems. Modern SCIP implementations, such as those by companies like Vero Building Systems or Concrewall USA, often trace their conceptual lineage back to such early innovations, though they may incorporate proprietary tweaks not fully detailed in public patents.

If you’re looking for a specific SCIP patent beyond Weismann’s, could you clarify further—perhaps a company, inventor, or feature you’re interested in? Otherwise, U.S. Patent No. 3,305,991 serves as a critical starting point for understanding the technology’s patented history.

"People v. Reynaud"

It seems like you might be referring to a legal case titled "People v. Reynaud," but there isn’t enough information in your query to pinpoint a specific case, and my search results don’t provide a clear match for a widely recognized case under that exact name. There are cases with similar names, such as "People v. Reyna" or "People v. Renaud," but "Reynaud" doesn’t directly align with a notable case from the provided context. I’ll assume you’re asking about a criminal case and provide a general response based on that, while offering to refine it if you give more details.

If you meant a specific "People v. Reynaud" case, it would typically involve the state ("People") prosecuting an individual named Reynaud for a crime. Such cases often address issues like evidence admissibility, jury instructions, or sentencing, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances. For example, if this were a U.S. case, it could involve state-specific laws and judicial review processes, like those seen in cases such as "People v. Reyna" (Michigan, 2012), where the defendant appealed convictions for assault and firearm charges, or other similarly named cases.

Since I don’t have a definitive "People v. Reynaud" to analyze, I’ll offer a hypothetical overview: In a case like this, the prosecution might argue the defendant committed an offense (e.g., theft, assault, or a more serious crime), presenting evidence like witness testimony or physical proof. The defense could counter with challenges to evidence legality, witness credibility, or procedural errors. Appeals, if any, might focus on trial court rulings—say, a denied jury instruction or an evidentiary dispute—evaluated under standards like "abuse of discretion" or "harmless error."

If you had a particular "People v. Reynaud" in mind, please clarify the jurisdiction (e.g., state or country), year, or key details (e.g., crime type or legal issue), and I can tailor this further. Without that, I can’t confirm specifics like the outcome, legal principles, or significance. What additional information can you provide to narrow it down? 

This process works best for U.S. patents

 To research who owns a patent, follow these steps:

1. Identify the Patent Number: Start with the patent number if you have it. This is the most direct way to look up ownership. If you don’t have the number, you’ll need to search for the patent using other details like the invention title, inventor name, or keywords related to the invention.
2. Use the USPTO Patent Public Search Tool:
   • Go to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website at uspto.gov and navigate to the "Patent Public Search" tool.
   • Enter the patent number in the search bar (e.g., "US1234567" or just "1234567" for U.S. patents).
   • Once you find the patent, look at the "Assignee" field on the patent document. This lists the entity (individual, company, or organization) to whom the patent was assigned at the time it was granted.
3. Check Patent Assignment Records:
   • Ownership can change after a patent is issued, and the original patent document might not reflect the current owner. To find the most up-to-date ownership:
     • Visit the USPTO’s "Patent Assignment Search" database (assignment.uspto.gov).
     • Search by patent number, assignee name, or other criteria.
     • Review the assignment records, which detail transfers of ownership (e.g., from the inventor to a company or between companies). These records include dates and the names of the assignor (previous owner) and assignee (new owner).
   • Note that recording assignments with the USPTO is optional, so not all transfers may be listed.
4. Explore Additional Databases:
   • Google Patents (patents.google.com): Enter the patent number or keywords. It shows basic ownership info and sometimes links to assignment data.
   • Espacenet (worldwide.espacenet.com): Useful for international patents. Search by number or keywords and check the "Applicant" or "Proprietor" field.
   • Lens.org: Another free tool that aggregates patent data globally and may provide ownership details.
5. Look for Reassignments or Changes:
   • If the patent has been sold, licensed, or transferred, the assignment records will show a "chain of title." Follow this chain to the most recent assignee.
   • Be aware that company names might change due to mergers or rebranding, so you may need to search variations of the name.
6. Contact the USPTO (if needed):
   • If online records are unclear or incomplete, you can contact the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch at AssignmentCenter@uspto.gov or call 800-972-6382 for assistance.
7. Consider Legal or Professional Help:
   • For complex cases (e.g., unrecorded transfers or disputes), a patent attorney or professional searcher can dig deeper into public records or proprietary databases.

This process works best for U.S. patents. For patents in other countries, use the respective national patent office’s database (e.g., EPO for Europe, JPO for Japan) and follow a similar approach. Keep in mind that ownership info might not always be current if changes weren’t reported to the patent office.