[2018-12-28]Judge Denies Craig Wright's Motion to Dismiss Billion-$ BTC Lawsuit

[jonemil24]

Full title: Judge Denies Craig Wright's Motion to Dismiss Billion-Dollar Bitcoin Lawsuit

On Dec. 27, court documents from the case against the Nchain chief scientist, Craig Wright, explained a large portion of his recent dismissal motions were found “not warranted” and were denied. Wright is being sued for 1.1 million BTC in a legal case in Florida that alleges he manipulated David Kleiman’s family.

Read more:https://news.bitcoin.com/judge-denies-craig-wrights-motion-to-dismiss-billion-dollar-bitcoin-lawsuit/

[1713304380]

1713304380

[gentlemand]

Though I support anything that puts Craigy in legal trouble I really don't get this case.

The addresses have been proven to be nothing to do with either of them - https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

How can someone with zero evidence their relative ever had any ownership of anything sue a pathological liar with an equal lack of evidence to match?

[squatter]

Though I support anything that puts Craigy in legal trouble I really don't get this case.

The addresses have been proven to be nothing to do with either of them - https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

How can someone with zero evidence their relative ever had any ownership of anything sue a pathological liar with an equal lack of evidence to match?

I'm pretty sure it's based on Craig Wright's previous claims. He claimed to control several addresses (some or all of which were proven to be tied to entities like Mt Gox) and he used them in back-dated contracts that purported to show that Kleiman transferred ownership of coins to Wright. I'm not sure why he did that, but he apparently did.

This early in a civil case, I think that's good enough to move forward. I think it would fall apart at trial, though.

[o0o0]

I cant wait to see craig tell the judge none of your fucking business and then how he has more money than the judge and all his other abusive attitude problems.

bet he turns into a quiet mouse when faced with someone of higher authority.

such a case might also put to bed his false satoshi claims.

[theymos]

Though I support anything that puts Craigy in legal trouble I really don't get this case.

The addresses have been proven to be nothing to do with either of them - https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html

How can someone with zero evidence their relative ever had any ownership of anything sue a pathological liar with an equal lack of evidence to match?

You can sue anyone for anything. I suppose it's not obvious enough for outright dismissal in this case.

I feel bad for the Kleimans. It sounds like CSW tried to use them as a pawn in some larger con, and now they think that they're owed millions of dollars which never existed.

[buwaytress]

I cant wait to see craig tell the judge none of your fucking business and then how he has more money than the judge and all his other abusive attitude problems.

bet he turns into a quiet mouse when faced with someone of higher authority.

such a case might also put to bed his false satoshi claims.

Easy money on that bet. Guys like these are loud when there are willing listeners, but afraid to be found out especially outside their comfort zone. If he's as smart as he purports, he'd be representing himself, and then taking defence, not dismissing the lawsuit. Again, I have always been able to respect people, past and present, for their contributions but all this shadiness just seems so out of sync with what they're supposedly all about.

Those satoshi claims ain't ever going away either. CW does tend to fool people easily and in this space, people kinda want to be fooled easily. There's demand, and CW has the supply.

[Kakmakr]

I would like to see this go to trial, even if it has no merit. The lawyers must ask CW under Oath if he is Satoshi and if he lies, he would be in contempt of court and he can be prosecuted at a later stage. 

People should lodge a lot more cases like this against him to keep him busy in the courts and to drain his funds defending his lies. Then we will hear a lot less about him and his dreams to conquer Bitcoin and to be the supreme ruler. 

[BitHodler]

bet he turns into a quiet mouse when faced with someone of higher authority.

That's what con artists do, because that's the only time they realize they play a game they can't win by cheating, lying and manipulating. I feel bad for all the genuine minded people working below him. A tyrant he is.

such a case might also put to bed his false satoshi claims.

He did it himself already. No one but a few noobs left and right believe he is Satoshi. Also take into consideration that the more people know about something, which he claims is the case, the harder it is to keep a secret.

If he was even remotely related to the development of Bitcoin it would have been clear by now. Either way, Satoshi, as disrespectful as it may sound, is a nobody aside from his coins in economical terms.

Satoshi isn't perfect. Bitcoin wasn't perfect, and still isn't, but a whole lot more than when it saw the light...

[Betwrong]

While researching about this case I came across the original Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit which contains the following statement:

It is unclear whether Craig, Dave, and/or both created Bitcoin. For reasons not
yet completely clear, they chose to keep their involvement in Bitcoin hidden
from most of their family and friends. It is undeniable, however, that Craig and
Dave were involved in Bitcoin from its inception and that they both
accumulated a vast wealth of bitcoins from 2009 through 2013.

Sourse: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4388885/Wright-Kleiman-Lawsuit.pdf

The word "undeniable" here is what strikes me the most. And I would like to ask the community, is it really undeniable that they were involved in Bitcoin from its inception or is it just an example of poor wording?

[gentlemand]

The word "undeniable" here is what strikes me the most. And I would like to ask the community, is it really undeniable that they were involved in Bitcoin from its inception or is it just an example of poor wording?

That document is put forward by the Kleiman family who have a vested interest in claiming there's some money to mud wrestle over. I've never seen any proof from anyone anywhere. I guess they'll also throw in the Gavin Andresen debacle too.

The 'proof' bubbling around somewhere from Craigy was a bunch of Gox addresses.

[aoluain]

There has to be something more in this if it is going ahead.

"The Lawsuit Against Craig Wright for 1.1 Million BTC Moves Forward"

There has to be more evidence to back up both parties claims and doesnt
the judge have to be privvy to it?

[gentlemand]

There has to be something more in this if it is going ahead.

"The Lawsuit Against Craig Wright for 1.1 Million BTC Moves Forward"

That's what I assumed but it seems that's not the case. If any of this was irrevocable fact we would've known about it for ages.

I guess everyone will make an arse of themselves when they get to the courtroom.

[Betwrong]

The word "undeniable" here is what strikes me the most. And I would like to ask the community, is it really undeniable that they were involved in Bitcoin from its inception or is it just an example of poor wording?

That document is put forward by the Kleiman family who have a vested interest in claiming there's some money to mud wrestle over. I've never seen any proof from anyone anywhere. I guess they'll also throw in the Gavin Andresen debacle too.

The 'proof' bubbling around somewhere from Craigy was a bunch of Gox addresses.

I happened to read several U.S. criminal cases, and what I've noticed is that they never say about anything with certainty unless it was proven. Even when talking about someone who was surely a killer, they would call him "the alleged killer" in the case, if the person in question wasn't convicted by the court yet. That's why I was so surprised by their wording in this particular case, and I still don't know the answer to why did they choose to do so?

EDIT: Also, do you think the e-mails below are fake?

From: Ira K <REDACTED@REDACTED>
To: Craig S Wright <craig.wright@hotwirepe.com>
Subject: Bond villains
Date: Sat Mar 01 19:42:27 +0000 2014
Just to clarify on thoughts from previous email... In one of the
email exchanges between Dave and you, he mentioned that you
had 1 million Bitcoins in the trust and since you said he has
300,000 as his part. I was figuring the other 700,000 is yours. Is
that correct?
Ira
---
From: Craig S Wright <craig.wright@hotwirepe.com>
To: Ira K <REDACTED@REDACTED>
Subject: Re: Bond villains
Date: Sat Mar 01 20:00:48 +0000 2014
Around that. Minus what was needed for the company's use
Sent from my HTC.

Same source: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4388885/Wright-Kleiman-Lawsuit.pdf

[gentlemand]

EDIT: Also, do you think the e-mails below are fake?

I ain't no lawyer so I've no idea about the ins and outs of their wording.

As far as I can tell every single thing that's oozed out of Craigy about his Faketoshiness has either been proven to be fake or could not be truly corroborated.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

Makes you wonder if the recent SV idea was nothing more than a money maker for the storm that lay's ahead.

https://www.scribd.com/document/396421275/2018-12-27-Bitcoin-Order

Quite a sick thing to do contacting the family then attempting to rouse them into some kind of deal to pass over the rights or files to parts of the bitcoin system?

The ATO provided Ira with three deeds, each titled “IP Deed of Assignment” and each executed on September 15, 2013.
Intellectual property rights from an Australian company named “DeMorgan Ltd” to three separate Australian entities: Coin-Exch Pty, Ltd., Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Pty, Ltd., and Cloudcroft Pty, Ltd.

The deeds described the source and nature of the IP as consisting of “source code, algorithms and  patentable materials that have been obtained by Craig . . . through the following
 
On April 22, 2014, Ira confronted Craig about the documents he had received from the ATO via email.
Ira told Craig that after reviewing the documents sent to him by the ATO, he “felt like there [were] questionable discrepancies in the contracts between [Craig] and W&K such as Dave’s signatures, his resignation, transfer of all
accountable value.”

 Craig responded that his actions were taken “to make sure that the court
 
signed off on what Dave and [he] planned,” and Craig then promised Ira that the Estate could be paid what was owed to it.

[pixie85]

If he really faked the signatures he's going to lose a lot of money over it and nobody will care if he has some coins or not. Maybe they'll allow him to pay in BSV?
The signatures are so bad. He didn't even try to make them look like the real ones. Had to be in real hurry there to get his hands on the money.

[rodskee]

That's is a right of everyone to appeals in the court to protect theiirself
The motion  files of mr. Craig is they want get due process for their case
And they can't accuse craig as guilty with out proven strong evindence for him

[squatter]

I happened to read several U.S. criminal cases, and what I've noticed is that they never say about anything with certainty unless it was proven. Even when talking about someone who was surely a killer, they would call him "the alleged killer" in the case, if the person in question wasn't convicted by the court yet. That's why I was so surprised by their wording in this particular case, and I still don't know the answer to why did they choose to do so?

Because they're not objective observers. The Kleiman family aren't like journalists reporting on this in The Times. Their lawyers are putting forward an argument trying to persuade the court. It's obviously based on fabrications and they (and their lawyers) may not realize it, for the same reason that many people believe(d) Craig Wright = Satoshi.