SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper

[xtraelv]

Craig submitted to the court everything that matched certain search criteria given by the judge. As a result, he had to submit papers that other people had forged to set him up. You are taking a wishful leap of faith interpreting it as if Craig himself forged them. Are you stupid in the head or something?

He was fine with the documents while it worked in his favor - until experts pointed out they were forgeries.

If you submit documents under discovery and you believe they are forgeries then you submit an affidavit saying that you do not trust the documents or the source.

The company office documents were not from discovery - they are a publicly view-able document. They were submitted "at the time" and CSW at the time was the only one with legal control over that company.  The liability for submitting false documents (if they are false) is purely with the directors of the company. Since he was the director - he is liable.

A  £35 000 000 accounting discrepancy is not small. Because the accounts are over £3.2mil they should also have been audited "at the time". That is also a duty of the Directors to organize.



seen here





seen here

[Hyena]

If you submit documents under discovery and you believe they are forgeries then you submit an affidavit saying that you do not trust the documents or the source.

Again with the internet expert of law thing, aren't we?  Your arguments are falling apart before our eyes.

Stop lying in my face. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less.

[xtraelv]

If you submit documents under discovery and you believe they are forgeries then you submit an affidavit saying that you do not trust the documents or the source.

Again with the internet expert of law thing, aren't we?   Your arguments are falling apart before our eyes.

Stop lying in my face. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less.

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

[Hyena]

If you submit documents under discovery and you believe they are forgeries then you submit an affidavit saying that you do not trust the documents or the source.

Again with the internet expert of law thing, aren't we?   Your arguments are falling apart before our eyes.

Stop lying in my face. If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less.

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

You don't seem to understand how courts work.

If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less.

Get it through your thick skull that it was a discovery. Poor baby, wants to be spoon fed with everything.

[nutildah]

Dude, leave the legalities to the professionals.

He's not discussing "legalities." He's discussing common sense, something which you are sorely lacking.

You don't seem to understand how courts work.

Neither does Craig. He knowingly submitted fraudulent documents and tried to lie to a federal judge, and you are sticking up for him for your own financial gain. That is who you are.

[xtraelv]

You don't seem to understand how courts work.

If you submit documents under discovery, then you don't have to say anything extra. You do what you are told, no more, no less.

Get it through your thick skull that it was a discovery. Poor baby, wants to be spoon fed with everything.

LOL it is funny that I quoted the law regarding discovery verbatim and you claim I don't know how the courts work.

(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/cv_rules_eff._dec._1_2018_0.pdf

[hv_]

Dude, leave the legalities to the professionals.

He's not discussing "legalities." He's discussing common sense, something which you are sorely lacking.

You don't seem to understand how courts work.

Neither does Craig. He knowingly submitted fraudulent documents and tried to lie to a federal judge, and you are sticking up for him for your own financial gain. That is who you are.

maybe he did, cause he got hacked - and he told about, but common trolls didn't report or skewed

common trolls like u just don't want to know the truth

so no way u ll get it

[xtraelv]

maybe he did, cause he got hacked - and he told about, but common trolls didn't report or skewed

common trolls like u just don't want to know the truth

so no way u ll get it

Oh -  we get it.  The judge gets it too.

https://static.coindesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Order-_CSW.pdf

The court documents make it fairly clear.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.284.0.pdf

CSW filed for a 30 day extension before the order is finalized.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.284.0.pdf

[Hyena]

maybe he did, cause he got hacked - and he told about, but common trolls didn't report or skewed

common trolls like u just don't want to know the truth

so no way u ll get it

Oh -  we get it.  The judge gets it too.

You just pwned yourself, bro. Case closed.

[nutildah]

You just pwned yourself, bro. Case closed.

That is hilarious. Can you not read the other non-highlighted sentence in the text you posted? Or the rest of the first one??

You're giving the benefit of the doubt to a con artist for your own financial gain. That is who you are.

"CASED CLOSED"  what a hack

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...

[Hyena]

So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

What is a "forged forgery," and why would Craig present it as evidence at his trial? Surely he would know if a document he was submitting to the court was forged or not prior to its submission. He presented it, and only afterward was it shown to be forged. Then he said, "Oh, I didn't alter it, someone else must have."  

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

What a cowardly load of bollocks. We can come to the exact opposite conclusion as you based on your ethereal "empirical evidence." That's no evidence at all. Its simply your assertion which you insist is meaningful without any sort of rational basis.

I don't care that you have already stated that you have the evidence. I said produce the evidence. Now stop squirming and produce the evidence or prepare to be ridiculed indefinitely.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...

Still waiting on you to answer that question BTW... Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

[nutildah]

So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

What is a "forged forgery," and why would Craig present it as evidence at his trial? Surely he would know if a document he was submitting to the court was forged or not prior to its submission. He presented it, and only afterward was it shown to be forged. Then he said, "Oh, I didn't alter it, someone else must have."  

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

What a cowardly load of bollocks. We can come to the exact opposite conclusion as you based on your ethereal "empirical evidence." That's no evidence at all. Its simply your assertion which you insist is meaningful without any sort of rational basis.

I don't care that you have already stated that you have the evidence. I said produce the evidence. Now stop squirming and produce the evidence or prepare to be ridiculed indefinitely.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...

Still waiting on you to answer that question BTW... Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

Assuming this is what you're talking about, there's absolutely no evidence that Craig didn't forge the documents he submitted to court. We already know what the judge thinks about the chances that somebody else forged the documents, so why bother clinging to this non-point unless you are afraid of addressing my previously asked question:

What evidence supports your assertion that Craig is Satoshi?

You claimed you know it for a fact. Stop worming around and answer the question.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

So do all BSV shillers actually believe Craig is Satoshi ? Or are they literally trolling on a completely different level ?

I haven't exactly followed the hole Bsv shit-show , but how can these plebs actually believe Craig is Satoshi simply because he said so ??

There would be countless of ways to prove it , if infact he was ,  but he failed to provide any proof . So why do people actually believe it just cause that man is spreading this crap everywhere " I am Satoshi "

How? Maybe if you have master's degree in software engineering, bachelor in informatics and 15 years of experience as a software architect, then you can make your own educated decisions listening to the man himself rather than the social media? As a professional in my field (which many people simply are not) I can say with absolute certainty that Craig is Satoshi. So your whole assumption is wrong, no one on the BSV side is believing anyone "simply because he said so".  However, you on the other hand, very much show the attributes of a person who believes the anti-Craig propaganda simply because sociopaths such as OneMegGreg said so. Oh, and most importantly, I've got empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You can't beat it with any other kind of evidence.

You want to see what it looks like to have empirical evidence, then watch this:

https://youtu.be/ji2p5pxURVs

You're certainly awful at realizing when you're being conned. None of your impressive education helped you become wiser in that regard.

I watched a minute and a half of your YouTube video and I thought the same thing I've always thought about Craig: holy shit, this guy is an absolute fucking fraud.

You look at this video and you claim it is "empirical evidence" that Craig is Satoshi.
I look at this video and use it to come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Do you see how useless your "empirical evidence" is yet?

Produce some real evidence and as I said earlier, I won't contest it. I will let it be evaluated by others. What you've produced so far is just jokes.

As for what Andresen actually believes regarding Craig, let's be fair. He said this in 2016, yet BSV shills continue to misrepresent his words:

Now that six months have gone past, I’m being asked if I still think Craig Wright was Satoshi.

I think there are two possibilities.

Either he was Satoshi, but really wants the world to think he isn’t, so he created an impossible-to-untangle web of truths, half-truths and lies. And ruined his reputation in the process.

If he was Satoshi, we should respect his wish to remain anonymous, and ignore him.

The other possibility is he is a master scammer/fraudster who managed to trick some pretty smart people over a period of several years.

In which case everybody except the victims of his fraud and law enforcement working on behalf of those victims should ignore him.

So, either he was or he wasn’t. In either case, we should ignore him. I regret ever getting involved in the “who was Satoshi” game, and am going to spend my time on more fun and productive pursuits.

So Andresen believes there's an equal chance that Craig is a "master scammer." The narrative that he completely believes Wright is Satoshi has been bogus since before BSV was even an idea. Either way, he clearly says Wright should be ignored. And I accept an appeal to Andresen's authority on bitcoin over yours every day of the week.

Vitalik mic drop moment about Faketoshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qLI3VIHuKU

Trump's impeachment comes to mind. Thank you, Mitt Romney. Full disclosure, I lean conservative.

[Hyena]

So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

What is a "forged forgery," and why would Craig present it as evidence at his trial? Surely he would know if a document he was submitting to the court was forged or not prior to its submission. He presented it, and only afterward was it shown to be forged. Then he said, "Oh, I didn't alter it, someone else must have."  

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

What a cowardly load of bollocks. We can come to the exact opposite conclusion as you based on your ethereal "empirical evidence." That's no evidence at all. Its simply your assertion which you insist is meaningful without any sort of rational basis.

I don't care that you have already stated that you have the evidence. I said produce the evidence. Now stop squirming and produce the evidence or prepare to be ridiculed indefinitely.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...

Still waiting on you to answer that question BTW... Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

Assuming this is what you're talking about, there's absolutely no evidence that Craig didn't forge the documents he submitted to court. We already know what the judge thinks about the chances that somebody else forged the documents, so why bother clinging to this non-point unless you are afraid of addressing my previously asked question:

What evidence supports your assertion that Craig is Satoshi?

You claimed you know it for a fact. Stop worming around and answer the question.

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO. Do no wiggle around.


As for the evidence, I have plenty of empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You want it? Go get it.

[Iamtutut]

So you do agree now, that a forged forgery in someone else's name does not make that someone else guilty of forging?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

You seem to be silently ignoring this important piece so I just want to have it established. So we would not have to return to this idiocy.

What is a "forged forgery," and why would Craig present it as evidence at his trial? Surely he would know if a document he was submitting to the court was forged or not prior to its submission. He presented it, and only afterward was it shown to be forged. Then he said, "Oh, I didn't alter it, someone else must have."  

To answer your question regarding proof that CSW is Satoshi. Yes, I know for a fact, that Craig Wright is the sole creator of BitCoin and the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. I have empirical evidence. I have already stated it. How many times must I repeat it? Empirical evidence is the best kind of evidence and that's why I can say with 100% certainty that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

What a cowardly load of bollocks. We can come to the exact opposite conclusion as you based on your ethereal "empirical evidence." That's no evidence at all. Its simply your assertion which you insist is meaningful without any sort of rational basis.

I don't care that you have already stated that you have the evidence. I said produce the evidence. Now stop squirming and produce the evidence or prepare to be ridiculed indefinitely.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...

Still waiting on you to answer that question BTW... Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

[nutildah]

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO. Do no wiggle around.

Your question is if somebody else forged Craig's documents does that mean Craig is guilty of forging the documents? Of course the answer is no. The only problem is you are taking Craig's word that he didn't forge them, and I am taking the judge's word that he probably did.

Why would Craig submit forged documents to a court proceeding if he didn't forge them? Makes no sense. Upon submission, he should have said, "you know what your honor, you are requesting I submit documents, but the only copies I have available are forged, so... just thought you should know."

As for the evidence, I have plenty of empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You want it? Go get it.

You're like a less charming or diplomatic version of Donald Trump, but with all the ego.

[Hyena]

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

Remind me, where exactly did I promise proof? All I've ever stated is that I have empirical evidence, more than enough. So stop making stuff up on my behalf.

ANSWER THE QUESTION. YES OR NO. Do no wiggle around.

Your question is if somebody else forged Craig's documents does that mean Craig should be found guilty of forging the documents? Of course the answer is no. The only problem is you are taking Craig's word that he didn't forge them, and I am taking the judge's word that he probably did.

Why would Craig submit forged documents to a court proceeding? Makes no sense.

As for the evidence, I have plenty of empirical evidence that Craig is Satoshi. You want it? Go get it.

You're like a less charming or diplomatic version of Donald Trump, but with all the ego.

That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you. We have now established, that this is all just a wild speculation and wishful thinking pushed to the extremes what you are indulging in

Let me state this again then --- since people were trying to liquidate Craig's company and since the forged documents were found from the computers of the ex-employees who wanted to liquidate Craig's company --- we have no basis to even suggest, that Craig himself forged those documents. The judge in this case, on the other hand, goes to the same synagogue as Ira Kleiman. That said, you have to be a moronic imbecile to still think that Craig forged those documents.

I rest my case.

[nutildah]

Still waiting on your proof that Craig is Satoshi BTW...Until that, go crawl back under the bed, boy.

Remind me, where exactly did I promise proof? All I've ever stated is that I have empirical evidence, more than enough. So stop making stuff up on my behalf.

Usually when people say they "know" something "for a fact", they can provide some sort of proof or even evidence to back their claim.

That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you. We have now established, that this is all just a wild speculation and wishful thinking pushed to the extremes what you are indulging in

I also find your conclusion to be humorous.

Let me state this again then --- since people were trying to liquidate Craig's company and since the forged documents were found from the computers of the ex-employees who wanted to liquidate Craig's company --- we have no basis to even suggest, that Craig himself forged those documents. The judge in this case, on the other hand, goes to the same synagogue as Ira Kleiman. That said, you have to be a moronic imbecile to still think that Craig forged those documents himself.

Again, you are relying on Craig's version of events, and I am relying on the judge's words that Craig acted in bad faith throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Surely Craig would have known the documents he was submitting to the court were forged and warned the court ahead of time. So why didn't he?

I rest my case.

That's great, we'll let you know the verdict shortly.

[Iamtutut]

Remind me, where exactly did I promise proof? All I've ever stated is that I have empirical evidence, more than enough. So stop making stuff up on my behalf.

I have more than enough empirical evidence that he's a fraud and not Satoshi.

[Hyena]

Again, you are relying on Craig's version of events, and I am relying on the judge's words that Craig acted in bad faith throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Surely Craig would have known the documents he was submitting to the court were forged and warned the court ahead of time. So why didn't he?

You are relying on the judge's words who goes to the same synagogue as the plaintiff? Have a cup of common sense.

As for why Craig acted as he did. I can only speculate that the clock was ticking for his advantage. Bending some rules here and there doesn't matter if you know you will win the case.

Remind me, where exactly did I promise proof? All I've ever stated is that I have empirical evidence, more than enough. So stop making stuff up on my behalf.

I have more than enough empirical evidence that he's a fraud and not Satoshi.

That's actually fine by me. I didn't come here to change your mind. I just came here to prepare salt for your wounds.