snippits to explain the case for those that dont like clicking on pdf files
Accordingly, the identity of Satoshi is not among the issues I have to determine.
7 The only issues remaining concern:
(a) the meaning of Publication 16;
(b) liability for republication of Publication 16;
(c) whether each of the Publications caused, or was likely to cause, “serious harm to the
reputation of the claimant” within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013;
and
(d) if liability in respect of one or more of the Publications is established, relief.
publication 16
The reality is, is Bitcoin is king. Like, you can do what the fuck you want with
BSV; it’s dead, it’s already dead. The market’s voted, it’s dead. If you’re going
to put your time at it, it’s dead. The price is going to die; it’s -- the only thing
keeping it afloat, is Calvin’s money; that’s literally it. Add to that, you are
supporting a bunch of people who are liars, frauds and morons. Craig Wright is
a fucking liar, and he’s a fraud; and he’s a moron; he is not Satoshi. He can come
at me in the fucking UK, he can take me to Court; he can come with his -- his
fucking billions of dollars; I don’t give a shit, come at me. Sue me, I don’t give
a fuck; you’re still a liar, you’re still a fraud, and you’re still a moron.”
judge seen right through CSW SLAPP tactics of poking the bear to cause a debate then use the debate to cry victim and abuse the court system in his babycries
On one level, it could be said that a person who in these circumstances goads another to say
something so as to generate a basis for a defamation claim is seeking to remedy harm to his
reputation which has already been done at the time of the publication complained of. I
confess to some unease about the use of the law of defamation for that purpose. But, on the
law as it currently stands, a person who publishes something defamatory is in principle liable
if it can be shown that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the
claimant’s reputation, even if the publication was in response to goading.
though although mccormack was poked and goaded into calling out CSW lies. mccormack still said the things he did and so..
..verdict.
the quoted publication did cause financial loss to CSW. and so CSW was awarded..... £1 (a candy bar amount)
a fitting award to the manchild of CSW, who can take his lollipop and go away
