Updates from the COPA v Craig Wright trial

[nutildah]

I don't think he is charismatic, he just has sociopathic confidence and rarely gets rattled which is quite an impressive feat. Can you imagine sitting in court with your entire existence based upon lie after life and you have to think of more lies on the fly to cover up those lies and knowing all this behaviour could end up with you in prison.

No, I can't imagine it. Clearly he's no dummy, but he's going up against some of the smartest people in the world, and they have managed to poke sizable holes in his story since he first started telling it. By this point the fabric of the pseudo-reality he's woven is so tattered, its barely hanging together; who knows what it will take for it to finally fall all the way apart.

But you hit the nail on the head with the sociopath part. That is just one "ability" that most people can never achieve, because our brains are fully developed. It really is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by stunted growth of the prefrontal cortex, which is the most human part of the brain. Its the part that prevents us from simply bashing each other over the head with a rock when things don't go our way. Craig is unencumbered by this dilemma, which allows him to experience an utter detachment from morality, and therefore the rest of humanity.

[1714626293]

1714626293

[1714626293]

1714626293

[1714626293]

1714626293

[franky1]

when the case wins in favour of COPA (no if).. id hope contempt is least of CSW troubles. id hope the copa win would then be used as evidence of forgery, fraud and multiple other crimes and someone files criminal claims against him. rather then these silly civil claims of annoyances

Well, if the judge finds him in contempt then do they not recommend another trial for that which could pose prison time? You can't lie under oath and perjure yourself and that's all Craig has been doing. My only worry is if they feel it's not in the public interest to do so or maybe give Craig enough benefit of the doubt that there could have been malicious actors planting evidence. Maybe he would have to prove that in the perjury trial.

contempt alone is a minor crime which usually is just a small fine like £100-£5k or a few days in jail...
however forgery, which affects millions of people of millions of $value can be a life sentance (note FTX)

told ya he would.
the thing about courts is, if you (or your lawyer) are filing a claim they have to check what they file, and sign it in.. much like checking your bag before going to airport, because if the court/airport find things when they search what you hand in, you are on the hook. you cant then later cry 'but someone i dont trust done it for me', sorry but you are still on the hook for what has been handed over in your name

Well yeah, but I guess he doesn't really have much choice but to lie. The fact that he claims unscrupulous enemies hacked into his computers to plant this forged and manipulated evidence in the possibility that Craig might not notice and then use it in evidence in court is beyond ridiculous. I'm really hoping the judge doesn't even consider that as an option and takes it for the bare-faced lie that it obviously is but I don't know how the courts proceed with this.

even claiming someone broke into your house unzipped your suitcase and planted faked/stolen art in it after you packed your bags, doesnt play well when standing at a airport check-in desk.
investigations should start about a forgery, fraud case even if you claim you are not the forger. its your responsibility of your handling of the checked in items. so its not a case that things should just be passed off as whimsy, accident. it should be pursued

Craig was shown a video of him literally trying to forge the whitepaper in latex changing it bit by bit to try match the true and original whitepaper. Craig claimed he was just doing a "demonstration" to some unnamed party. You can view the compiled animation from his log edits here: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1761038309554332034

afterall why would you record yourself performing forgery unless you want to package it up as part of a portfolio of 'art' to be part of some media deal later on.

Oh, no. Maybe I didn't explain it perfectly well. It wasn't an actual video of him that he personally recorded, but if I understand correctly, these edits were found in the metadata of the editing program he used that recorded his each and every change and Craig was obviously unaware of (it might have been latex). COPA then pieced the metadata edits together to make a video so they could show it to the court of what Craig was actually doing. Craig then claimed the edits were for a presentation as if he was showing someone how to do it or something (more BS).

yes it was the "Craig then claimed the edits were for a presentation" where i thought the latex video was the presentation.. given the fact that CSW has before kept hold of different materials that show things he does that go against his 'i am satoshi' diatribe, and being more useful for background material of a future villain story

i know he is not smart enough to realise these civil cases can turn criminal. but thinks whilst only civil he is free to do as he pleases without personal repurcussions because its not his money that covers his legal games.. but i do hope someone uses these civil cases as evidence to get some criminal charges filed

Oh he knows. He's mentioned in both this court and others about how you can't lie in court otherwise it's perjury and that has consequences such as jailtime and seems to use that to back up his claims that he wouldn't possibly dare lie in court. He even doubled down yesterday and said that even worse is lying to god haha.

hmm now playing as a christian.. i think that will work against him if the judge is religious and see's him abusing religion to lie

also people with autism or aspergers can and do lie. the fun fact is depending on the scale. they can either not lie successfully because the lie sounds too dumb to be true or they are void of such emotion(poker face) they can get away with lying
i feel he just googled "can autistic's lie" and read "autistic's cannot lie successfully" and forgot/ignored the "successfully" end of the sentence
also, he is not vulcan

The charisma of Craig is his primary strength.

LOL. Well in that case he is completely fucked.

I can't think of a more disgusting, detestable, deplorable human in the crypto scene, and the bar is very, very low.

Neither BitBoy, Richard Heart, nor Do Kwon hold a candle to what level of douchebag Craig is.

If he is charismatic, it is in the way cult leaders are charismatic: they appeal primarily to the lost, the dumb, and the soul-lessly greedy. Everyone else with a competent or moral mind can see them for who they truly are.

I don't think he is charismatic, he just has sociopathic confidence and rarely gets rattled which is quite an impressive feat. Can you imagine sitting in court with your entire existence based upon lie after life and you have to think of more lies on the fly to cover up those lies and knowing all this behaviour could end up with you in prison.

"sociopathic confidence" yep thats the word
as for the "rarely gets rattled"
he gets rattled alot actually.. even in the BBC interview about the signing session noted many rattles
and in the court this last couple weeks

however as my theory goes because he has a back-up agenda should he lose (media deals of villain story) he has less concern over a loss, where he thinks he can spin it into a money making scheme. thus less pressure in parts

i just dont think he understands the legal ramifications that could hit him once found guilty civilly as a fraud/forger. as it can and should then go to criminal court.. i think he was told by a solicitor/lawyer that civil court doesnt lead to prison.. but didnt tell him evidence found in civil can then lead to separate criminal case.. so he is day dreaming that he can do civil SLAPP cases forever, unpunished, via his investors footing the bill of lost cases.. not realising those SLAPPS can be brought against him later criminally.. and i hope he learns that lesson after march, but even more hopeful, not long after march.. like the same day of judgement

No, I can't imagine it. Clearly he's no dummy,

clearly he is a dummy
there is a major difference between a actor playing a role, using confidence to play the part.. even dumb actors can sound like specialist doctors on a medical tv show, if they read the right script and take producers direction

note the "signing session".. he was taking direction from his investors of what they want as proof of claims and wont payout unless he done what they wanted. EG notable bitcoiners as witness and media .. which shows he is taking direction rather than leading the direction, and he does it all for a payday and willing to keep the ruse alive as long as the money keeps rolling

there is a major difference earned knowledge and skill.. vs practiced street smarts of learning how to survive as a criminal
he lacks real knowledge about many things, (coding, law) but knows just enough street smarts to employ people to aid his antics

[LeezHamilton]

Few question arises now,

1.  Do you think that Justice Mellor will run another session of cross examination to Dr Craig Steven Wright  ?


2. What will take place next week in the Court in this COPA -v Craig Wright Case ?  
3. Is just Justice Mellor will re-read all the papers and make his judgement ?
4. After the final judgement, do you think there will appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court from either side who will be the loser ?
 

I think it will be a good reason for the Bitcoin Saga Drama, if the loser file an Appeal in the Higher Court.

5. What do you think  it will happen ?  Suppose Craig lost the case, and he will file an Appeal, will the High Court accept his Appeal ?

6. How about we forum members together find a solution to the problem between Crag and COPA Members ?  

7. If our collaboration bring peace and sooth running of the Blockchain industry without Craig's corporate intervention , Do you not think that will be a better solution for both side ?

 How about let Craig and Calvin and Mathew to go for a luxury holiday with 200 glamorous  Concubinos   for  the next ten years to the forbidden Island in the Indian Ocean ?  If they leave the Bitcoin Community for ten years that could be a good thing for the Bitcoin Community and for them as well,  because

8. what they will do and achieve by accumulating billions of dollars like those fiat financial elites ?  

9. Do they have heirs to pass on to their accumulated wealth as inheritance ?

10.  Do you think they can take Bitcoin in a micro chip to heaven or hell when their times ends in this mortal planet Earth to buy Champaign and Prawn Cocktail there in the here after ?

You all are greedy MF506 agents to accumulate wealth but have forgotten the Bitcoin Manifesto.  

So, I think it is time for a proper judgment by virtue of each person's performance accordingly. Justice Mellor will not be the real judge to justify this case of COPA -v- Craig Wright alone, the judgement or the outcome of this case has already been decided by the shadow board or group even before the case restart for hearing on the 5 February 2024.  This was just a showcase for media attention.  

[franky1]

4. After the final judgement, do you think there will appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court from either side who will be the loser ?
 

I think it will be a good reason for the Bitcoin Saga Drama, if the loser file an Appeal in the Higher Court.

5. What do you think  it will happen ?  Suppose Craig lost the case, and he will file an Appeal, will the High Court accept his Appeal ?

if the "ayres/matthews" story is to be found to be true... CSW wont have any benefactors/investors paying  him more money to pursue more cases as they have had enough of funding him if he cant prove anything legitimately

[HmmMAA]

Who said he's a security expert? That's a title Craig has given himself, but given he gets hacked regularly when it's convenient for him as an excuse I'd say I'm more of a security expert than Craig.

I don't think that australian stock exchange would hire someone incompetent for monitoring their systems .

[LeezHamilton]

 If Craig Wright confess and regret and and repent then Satoshi might forgive him. Why he is trying to be a pseudonym of of some one who invented the Bitcoin and Blockchain ?  He just want to bank on some one else's intellectual property.  Satoshi Nakamoto is watching every thing. He might file a case against Craig Wright soon for infringement of the Bitcoin White Paper Copyright and his stollen property BSV. 

Satoshi Nakamoto created BSV on Google Platform in May 2007. Some one hijacked it from Satoshi Nakamoto and Craig Wright bought it from him in 2018. Craig Wright did not invented or Forked BSV. BSV is not stand for Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision but Bitcoin Security Version. BSV is a stollen Property. Those who buying BSV thinking it is the original Bitcoin will be in troubles.

[FatFork]

Who said he's a security expert? That's a title Craig has given himself, but given he gets hacked regularly when it's convenient for him as an excuse I'd say I'm more of a security expert than Craig.

I don't think that australian stock exchange would hire someone incompetent for monitoring their systems .

That is utter nonsense. Companies hire incompetent and lazy people all the time. Have you ever heard of terms like nepotism or bribery? Craig is exactly the type of person who would lie, cheat or try to buy his way in. Obvious example: plagiarizing his PhD thesis or lying in court about his expertise, while physical evidence says otherwise.

[franky1]

Who said he's a security expert? That's a title Craig has given himself, but given he gets hacked regularly when it's convenient for him as an excuse I'd say I'm more of a security expert than Craig.

I don't think that australian stock exchange would hire someone incompetent for monitoring their systems .

he worked at ASX? according to? wiki, media? that can only source CSW's own word for it

ever tried to do research to find proper information..
EG
after resigning from his families business(demorgan(sisters last name) (founders CSW and his first wife))* which the exit came with a non-compete
he then approached ASX trying to offer products/services("independant consultant") where he treated ASX as a (potential/solicited) customer of his shell company.. not where CSW was an active employee of ASX... oh and CSW got 28 days prison time for approaching ASX offering ASX products and services...**
even funnier.. CSW appeals the guilty judgement of the breach of non-compete by trying to say his involvement/solicitation/approach to ASX was ambiguous(no deals made) thus in CSW view was thus not competing***


the wording of the court cases back then, were not that he provable worked for, was contracted to, or subcontracted to ASX, but instead ambiguous at best was just approaching companies like ASX asking for business. and that alone was enough to be a breach of his exit contract(non-compete) from demorgan

have a nice day

*he duped an investor into buying a large share% of demorgan, promising fake profits.. then he stepped down signing a non-compete.. but leaving the investor holding an empty bag of crap as the sole owner of 'demorgan'(which had no products or services).. but had a promise to provide service to its potential customers  but never did provide services under 'demorgan'..
**then setting up 'ridge' he approached ASX employees trying to win new contracts(but didnt succeed)
***by saying that demorgan wont offer services promised and they should go with him.. ASX however forwarded that contact communication to the demorgan share % owner and it went to court

yep he was even scamming back in early 2000's

[HmmMAA]

he worked at ASX? according to? wiki, media? that can only source CSW's own word for it

ever tried to do research to find proper information..
EG
after resigning from his families business(demorgan(sisters last name) (founders CSW and his first wife))* which the exit came with a non-compete
he then approached ASX trying to offer products/services("independant consultant") where he treated ASX as a (potential/solicited) customer of his shell company.. not where CSW was an active employee of ASX... oh and CSW got 28 days prison time for approaching ASX offering ASX products and services...**
even funnier.. CSW appeals the guilty judgement of the breach of non-compete by trying to say his involvement/solicitation/approach to ASX was ambiguous(no deals made) thus in CSW view was thus not competing***


the wording of the court cases back then, were not that he provable worked for, was contracted to, or subcontracted to ASX, but instead ambiguous at best was just approaching companies like ASX asking for business. and that alone was enough to be a breach of his exit contract(non-compete) from demorgan

have a nice day

*he duped an investor into buying a large share% of demorgan, promising fake profits.. then he stepped down signing a non-compete.. but leaving the investor holding an empty bag of crap as the sole owner of 'demorgan'(which had not products or services).. but had a promise to provide service to ASX but never did provide services under 'demorgan'..
**then setting up 'ridge' he approached ASX employees trying to win new contracts(but didnt succeed)
***by saying that demorgan wont offer services promised and they should go with him.. ASX however forwarded that contact communication to the demorgan share % owner and it went to court

yep he was even scamming back in early 2000's

Any source other than van pelt ? I see you almost "copied" his article about that part . https://mylegacykit.medium.com/faketoshi-the-early-years-part-1-9964fc1639e3
The problem is that i probably have read everything you have and much more . You just stick to your bias as others and don't want to spend any more time . Have you watched his series with Ryan ? the masterclasses ? the interviews ? and more ? Probably not , as you still think that bitcoin is just a form of scarce money .

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/a-billion-reasons-for-in-house-it-20020528-gdfb94.html

"The ASX has also bought some ready-made systems, including a derivative trading system from Swedish company OM technologies, and a 24-hour security monitor by Melbourne company DeMorgan.
(It is, in turn, kept in check by an in-house security monitor.) "We'll do it (outsource) where we think it's necessary and where we think the risk is manageable," Olsson says."

Probably he plagiarised that system too , right ?

What ASX done at that time was unique , no other exchange had something similar in the world . I don't think they would choose someone incompetent . Of course i can stick with your word as you guys know better . Or not .

[franky1]

i was actually reading the court filings of the 2003 case..

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/a-billion-reasons-for-in-house-it-20020528-gdfb94.html

"The ASX has also bought some ready-made systems, including a derivative trading system from Swedish company OM technologies, and a 24-hour security monitor by Melbourne company DeMorgan.
(It is, in turn, kept in check by an in-house security monitor.) "We'll do it (outsource) where we think it's necessary and where we think the risk is manageable," Olsson says."

Probably he plagiarised that system too , right ?

What ASX done at that time was unique , no other exchange had something similar in the world . I don't think they would choose someone incompetent . Of course i can stick with your word as you guys know better . Or not .

you really wanna pull the pin in the granade you hold... fine

CSW.. the human (incompetent at coding) did not write code for demorgan nor actually do work. his wife employed people to code or they buy/steal/ claim software  as their own.. to re-licence it (notice how he is doing it again now with bitcoin)
the ASX did not take up an offer to have CSW as the IT manager monitoring ASX systems.. they  done their own monitoring in house

ASX did not outsource or contract out work to CSW, they gave demorgan MONEY for a licence of software (software unrelated to CSW)
also the 2003 court case noted how demorgan after CSW left was found to be an empty shell company

[HmmMAA]

i was actually reading the court filings of the 2003 case..

I'm always glad to see people doing their own pow . Anything to add to my previous post ?

You mean the 2004 case ?

[franky1]

i was actually reading the court filings of the 2003 case..

I'm always glad to see people doing their own pow . Anything to add to my previous post ?

You mean the 2004 case ?

it started in 2003 and ended after 2005.. (many appeals and asking for continuances and such stupid avoidance tactics)
he was ordered to not compete in 2003

[HmmMAA]

it started in 2003 and ended after 2005.. (many appeals and asking for continuances and such stupid avoidance tactics)
he was ordered to not compete in 2003

If you can share links it would be much appreciated .

[franky1]

it started in 2003 and ended after 2005.. (many appeals and asking for continuances and such stupid avoidance tactics)
he was ordered to not compete in 2003

If you can share links it would be much appreciated .

had to go through notes..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2003/1011.html

i know that you will try to find bombshells like "oh look mr greer of ASX told a CSW employee that CSW worked for ASX"* but that is later called into question in later cases, including how CSW tries to suggest he had no business with ASX and was only contacting lower level employee's of ASX, and such..
 funny part is CSW having a "system admin" who said greer said to "system admin" that CSW worked for ASX..
.. wait CSW needed a system admin..
.. wait "system admin" didnt know by default if CSW was working with ASX via them actually actively doing things for ASX
.. wait system admit had doubts of CSW involvement in ASX
(also)
didnt you think CSW was the system admin.. oh wait he employs people, but doesnt do the "genius"work himself
the rabbit hole only gets bigger from there.
just wait for the plot twists


by the way have you heard of google, you can find the court cases yourself. all of them, try it.
oh by the way demorgan went into default as it had no assets, no product no proprietary, no ip, no patent
because CSW and first wife left MR holding an empty bag of pretend big investment of big client
(you will soon learn it the more you read of the cases 2003-2005)

*keep in mind your own earlier link how ASX dont outsource contractors and done the monitoring in-house (not CSW)
using software that was not even a demorgan/CSW creation.. but sold as such with fake licence to pretend its a demorgan product
(much like he is trying now with bitcoin, falsely claiming it as his software to re-licence it)

[franky1]

LeezHamilton.. aka bitcoinmoses.. shut up and disappear again for a few months.. come up with something actually worthy of posting

[Stalker22]

LeezHamilton.. aka bitcoinmoses.. shut up and disappear again for a few months.. come up with something actually worthy of posting

You shouldn't give that troll the time of day or react to his nonsense.  

Responding to troll often just makes the problem worse since trolls feed off the attention.  Instead, the best way is usually to just ignore him, and with no reaction from others, he will lose interest and go away.

[hilariousetc]

Day 16:

Mostly boring in court today and ended a little early today as Craig's council decided not to cross-examine their own forensic experts given the obvious. COPA witness Patrick Madden was cross-examined for most of it and I don't think he came across great or did any favours for COPA, but the day ended on an absolute bombshell with the revelation Craig had supplied a forged email purported to be from his previous lawyers and even better was put forward by Craig's own council. Craig's previous lawyers confirmed the faked emails Craig has submitted so that's another nail in Craig's coffin surely. Further details on what actually happened here: https://blog.bitmex.com/copa-vs-csw-day-16-craigs-lawyers-do-copas-job-for-them/

Who said he's a security expert? That's a title Craig has given himself, but given he gets hacked regularly when it's convenient for him as an excuse I'd say I'm more of a security expert than Craig.

I don't think that australian stock exchange would hire someone incompetent for monitoring their systems .

Oh, well I guess Craig is Satoshi then . Did they hire a so-called security exert who gets hacked multiple times a year? I haven't seen any evidence of him doing anything with the Australian stock exchange, and the same goes for most of Craig's fabricated C.V. What Craig usually does - assuming the claim isn't just a flat-out lie in the first place - is take a kernel of the truth and either inject some backdated lies into it or shit some more lies all over it, sometimes both. Take the meeting minutes from BDO Kendalls: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.828.34.pdf

BDO, a company Craig allegedly worked for, but obviously never had anything to do with bitcoin, so Craig forges and backdates some 'proof' that alleges he mentioned bitcoin long before the publication of the whitepaper, only he gets caught in this physical fraud by writing the notes on a notepad confirmed by the makers to not have existed at the time. Craig lies so much it's impossible to know when he's telling the truth, but you can usually assume he is not.

Christen Ager-Hanssen released his evidence against Craig today which is worth a read:

https://medium.com/@agerhanssen/bdo-drive-october-2007-extracted-2023-you-wanted-evidence-82593c431a11

Along with a load of texts: https://twitter.com/agerhanssen/status/1762110519010312307

For those wanting a current update I would recommend checking out the latest Dr Bitcoin podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aproxaMcFL4

[hilariousetc]

Day 17

The shortest day of the trial so far at little over an hour due to Craig's side dismissing most of their witnesses. Not much happened obviously, but the day opened with COPA confirming the recent email forgeries and they would have a report ready on them soon.

Day 18

The "cryptocurrency expert" Prof Sarah Meiklejohn came across very well. It's funny how lawyers try to spin things in both ways. When Craig is caught plagiarising and his excuse is I was hacked, it's always well, is it possible he was hacked?, and the answer of course is I suppose it is possible, but just like it's possible aliens from another dimension also beamed the forgeries onto his computer from their spaceship. I mean, you can't prove that they didn't do that, so I suppose it is possible. When they were going over Craig's failed signing sessions Meiklejohn gave several ways Craig could have faked them including domain spoofing, wifi-hijacking etc, and Craig's team were pushing these as pie-in-the-sky claims but Meiklejohn's it is possible was dismissed as unlikely fancifulness, even though she stated she didn't believe this is what likely happened (I don't think Craig is smart enough to do this when all it takes is changing a bit of code in electrum, which is probably what he did).

Zem Gao, a blatant Craig Wright fanboy was also cross-examined. I missed the first part of his evidence and him being sworn in and I initially thought he was on COPA's side he was making Craig look so bad. Not sure why Craigs defence had him on, and they ended with going through all his pro-Craig writings at the end which was pretty much an embarrassing slam dunk for his impartiality.

There was no day in court today and the trial will resume tomorrow, and if I understand correctly, Craig is back on the stand to answer the recent admission of the forged email. This should be interesting, but of course he will almost certainly just blame someone else. Hopefully both COPA and the judge take this opportunity to grill Craig rather than just letting him pass the buck to someone else, especially as this is a forgery that took place during the trial. For those wanting a quick refresher here is what happened with the forged email:

December 2019: Craig and Ontier had an unrelated email exchange

March 2020: Craig sends MYOB login info to Ontier, and they make screenshots that same day

8 Feb 2024:
    * Craig is on the stand stating that Ontier received his MYOB login in 2019
    * Ontier emails Shoosmiths stating that they did create the screenshots in March 2020, not earlier

18 Feb 2024: Craig sends an email to Ontier backdated to December 2019, makes it look part of that December 2019 email thread.

23 Feb 2024:
    * Craig is on the stand again, affirming his previous statement and claiming he has the emails
    * Ramona [Craig's wife] hands over backdated email
    * Shoosmiths asks Ontier, attaches backdated email
    * Ontier reconfirms no login details before March 2020, backdated email was found on their system but found to be received 18 Feb 2023, appears to be part of a December 2019 thread but different.

https://twitter.com/oisyn/status/1763202102266929394

If you want to enjoy another couple of Craig's unbelievably stupid and sloppy forgeries here's a two more:

https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1763201157713838500
https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1763252633177915783

And if you want to read the COPA forensic reports used during the trial here they are: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4y3gdele4foy15006z8ch/h?rlkey=scs42wew1o3vwfv0nduhc43dm&e=4&dl=0

[franky1]

i hope copa lawyers actually use the airport bag security check-in analogy
it doesnt matter if someone claims someone else did it/hacked/swapped things/added. what you hand in needs to be checked by you because once handed in, its your responsibility and everything is then on you

(well not the analogy itself, but point out that his excuses hold no weight as whats filed is his responsibility)

CSW's efforts are akin to a school kid handing in his homework. the teacher gives him an F grade and the kid is like "um um but but, its not my homework sir, please give me an A for effort".. in this analogy he deserves detention, twice. not just a F grade

[hilariousetc]

i hope copa lawyers actually use the airport bag security check-in analogy
it doesnt matter if someone claims someone else did it/hacked/swapped things/added. what you hand in needs to be checked by you because once handed in, its your responsibility and everything is then on you

(well not the analogy itself, but point out that his excuses hold no weight as whats filed is his responsibility)

CSW's efforts are akin to a school kid handing in his homework. the teacher gives him an F grade and the kid is like "um um but but, its not my homework sir, please give me an A for effort".. in this analogy he deserves detention, twice. not just a F grade

Well, they usually push back on the excuses/lies, but only once and then just quickly move on. You would think they would push him a little further given the ridiculousness of the blatant lie, but hopefully the judge is aware of the fancifulness of Craig's excuses and that's all that is needed. Craig's lies are pretty much the legal equivalent of the dog ate my homework. These are all documents he submitted as proof of his claims and now they're doing the opposite it's the shaggy defence of it wasn't me. Why can't Craig just go back and get all the "original" unedited non-hacked documents (because obviously he can't because they don't exist, but I'm surprised the lawyers haven't asked for these). It's like a murderer sat in court and the judge asking why he was found covered in blood, holding the murder-weapon and a receipt for the knife in his pocket, and the only person with motive to commit the murder is that person, but his defence is it must have been someone else or the evidence was planted. How many forgeries are enough? Every document he has submitted has been proven to be forged or tampered with in some way and many are blatant, even the physical notepad should have ended any doubt. If Craig isn't found in contempt and there isn't another trial for that with potential jailtime I think this whole process will have been a farce. If Craig loses this case is he going to be barred from claiming to be Satoshi, or just in the UK? Is he going to just ignore that and possibly move to a different country and still make the same claims whilst no doubt appealing the verdict. I'm really hoping he gets a taste of his own medicine and ends up in several lawsuits that he's never out of court.

Oh, and we've nearly got a bingo: