There allegations in the OP are so outrageous that they do not deserve to be acknowledged, to the extent that the OP is likely operating in bad faith (in multiple ways).
I took the implied
accusations in this thread as an attempt to mock your recent threads, combined with possibly a bit of retaliation. I realize this thread may have been started for other reasons or to make a point, in a witty/mocking sort of way, but your threads have similar characteristics and I look for any facts or evidence you may present that is worth looking at, as I've done here.
As was the case with an outrageous claim about a pill addiction, you started it with zero evidence (but the
possibility of good evidence) and ultimately just made statements about a secret source whom you would never name nor present any evidence the source gave you. Vod is starting this thread maybe with a bit of subjective mocking but also providing blockchain & post evidence showing TF sent you 20BTC for the purpose of a civil action lawsuit against Vod and you appear to have received it and never did anything with it. Is it your claim you did pursue a lawsuit or are you denying this transaction ever happened? I'm curious what your stance is here?
threads you've created recently
In those cases, lauda has explicitly acknowledged the allegations and attempted to derail the threads by trolling them. Further he very much implicitly denied the allegations both before and after he explicitly said he would not respond to the allegations, which is prima-face evidence that lauda was both trying to say that he denied the subject allegations and later claim he was not lying if/when additional evidence is presented to backup said allegations.
How is this prima facie evidence?
I'll agree he began the same trollish-like behavior on these threads that have been done in the past with other threads attacking him, which
could be interpreted as a hypersensitive reaction for someone who is frequently attacked with threads of this nature.
Lauda implicitly or explicitly denying the allegation is a denial of the allegation.
Whether he said he was or was not going to respond beforehand doesn't seem relevant.
When you finish with "and later claim", this has not happened yet, and appears like speculation, so I've disregarded the rest of this sentence until additional evidence is presented.
Could this be prima facie evidence if your speculation comes true,
maybe if any evidence is strong enough, but one will never know because you don't seem to be willing to show any evidence and this comes off as prima facie evidence that you are acting in bad faith.