Quote from: ðºÞæ on August 30, 2019, 05:16:09 PM

What ruling, there is no ruling. The only thing certain Craig Wright has to pay some legal fees.

Let me dictionary that for you:

Quote

ruling noun
rul·ing | \ ˈrü-liŋ \
Definition of ruling (Entry 1 of 2)
: an official or authoritative decision, decree, statement, or interpretation (as by a judge on a point of law)

A court order (which this was) is a specific type of ruling.

In addition to having to pay for the plaintiff's legal expenses, the judge RULED that:

Quote

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), the Court deems the following facts to be
established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleimans
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleimans death (the partnerships bitcoin) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnerships
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.

More words from the judge:

Quote

I now turn to the question of a proper remedy. Plaintiffs Motion asked the Court to declare
that the 1,100,111 bitcoin referenced to in to [sic] the Tulip Trust document is joint property
belonging equally to both Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright. DE 210 at 6. On August 26, at oral
argument on the Motion, Plaintiffs asked the Court to strike Dr. Wrights pleadings. Rule 37
specifically recognizes that an appropriate discovery sanction is for the Court to deem certain facts
established for purposes of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(a)(i). Rule 37 also permits a Court
to strike pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii)...

There is clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Wrights non-compliance with the Courts
Orders is willful and in bad faith, that Plaintiffs have been prejudiced, and (particularly given the
extended pattern of non-compliance and its egregiousness) a lesser sanction is not adequate to
punish or to ensure future compliance with the Courts Orders. Therefore, sanctions under Rule
37(b) are warranted.

What this basically means is that the judge nuked Craig's whole defense because he was full of shit. Therefore, the plaintiff wins.

A federal judge ruled this in a federal court.

Quote from: ðºÞæ on August 30, 2019, 05:16:09 PM

in more detail here in the miami herald
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232595847.html

I ask you again: what does this have to do with anything?

How does it negate the judge's findings that Craig is a fraud? And by the way, the judge did call Craig "fraudulent." Look it up for yourself:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.277.0.pdf