Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on Today at 12:24:00 PM

I have honestly not closely followed most CSW cases, and haven't spent more than a half dozen hours (over the many years he has spent litigating various cases) reviewing related court documents. My experience is that CSW likes to take advantage of the lack of technical expertise by lawyers and judges, and will respond in a way that may not answer the question directly, but the answer looks favorable to him; the lawyers may not pickup on the difference between the question and answer because of the lack of technical expertise. This is more obvious to those who have at least intermediate expertise in how cryptography works and how bitcoin works.

I believe the above is why CSW is so willing to allow so much evidence of potential fraud to be out there, as it is obvious to experts, but not so obvious to
those who may impose consequences for fraud. You may be right though, it is possible there is more bad stuff that CSW is hiding.

You're absolutely right, but you should give the courts more credit. Even ones without the benefit of technical experts see through him if they're given enough time:

E.g. from a UK ruling:

Quote

Dr Wright gave evidence. He was an
unsatisfactory witness in many respects. He was belligerent, argumentative and
deliberately provocative. He evaded questions to which he did not wish to give a
straight answer. On occasion he refused to accept what documents plainly indicated.
He was prepared to make grave and unsustainable allegations, for example in
relation to the supposed fabrication by or on behalf of Reliantco of an email from him
of 3 September 2017. He sought on occasion to blind with (computer) science. I came
to the conclusion that I could not rely on Dr Wright’s evidence as to whether and how
particular events had happened unless it was supported by documentation, other
evidence I could accept or by the inherent probabilities.

From a US ruling:

Quote

Dr. Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to
the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurous testimony

Quote from: gmaxwell on Today at 07:50:23 AM

I believe it would be difficult to prove someone guilty of perjury for claiming to be a particular anonymous person that is only known by their forum handle/alias without bringing that person forward.

The thing that will catch him here is that he keeps forging evidence and giving inconsistent/contradictory testimony. For example, right now he claims that Satoshi never posted on the forum and that the posts here claiming to be by satoshi were written by other people (sometimes suggesting me)... yet in the past he claimed to have authored these posts. He was saying other people were trying to out him as satoshi and dox him even while he himself was editing his block to add provably backdated entries alluding to Bitcoin long ago.

So say someone claims to be Jesus reborn. Well how would you disprove that? Well you investigate and find that they've been sneaking into archives and adding fake records to history books to support their claims, that they've been creating forged pieces of ancient cloth to support their claims, you look under their bed and find a pile of crib sheets that they were using to memorize the right things to say, you put the screws to their confidants, and have them testify that that NewJesus told them it was a con. You investigate their miracles and find out they were light shows, and so on.

Why would NewJesus fake all that stuff if he wasn't a scam?

Or say someone is missing and you think their husband murdered them but you can't even find the body. But you show the husband drove deep into the woods shortly after the body went missing, that they recently bought a book on how to get away with murder, that they totally scrubbed and sterilized their car. You establish their motive. And so on. Why would they do all that stuff if they weren't guilty?

Same goes for Wright: No support for his main claim plus lots of provable fraud he engaged in while trying to promote his claim == adequately proved that his main claim was fraud.

The challenge convincing a jury would just be guiding them past his bamboozlement. Fortunately, the main way he pulls that off in person doesn't work in court. The way wright works is that if you challenge him he throws a physical tantrum and begins screaming at them until they are cowed into retracting their challenge. He can't do that in court (he actually tried once in Florida and was told he was going to go directly to jail if he had another outburst).