⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
If Craig Wright loses, he will have to pay Kleiman 500,000 Bitcoin or the usd value of that amount.
So it is entirely likely that Craig will owe billions in USD if he losses.
Then he will use his other court case in the UK to try and force the Bitcoin Core developers to move Satoshi’s coins so he can pay the fine and profit.
Make no mistake Craig is one of the stupidest people I have ever read about. He is as dumb as they come. He is not Satoshi that much is clear even the Australian Tax Office concluded Craig was a fraud and a liar.
Craig thinks he will be able to use some court order from a uk court to move coins on Bitcoin that he cannot prove ownership. Even as others have already signed messages on old addresses Craig said were his.
At most he might convince the BSV devs, miners and community (nodes) to allow him to "recover" Satoshi’s BSV coins. Of course that would collapse the BSV price even further to zero. Which is also good as the only people dumber than Craig Wright are his supporters and BSV holders. Those people truly are the dumbest shits ever to walk the Earth and deserve what’s coming.
So it is entirely likely that Craig will owe billions in USD if he losses.
Then he will use his other court case in the UK to try and force the Bitcoin Core developers to move Satoshi’s coins so he can pay the fine and profit.
Make no mistake Craig is one of the stupidest people I have ever read about. He is as dumb as they come. He is not Satoshi that much is clear even the Australian Tax Office concluded Craig was a fraud and a liar.
Craig thinks he will be able to use some court order from a uk court to move coins on Bitcoin that he cannot prove ownership. Even as others have already signed messages on old addresses Craig said were his.
At most he might convince the BSV devs, miners and community (nodes) to allow him to "recover" Satoshi’s BSV coins. Of course that would collapse the BSV price even further to zero. Which is also good as the only people dumber than Craig Wright are his supporters and BSV holders. Those people truly are the dumbest shits ever to walk the Earth and deserve what’s coming.
It's already starting to unravel
Quote
...Defendant Craig Wright’s lies and obfuscation, violations of Court orders, and forgeries. Defendant’s misconduct has continued during trial and may have given the jury a misleading impression of the evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendant has even walked away at trial from his own repeated representations to Plaintiffs and to the Court in response to Court orders about his bitcoin holdings
...
Defendant represented that he could not identify his own bitcoin holdings because he needed to wait for a mysterious “bonded courier” to arrive in January 2020. Nonetheless, he repeatedly represented that he mined at least through Block 70 in the blockchain. ECF No. [211], at 3–5.
...
At trial, however, Defendant refused to acknowledge that the list he previously certified was accurate, claiming now that only the first 15 blocks (750 bitcoin) are his and that the remainder on the list are his company’s bitcoin (or perhaps his wife’s).
...
"I responded with everything I received. The original list that I gave of only the first 15 address addresses is the -- basically what I mined as me. So I’ve done both. Blocks 1 to 15 are the addresses that Craig Wright with mined as Craig Wright. In full, in completion, the end. On top of that, I’ve sent other files as well."
...
"No. The list of the first 15 addresses is the list of Bitcoin I mined as Craig Wright, the Defendant. This is another list that I was given I’m not a trustee"
..
Q- Dr. Wright notifies the Court that the third party has provided the necessary information and key slice to unlock the corporate repped file and Dr. Wright has produced a list of his Bitcoin holdings as ordered by the magistrate judge to Plaintiffs today. Do you see that?
A- Yes. And as I specified, the first 15 were mine. The others were corporate. So I have testified and I stick by the fact the first 15 are mine. I agree. The others belong to the company. I don't know which ones belong to the company. I testified and I stand by it the first 15 are mine.
...
overwhelming evidence admitted at trial regarding Defendant’s forgeries and spoliation of evidence. See, e.g., P240 (Letter from Australian counsel terminating representation based on “serious questions about the integrity of documents provided by Dr Craig Wright, both to [his] office and to the Australian Taxation Office”); P637, ¶¶ 52–53. 101 (Defendant forged contracts with W&K) and pp. 118–32 (chart of Defendant’s “discrepancies,” including false statements and forged/altered documents at issue in this case); see also id., ¶¶ 12 n.14 (Defendant “admitted to backdating several documents” involving Coin-Exch), 111 (finding documents submitted by Defendant were a “sham”), 115 (finding Defendant submitted documents as “disguise for either difference transactions, or no transactions”); P795, ¶¶ 220–23 (discussing “numerous anomalies and inconsistencies” in the evidence presented by Defendant and his agents, concluding contract with W&K “amounts to a sham,” and finding that Defendant “fabricated” electronic evidence in connection with Dave Kleiman and W&K), 227 (“documentation was created by [Defendant] in order to fraudulently decide the ATO and support [his] false and misleading statements”), 228.8 (forgery of Dave Kleiman’s signature), 228–29 (discussing “inconsistencies and anomalies relating to” purported contract with W&K); P30, ¶¶ 267-68 (forgeries of David Kleiman’s signature); P565, ¶¶ 21.1, 38.1 (finding Defendant made false or misleading statements involving W&K), 38.7 (finding emails produced by Defendant were “false or doctored” and questioning “the
veracity and genuineness” of other electronic communications, including Bitmessages), 68 and 74-78 (finding documents and statements by Defendant relating to W&K “false or misleading”); P604 & P605, ¶¶ 176-77 (“In the present case there are numerous anomalies and inconsistencies in the purported agreement between [Defendant] and W&K that lead us to conclude that no liability arose from it.”)
Testimony at trial further confirms that Defendant forged and spoliated evidence in this case. See Trial Tr. (Dr. Edman) Day 9 PM (Rough) at 43:15–25, 45:25–46:6, 47:4-7 (P823 is a forgery), 56:13–18 (no evidence anyone other than Defendant forged P823), 56:20–25 (no evidence any of forgeries created by anyone but Defendant); Trial Tr. (Dr. Edman) Day 10 PM (Rough) at 14:11-13 (P546 is a forgery), 19:3-14 (P135 is a forgery), 22:16-18 (P55 is a forgery), 26:25–27:4 (P452 is a forgery), 34:9-16 (P807 is a forgery), 41:25–43:2 (P808 is a forgery), 51:4–10 and P822 (Defendant swearing to authenticity of documents submitted to Court that are forgeries), 51:17–24 (P35 is a forgery), 73:15–17 (P538 is a forgery), 82:14–17 (P36 is a forgery). In addition to the several documents he specifically discussed with the jury, Dr. Edman testified that he had identified approximately 25-30 additional forgeries Defendant produced in this case. Id. at 86:16–25.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.794.0.pdf...
Defendant represented that he could not identify his own bitcoin holdings because he needed to wait for a mysterious “bonded courier” to arrive in January 2020. Nonetheless, he repeatedly represented that he mined at least through Block 70 in the blockchain. ECF No. [211], at 3–5.
...
At trial, however, Defendant refused to acknowledge that the list he previously certified was accurate, claiming now that only the first 15 blocks (750 bitcoin) are his and that the remainder on the list are his company’s bitcoin (or perhaps his wife’s).
...
"I responded with everything I received. The original list that I gave of only the first 15 address addresses is the -- basically what I mined as me. So I’ve done both. Blocks 1 to 15 are the addresses that Craig Wright with mined as Craig Wright. In full, in completion, the end. On top of that, I’ve sent other files as well."
...
"No. The list of the first 15 addresses is the list of Bitcoin I mined as Craig Wright, the Defendant. This is another list that I was given I’m not a trustee"
..
Q- Dr. Wright notifies the Court that the third party has provided the necessary information and key slice to unlock the corporate repped file and Dr. Wright has produced a list of his Bitcoin holdings as ordered by the magistrate judge to Plaintiffs today. Do you see that?
A- Yes. And as I specified, the first 15 were mine. The others were corporate. So I have testified and I stick by the fact the first 15 are mine. I agree. The others belong to the company. I don't know which ones belong to the company. I testified and I stand by it the first 15 are mine.
...
overwhelming evidence admitted at trial regarding Defendant’s forgeries and spoliation of evidence. See, e.g., P240 (Letter from Australian counsel terminating representation based on “serious questions about the integrity of documents provided by Dr Craig Wright, both to [his] office and to the Australian Taxation Office”); P637, ¶¶ 52–53. 101 (Defendant forged contracts with W&K) and pp. 118–32 (chart of Defendant’s “discrepancies,” including false statements and forged/altered documents at issue in this case); see also id., ¶¶ 12 n.14 (Defendant “admitted to backdating several documents” involving Coin-Exch), 111 (finding documents submitted by Defendant were a “sham”), 115 (finding Defendant submitted documents as “disguise for either difference transactions, or no transactions”); P795, ¶¶ 220–23 (discussing “numerous anomalies and inconsistencies” in the evidence presented by Defendant and his agents, concluding contract with W&K “amounts to a sham,” and finding that Defendant “fabricated” electronic evidence in connection with Dave Kleiman and W&K), 227 (“documentation was created by [Defendant] in order to fraudulently decide the ATO and support [his] false and misleading statements”), 228.8 (forgery of Dave Kleiman’s signature), 228–29 (discussing “inconsistencies and anomalies relating to” purported contract with W&K); P30, ¶¶ 267-68 (forgeries of David Kleiman’s signature); P565, ¶¶ 21.1, 38.1 (finding Defendant made false or misleading statements involving W&K), 38.7 (finding emails produced by Defendant were “false or doctored” and questioning “the
veracity and genuineness” of other electronic communications, including Bitmessages), 68 and 74-78 (finding documents and statements by Defendant relating to W&K “false or misleading”); P604 & P605, ¶¶ 176-77 (“In the present case there are numerous anomalies and inconsistencies in the purported agreement between [Defendant] and W&K that lead us to conclude that no liability arose from it.”)
Testimony at trial further confirms that Defendant forged and spoliated evidence in this case. See Trial Tr. (Dr. Edman) Day 9 PM (Rough) at 43:15–25, 45:25–46:6, 47:4-7 (P823 is a forgery), 56:13–18 (no evidence anyone other than Defendant forged P823), 56:20–25 (no evidence any of forgeries created by anyone but Defendant); Trial Tr. (Dr. Edman) Day 10 PM (Rough) at 14:11-13 (P546 is a forgery), 19:3-14 (P135 is a forgery), 22:16-18 (P55 is a forgery), 26:25–27:4 (P452 is a forgery), 34:9-16 (P807 is a forgery), 41:25–43:2 (P808 is a forgery), 51:4–10 and P822 (Defendant swearing to authenticity of documents submitted to Court that are forgeries), 51:17–24 (P35 is a forgery), 73:15–17 (P538 is a forgery), 82:14–17 (P36 is a forgery). In addition to the several documents he specifically discussed with the jury, Dr. Edman testified that he had identified approximately 25-30 additional forgeries Defendant produced in this case. Id. at 86:16–25.
Welcome to Law!!!
Haha Faketoshi already running for the exit, he stripped himself of all of the assets, now claiming that he only mined 15blocks thus only owns BTC750
so what's the plan for Monday when court confirms that he's a serial forger?On a more serious note, it's all fun and games until someone really gets hurt. Instead of blindly cheering him on someone should explain to him that there's always a way out, because last time CSW was cornered he attempted a suicide.
Quote
“Q: And then Robert MacGregor sends a message on May 4th, 2016, you’re all waiting for Craig to send this transaction, and can you read what he says to you?
A: “All Stop. Craig has just tried to injure himself and is bleeding badly in the washroom. Stefan is there with him and Ramona and I am en route. Ambulance is on its way.”
Q: So Craig tried to hurt himself?
A: That was my understanding, yes.
Q: Did you get any more details then beyond this email?
A: I believe there was a phone call, I don’t recall with who, who said that — were they at Craig’s house? I don’t recall the location, but they were somewhere. Craig disappeared upstairs and then was found bleeding with cuts to his neck, and then was taken to the hospital in — in an ambulance with an apparent suicide attempt. I think the word “suicide” was — was used.
https://mylegacykit.medium.com/the-craig-wright-may-2016-signing-sessions-debacle-in-full-context-338e2b316310A: “All Stop. Craig has just tried to injure himself and is bleeding badly in the washroom. Stefan is there with him and Ramona and I am en route. Ambulance is on its way.”
Q: So Craig tried to hurt himself?
A: That was my understanding, yes.
Q: Did you get any more details then beyond this email?
A: I believe there was a phone call, I don’t recall with who, who said that — were they at Craig’s house? I don’t recall the location, but they were somewhere. Craig disappeared upstairs and then was found bleeding with cuts to his neck, and then was taken to the hospital in — in an ambulance with an apparent suicide attempt. I think the word “suicide” was — was used.