should have made allowance for recovering users lost funds not have implicated the earliest contributors more than any others?
Or the guy who designed it that way and advocated for the way it actually works (e.g. when people asked about lost coins). 
Quote
and does that not implicate Gavin most of all in such a damages claim? Andresen was leading the earliest dev team in the original effort to (continue to 
) e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y make it increasingly more impossible for the developers to choose who should be assigned which money, for any reason, however arbitrary?
So I take it you wouldn't consider it improper for the defandants to join GA as a defendant in the case? ) e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y make it increasingly more impossible for the developers to choose who should be assigned which money, for any reason, however arbitrary? I'm following the logic of Wright's claim, not my own
in my first comment from that post, I say that the courts themselves are manipulating their audience with no reasonable grounds other than to make the institution as a whole appear to be just (and authoritative, trustworthy etc)
i.e. the courts (and it's employees) are attempting to perform a confidence trick on those attending upon entering the chambers (arguably even before)