Topic: COPA just won its first hearing against Craig - page 4. (Read 1021 times)

I am not a lawyer or have extensive experience with reading such court documents. Perhaps you (or someone else smarter than me) could let me know if my interpretation here is correct. I'm looking specifically at paragraphs 64, 66, and 67 of the link OP has shared.

It seems that COPA want to force CSW to produce proof that he controls the addresses within the Tulip Trust which he has claimed to control, since everyone knows he is full of shit and won't be able to prove any such thing. CSW objected to this on the basis that it would cause him "undue burden", and the judge has thrown out his objection, saying that this is "exactly what must be faced".

Does this mean we are finally going to a get a court order to force CSW to sign a message/move some coins, and then rule against him for being a liar and fraud when he can't?

Yeah definitely keep this updated. I’m desperate to see that POS get what he deserves. It’s about time he was consigned to the history books for what he is, a liar & a fraudster.

Great find OP and this is certainly going to get very interesting.
The Judge has mentioned forgery on several occasions in regards to CSW’s evidence that he is Satoshi
 
The Sartre message- Quote from the Judge “ I have some difficulty in accepting this. If the provided signature was one which was publicly available in the blockchain, rather than one which corresponded to the private key associated with block nine of the Bitcoin blockchain, then it could not have been provided as a proof that the defendant was Satoshi (which was what was put forward) but could only be a forgery of such a signature. Whather it was put forward as a proof of being Satoshi Nakamoto is a matter for trial. So, forgery is in issue.”

The BlackNet Abstract - Quote from Judge “ Forgery is again in issue.“

The Kleiman email of 12 March 2008 - Quote from Judge “ Once more, whether that is the true explanation, or whether it is a simple forgery, is a matter for trial.“

“these issues will have to be resolved at trial. In particular, I consider that the claimant, in complying with the relevant pleading rules, is entitled to put these cases forward as cases of forgery, even though the defendant argues that they have innocent explanations.”

Innocent explanations ! Damn Lies !

Luckily this judge appears to understand blockchain and how it works.

Keep us updated OP when and if this goes to court 

Summary:


The judge effectively ruled for COPA (claimant) and against CSW (defendant) on both issues.

The claims that CSW wanted the judge to remove purport to show several instances of CSW either forging or doctoring documents that he had used to support his claim of being Satoshi. While these do not prove that CSW is not Satoshi, they certainly diminish his credibility in the case, and make it more difficult for him to support his claim with what can reasonably considered to be hearsay evidence.

The judge did put limits on how the decisions by the judge in the U.S. Kleiman trial can be used in this case. Basically, the U.S. judge's opinion that CSW committed perjury and forged documents cannot be used, but the facts used by the judge to come to those conclusions could be used.

--------------------
edited 10/Jan/2022:



--------------------
edited 12/Jan/2022:



--------------------
edited 28/Mar/2022: