Topic: Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message - page 10. (Read 9816 times)

and the funny galaxy wide gap that you keep skipping is
the community know its not about money because we all know CSW doesnt have any.

HE DOES NOT HAVE A STASH OF COINS
so while your small minded group think its about ira trying to get 410k
the rest of us smarter people know that there is no 410k coins that ira can/will get

the game at hand is about the intellectual property and the title of being declared bitcoins creator
that is the reality

That is the while scenario that has in this reality been playing out for the last 4 years.
its all about trying to get a judgement that CSW was part of bitcoins creation.
so that he can patent troll the community.

but hey. if you really think that somewhere somehow CSW has got 820k and thats what ira is fighting a share of.. well sucks to be you

the rest of the community figured out that he was a scammer and not the creator and not having any 2009-10 stash within hours of his claims.

are you really that stuck in 2015-16 promo material?? (no need for an answer. your opinions over the last 4 years have shown you still think bitcoin is the same as it was in 2015 and that CSW claimed to be part of the bitcoin creation and you are yet to "wait and see" for the proof and the spending of the coins by the partnership(facepalm))

meanwhile the rest of the community are concentrating on the ramifications of getting judgement in BOTH ira and CSW favour. and then using that judgement to legalise it at the patent/trademark offices. and then go on a patent troll war with all devs and software companies

but you will just think its about ira getting 410k coins(facepalm)

foregone conclusion: no if's no buts no maybes
CSW/dave never mined 'the satoshi stash'
CSW/dave never created bitcoin
ira knows CSW never did. the world outside the courtroom knows

inside the courtroom yea everyone wants to get paid something somewhere
the only way IRA gets paid.
1. as a thankyou bribe from CSW for playing his game
2. for validating the partnership and they both patent troll the community and share the settlements

when both CSW side is saying he was part of bitcoin creation. and ira side is saying CSW was part of the bitcoin creation. but maybe his brother was too
its not a fight over is CSW the bitcoin creator.
its a fight over how much involvement dave had.

IRA has not ever argued or claimed that CSW had no involvement. so that is not one of the claims/charges against CSW

so the two options are:
1. partnership validated by default
2. case dismissed due to lack of evidence CSW was even bitcoins creator
the is no third option where ira changes charges to be that CSW never was/had any assets to share


again IRA is not even proceeding down the path that lack of evidence is proof of no involvement
and again ira is not proceeding down the path that CSW scammed the whole thing. and seeks damages from wasting ira's time of hanging an empty carrot of 410k infront his nose

yes i can see the psychology and hope and if and but and speculation that some small minded people think ira will change paths and just ask for damages for time wasting with the empty carrot on a stick games

but its obvious that ira gets more 'value' by becoming part of a patent troll scheme of being co-owner of bitcoins IP.. or being given a golden handshake for helping to legalise the bitcoin IP into CSW ownership

I believe franky1 has a point. Tin-foil hats on, but the Borat-like character played by Craig Wright is not what it seems. There's a deeper motive under the silliness of the character, and his claims.

Plus why did Gavin Andresen risk destroying his own reputation by vouching for him? There's something the community shouldn't know.

Learn English.  I'm not saying what you're suggesting is impossible.  It MIGHT turn out to be true.  But there's still a large gulf between MIGHT and REALITY.  You have a really annoying habit of jumping to conclusions.  It makes you look unhinged.  It's why no one takes you seriously.  Stop.

This is clearly a "wait and see" situation, so stop treating it like a foregone conclusion.

You seem to be talking about yourself, because you are the one 'circling the endless squabble' about a shitty theory that makes no sense and you seem to be stuck in this idea, that you need to defend your rubbish thoughts in endless repeating posts. Is it because you only want to be right and the rest of the users in this topic are wrong? Why this fighting about a theory that has no proof? Maybe you should go and talk to a shrink about it.

Remember when I posted a link to a very well known website (Cryptome) and you attacked me, saying that I am only doing it to promote my own website? Not sure how you came to this conclusion, but it has been branded in your brain, just like this theory about the collusion Ira/CSW.

Narcissist never change, because they are trapped in their own opinion, which - to them - has more value than anybody elses.

Take me for example. I am not narcisstic like you. If it turns out that Ira and Craig are colluding I am probably the first one admitting that you were right. I don't expect the same from you, when your theory turns out to be complete bs. You will go silent about it and probably switch to your next fixed idea.

I'm done with this topic until the judge takes a decision.

1,2,3a are whats shown in case documents .. heck its in the screen shot your ignorantly cant read. refuse to read.. but its right there

3b 3c 3d are all known things that CSW wants to do once he has a legal proof a patent office and trademark office would accept(his game plane since 2016)

but seems your certain group of friends unable to have a thought outside of your buddy group, fail to even grasp the obvious

weirdest thing is you seem to care more about kissing your buddies ass than you do about bitcoin. yet again

funniest part is how juan is thinking that CSW will get punished after 3a.
thats a win for CSW..

ira is asking for exactly what CSW wants

it is.

Yes.  Good luck to you and your buddies with that.  You will need it.


Of course, he wants payment, but he would likely be willing to settle for less.  You are correct.  Frequently, settlements will be less than full judgement because parties would rather pay less than both go through further litigation and also experience uncertainties around actually being able to collect, versus having the party directly pay you voluntarily.


I thought that dave died.. You mean Ira?  Ira did not get paid, yet.

I recall that they had settled last year, and then CSW backed out.. and made some mumbo jumbo lame ass excuses, which largely were likely ways to just delay a ruling and attempt to play the matter for some more drama.


It helps Ira's case, if CSW is proclaiming both things.


Of course, it is foolish, and maybe that is why it had settled initially... but what you gonna do?  Ira wants to get paid.  That seems pretty clear, otherwise he would not have bothered bringing the case, and now that he has invested into litigation, received a few rulings in his favor, and has seen how stupid various CSW defenses are, it makes it more likely that Ira is not going to give up on his claims to get paid.. and he might even be locked into litigating partially because the attorneys want to get paid.. especially for a lot of work that they already did (and expenses that they have incurred).


Why would they care about the community?  That is not one of the calculations of either side. At least not a major one.


Seems like punishment if he cannot pay, and maybe he could end up in jail because it is so much money to owe.  Of course, he could liquidate all of his assets.  That seems like punishment to me.


Does not matter too much what we say.  The parties are going to do what they are going to do.


Reality according to franky1. 

what a world.

what a world.




Makes me sad.      Especially on the inside.   

You literally cannot prove that your theory is true.  You are GUESSING that's what the case is about.  All you have are stories of intrigue and no evidence.  Please learn the difference between theory and reality.

The irony that you're commenting on a court case, where things like evidence are actually rather important, is clearly lost on you.

and while certain people keep circling the endless squabble over 'its about the money'

the point is
this case is if a judge makes an order that dave&CSW were the creators
that piece of paper would get taken straight to the patent office and the trademark office and establish CSW as the bitcoin creator
then the patent troll cases will ensue

while certain people on other pages will start saying
'yea but um but um maybe IRA can then go to court to then um maybe um ask for payment'

the game is already over
dave and CSW already achieved their goal

we all know IRA doesnt actually have a legal claim of 50% of coins. because we know CSW never had them.
HE IS NOT NOR EVER WAS SATOSHI

so trying to make it about IRA needs to win to then get paid.. is foolish drama
to hand CSW legal judgement that he created bitcoin.. is not a win for the community.
nor is it actual punishment for CSW

certain people in this tpic are trying to promote the agenda as
1. make a case about coins and IP
2. argue about evidence of coins and IP
3. get judge to default in favour there is coins & IP
4. ira then punishes CSW for not paying coins

..
reality is
1. make a case about coins and IP
2. argue about evidence of coins and IP
3a. get judge to default in favour there is coins & IP
3b. ofiiciate the IP with patent & trademark office to legalise the partnership
3c. patent troll any dev or any user they can
3d. ruin the community by every means possible

i know certain people are iffing and butting and could be and maybe the point 4.. but concentrate on point 3abcd

if all you want is to promote point 4.. ill give you a spoiler ira will never get 410k coin never. impossible
anything in 4 and beyond is just speculation and fantasy.

what the community need to be aware of is points 3b 3c 3d
as thats the more true ending to the story if 3a occurs

I think real Satoshi will not disclose himself because of everything. Satoshi knows what will happen if he appears on the public. Without Satoshi know to have access to control the Bitcoin, I mean no one can stop the network. Also, satoshi knows that world needs freedom economy. That's why I like his intelligence.

It´s like that pic shows: https://ibb.co/mtGjpCB 

Some people just poop out of the wrong end

This is a sensible digest of what is going on.

And again franky is wrong as he didn't perform the necessary RESEARCH to educate himself on the reality of the situation. From the original complaint submitted by Ira's attorneys in 2018:


Obviously they are asking for compensation. Everything else... yes, they need to determine who had what and when through the process of discovery. To pretend this isn't 100% about money is completely ridiculous.

Before the court can rule about the compensation, it is necessary to define the legal status of the partnership Dave Kleiman/CSW. Most people here know, that CSW used a regular font as Dave's signature, which would mean, that this contract about the partnership is NOT valid. This would be pretty easy to prove for Ira, but he has certainly no interest in proving that there was no partnership, because this would mean that CSW owns 100% of the Bitcoins and the case would be closed. Sure, these Bitcoins most likely are not under Craigs control, but how can Ira know this with certainty? And again: It is not in Ira's interest to prove that these Bitcoins are NOT controlled by CSW. Even if Craig now comes out and says he lied (the reason maybe autism) and never controlled those Bitcoins, the jugde might think, that this is just an obvious tactic to avoid paying Ira's share.

What if the "4D Chess game" being played here by Craig Wright and his minions is to make the case a supreme example that a judge can rule who owns which coins in the network.

Dangerous for Bitcoin's censorship-resistance, and renders decentralization useless.

You are NOT making any point that I have not already addressed (likely several times), so in that regard, you have gotten the last word, except that technically this post does happen to come after your post so that might inspire you to repeat your baloney one more time.        

Since I am having so many funzies going back and forth with you with basics and repetition, franky1, please feel free to wake me up, when you have something (likely further nonsense) that might possibly be new that you feel that you have to say.     

your going backwards and still making it about the coins..
idiot... absolutely trolling idiot you are
its about the bitcoins intellectual property.. as thats always been CSW game
the game of being bitcoins creator

anyway.
your idiotic ignorance has just gone one ignorant step too far.
so ill just post the image link of it showing exactly what ira's request is...


you have lost the debate with your ignorant distractions


idiot below is just trolling now..
V

I thought that we were starting to make progress, and now you proclaim this nonsense?

Maybe you need to outline your logic a bit better?  How do you get from a court case in which Ira is attempting to get CSW to pay him damage to be able to have the power to rule that CSW has ownership over the coins that he says that he does?

When there is a judgement that comes out of a situation in which CSW proclaiming that he owns the coins, and Ira says that he is entitled to half, and then if the court agrees for the purposes of the judgement, CSW owes half, the court is not ruling that CSW owns the coins, it is just going along with CSWs proclamation in order to grant damages to Ira.  You don't get any more from that ruling in this case, even if CSW might want to attempt to scam people on such a ruling that does not even go to making a material judgement about his ownership of the coins, the court merely presumes such ownership and grants damages to Ira.

Now, if CSW either proclaims inability to pay because he cannot get into the account, then that might be another case about damages that comes after the first proceeding.. Of course, they could choose to have a hearing on both liability and damages at the same time, but that might end up overly complicating matters.   Courts have discretion regarding how many issues that they might litigate in any one proceeding or if they will allow the addition or subtraction of issues along the way.



Oh? It's already been resolved?   I did not know that.  You might need to provide a link if you are suggesting that some of these issues have already been resolved, and I did not know about it.  I don't proclaim to know everything, even though it seems that I know a fucking lot more than you about presentation of ideas in a more clear way.


Sure, any case is going to be a moving target.  Evidence is developing, and their are broader rules and issues that might not be known at time 1, but they become known (or develop) at a later date.

For example, we did not know that fucktwat CSW was going to be raising the autistic genius defense, so sometimes it can take the other side a bit of time to make adjustments to new claims and new rulings.... or even our discussion in the public sphere (such as spaces like this) might change based on new information - even though the overall broader picture items might not really change merely because some issues might be changed along the way, here and there.




I am just attempting to respond to your ongoing nonsense.  If I am operating on bad facts (or wrong facts) then point them out.  I don't have any problem correcting my analysis if there ends up being some material and relevant facts that exist for which I have not accounted.


Well seemed like you were making some strange ass claims that were not related to what seemed to be being asked for by Ira, and you were also projecting how things will or might play out, but we have not even gotten close to that far yet in the proceedings.  We merely have Ira petition for certain kinds of default sanctions (damages), and the court largely rejected Ira's motion by saying that the court is going to allow the matters to go to trial.  Sure, Ira's team might be prejudiced by such ruling, but the court seems to be trying to just allow the various issues to be presented, and it might have been more problematic for the court to grant Ira's ruling and to disallowed Craig from presenting evidence on his autism/genius defense, even if it seems like a real long shot defense it does seem to raise potential material issues of fact (that are either currently unknown by the court or in dispute). 

In some sense, also, the court is still leaving its options open by rejecting Ira's default judgement claim because it can allow such facts and arguments to be presented during trial, but then come to realize later down the line that there might not be any material and significant facts in dispute, and the court could thereafter remove such issue from the jury and make a ruling on the sanctions matter at a later date without allowing the jury to determine facts that end up not being in dispute by the parties.


Many many posts you have shifted all over the place in either what you are saying or evidence that you have attempted to provide to establish what you are saying, but I will concede that you have been repetitive, also, in your various nonsense assertions, so there is that, too.   


You mean that you referenced the page numbers of the closing part of Ira's brief to the court in regards to damages?  Seems that I have largely accepted your representations regarding what Ira is requesting, so we do not have any dispute between us in regards to what Ira had requested.  You just seem to want to attribute some higher level of motivation, such as colluding or conspiracy to that request, when in the end, it is merely a more or less normal request for a default judgement (in regards to sanctions) that would come from a plaintiff in a case like this.  You know that plaintiff's try to preclude evidence and/or to get rulings in their favor all of the time. Those are allowable practices within the American court system, even if you believe that there is some ulterior and deeper motive that relates to those normal practices.


You are repeating yourself, again.  I have already responded to this, several times, but sure, you persist with rambling nonsense.. you persist.  We disagree..  No need to keep repeating with the same arguments and no newer information/facts, right?

agin your distraction about the coins. makes you ignorant of a court judgement that would give CSW ownership right of bitcoin

again you keep on about the if's and maybe's of later possible cases if IRA wants to get paid.
but IRA right now here today this week. in reality. is asking the court to decide on who owns bitcoin

all your other waffle and distractive trolling talking about funds is very ignorant.

i am not saying they are trying to prove something out side the norma claim for damages
many many many many many many posts now i have said exactly what ira is trying to claim
i even screenshotted his own request.

your the one thats iffing and could be and maybe all about financial damage claims
your weirdly obsessed about ira getting 410k coin
its not even about 410k coin

its about CSW game of getting legally judged ownership of bitcoins IP

Yes.  This is exactly what seems to be happening, and the court system allows for making the kinds of damages claims that Ira has been making.


How do you believe that you get from point A to point B in the US judicial process?  

You don't just say I want 410k coins from CSW and get it without both having to prove that you have a valid claim to those coins while providing the other side the opportunity to contest your claim... which is exactly what is happening here.  

There is no materially important or legally significant difference to see, as you seem to be continuing to argue such nonsense that they are trying prove something outside of the normal claim for damages or that even if Ira were to obtain a favorable ruling in this case that includes the judge saying that CSW owning the coins that CSW is satoshi, those rulings would NOT end up applying in some other context..

CSW would have to prove his ownership again in another case or that he is satoshi again in some other case, if those issues were to come up in some other context...  Of course, scammers don't give any shit if their claims are valid or not, they use legally insufficient information to make claims, such as copywriting the white paper.. remember that legally insignificant nonsense that CSW was playing for a period of time last year?

i understand that psychology
but ira isnt even asking for CSW to pay 410k coins(50% of 820k)
ira is trying to get a judge to rule that there was a partnership, without proof.. end of
the old game of 'lack of proof infers proof' game CSW has been playing for 4 years

it would be different if iras team were asking for 50% of the assets to be handed to daves estate
it would be different if iras team were asking for 410k coins
it would be different if ira's team were asking CSW to buy out 50%
it would be different if ira's team were asking for compensation

but none of these apply
the only request being made is to get a judgement that CSW&dave partnership owns bitcoin and IP and all other things involved

.. see the difference

Just think about what you would do in Ira's situation. If my brother died and sombody claims he had half of 1 million Bitcoins, I would certainly go to court and try to claim ownership of that money. Even if it looks like the money doesn't exist and the guy who is probably controlling these Bitcoins is a pathological liar. If the court rules that somebody owns me 500000 Bitcoins, it doesn't matter if he actually has the money to pay me right now.