Topic: Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message - page 11. (Read 9826 times)

I personally have trouble understanding how they resolve so many conflicting positions through trial, so I would expect some stipulations along the way, but essentially, CSW seems to be still arguing various addresses are his while at the same time proclaiming that the extent to which he is shown to be a liar, then those lies are excused by his condition.

The crazy game plan seemed to be to want to get a ruling in his favor regarding the addresses being his, but that still does not resolve the fact that he does not have the private keys except to the extent that he and his cronies can maybe get access to the forked coins, even those dumbass BSV bagholders will agree to it.

I am sure franky1 has various largely implausible and convoluted theories regarding the direction of how this plays out, but I don't know how CSW gets out of having a judgement against him, even if CSW cannot actually get access to the coins, so they may attempt to drag out damages proceedings, too.

Curious on what would be everyone's opinion in Craig Wright's claim that the stolen Mt.Gox coins are his property, in comnection to his self-proclamation of having "Autism Spectrum Disorder"?

What makes you believe that I am missing that? Most of the time, if someone received a judgement then there can be a variety of ways of settling the judgement, including stipulation, which could come in a variety of ways, including giving the value of the settlement, including the variation of payment that you mentioned.  Usually, liability is established before damages, but in this case, the parties had already settled, but CSW breached the settlement, from what i recall.... so the terms of the previous settlement might not end up being the same as what happens with a judicial decision or jury trial.


That's not being decided in this case.


Huh?  You are putting words in my mouth again.

If CSW is found liable, then he will have to pay.. correct.. that is if he does not escape judgement by fleeing.


Yes... CSW  could pay from other sources, possibly.  That's right.


I am glad you are having fun.   This forum is here, just for you to have fun.

and the bit your missing
is CSW doesnt actually physicaly have to hand over 50% of 820k coins
at most...he just has to have IRA notorise a note that says ira received value and is happy and settled and no further action required.

but hey. lets actually read the document.. where does it say a payout/buyout/compensation is requested


again the real thing this case is about, is the claims of who the creator of bitcoin and its IP ownership are
it just says legalise the partnership.. not payout from the partnership

so please give up YOUR IF's maybe's and could be's

but you seem too ignorant to even think about the actual words of the documents. instead you go into the IF's
of where CSW is legalised as bitcoins owner. he has to pay.. (emphasis: but it doesnt even say that!!)

again missing the point about legalised as bitcoins owner. which is the game. which the community know he doesnt deserve and like i said has no negative punishment for CSW.
because he doesnt even have to actually pay. as thats not whats requested

i cant believe how many posts you have made to avoid thee FACT that the written documents are trying to get a judgement that CSW is the bitcoin creator
total unbelievable ignorance

but it has been funny how many if's maybe, could be's you have mentioned..

o.k. fair enough.  Ira is playing CSW's game to use it against CSW to get a judgement based on if CSW wants to continue to play the game, he has to pay Ira.  Ira need not give any shits about anyone except for Ira getting paid off of CSW's game.  That sounds like Ira's game might have mutual interests with CSW... So fucking what?


I already covered this.  It is trial prep.  They have not put on their evidence in trial yet.



If sanctions are such a gift to CSW, then why is CSW fighting sanctions, why doesn't he just not fight sanctions?  CSW is just playing hard to get?


More or less, I think that you are presenting baloney ideas, and tending not to express your ideas very well.


Huh? I don't know what you mean about what I am supposedly saying.


o.k.  You are clear, and I am not.  Makes sense.


I don't have to prove you wrong.  You need to prove yourself right.  There you have it, in a nutshell. 


Ira wants to get paid on a judgement, so he hopes that Craig or somebody has some money so that he (Ira) can get paid.



I am not pretending.  I am just saying that if you say something you need to back it up. Otherwise it is not convincing. That's all.


O.k.  I won't argue with you.  You are wonderful, deep down on the inside.   



I don't have any ideas.  I just proclaimed that your ideas are not convincing.


I don't need a turn.  We can just rest the case on your lack of a case. 

CSW game for 4 years as been to try to get it legalised and public that he is satoshi and has 820k coins and created bitcoin...

lets just call it the CSW game.. we all know what it is

and what is ira doing.. playing CSW game, such as:
IRA's request to the judge
ira team questions gavin more about the partnership and not much about the 'proof session'

all are the things that lead into giving CSW his game,not away from it.

when ira requests a 'sanction' that is in reality a gift to CSW.
you cant deny whats actually wrote down in the documents.

but hey you think this is all irrelevant.

YOU have said that IRA is debunking CSW .. but where has he ever said that CSW is a pennyless scammer that had nothing to do with bitcoin pre-2014
.... NOWHERE
so your idea is flawed and missing relevance. but mine is written clear as day in the documents and even screenshotted if you cant even understand how to click links and scroll pages

so if you want to try to prove me wrong.
show me where IRA is saying that CSW is a pennyless scammer that has had nothing to do with bitcoin pre-2014
(a fact we in the community know already)
its clear as day IRA's team want to give CSW what CSW wants (his game)

you pretend to want 'proof' 'evidence' 'references'
ive gave you links, quotes extracts, screenshots that say exactly what is said
so dont argue with me. thats not evidence
instead use the documents.

but you wont do that. you will just avoid, and troll. and just sound more ignorant with each post

.. but last chance. show me the case documents that lean in your idea's favour. not your opinions or 'if, could, maybe". show me ira's teams words and requests that validate your thoughts.
because i shown you my references.. now its your turn

(pre-empts more arguing and juan wanting to talk about me, but not the topic of the trust.)
(pre-empts the avoidance of any quotes/document links/references of actual case data in juans favour)
(pre-empts more mindless waffle/insults because im not following a certain group of friends lame opinion)
(hint: try to avoid making a post about me. and instead make it about documented written case data that validates your claim that would by its own weight debunk mine)

Do you even know what you are arguing about, franky1?

I have largely conceded all of your points about what the document says and represents.

We are not disagreeing regarding what the document says or supposedly represents, but just the extent to which the use of such document supports your collusion and conspiracy claims. 

I gave my reasons against it and you gave yours in favor of it.

^ see your MR 'could' 'if' speculation guy
yet i quote the ACTUAL REQUEST IN REALITY AND IN THE PRESENT
no IF's.. no could's

more talk from you stating the case is irrelevant.(facepalm)
i present references/screenshots of actual case. you deny its existance and say im making it up(facepalm)

its ira's teams 'proclamation' in their own words.. not mine

i cant believe your naturally this dense. and starting to think your just a troll

Request for criminal prosecution could come later, if CSW's conduct rises to such level..


We already discussed all of this.



Do what you want... seems like pure irrelevant nonsense to me, at least in terms of what you proclaim to be wanting to show.


So far, i have not alleged that you have done anything to any documents to alter them.  Are you feeling guilty about something that you may have done in that regard or anticipating a claim that might be made against you?
 




I already said what I said which was that your arguments were lame and the documents did not really support your ongoing lame claims, but whatever, I feel that I am repeating myself,  .. deja vu all over again.

again.. once more

IRA is not asking for CSW to be punished criminally
but instead to assert tht CSW was part of bitcoins invention as is punishment

you are flim flamming about possible this possible that. maybe this maybe that
so ill just once again show you exactly what ira is asking for


you pretend that maybe/possibly and kinda that ira is trying to punish CSW for being a liar and such punishment should be the nail in CSW coffin...
but no where in the documents is it asking for any fraud related punishments that everyone would like to see..
no punishment that would actually harm CSW.

but instead the requested 'punishment' gives him the title and accolade and prominence he wants

seems your stuck with the if's and maybes...  semms you would prefer to argue with me than actually read what the document says. and actually talk and discuss the contents of the documents. and actually comment on the context of the documents.

so yea im gonna keep highlighting the document because whats happening IN THE CASE matters more than your opinion

oh and the document is the document. i did not write it nor had anything to do with it. so pointing your baby finger at me. and crying out insults.. wont change the documents
again pointing your baby finger at me and crying insults has nothing to do with the case documents.
but its a real shame you keep saying court documents are irelevant..
very strange you have become

You better be careful in regards to facepalming so frequently and with such emotionalisms, franky1.

You don't want this to happen to you.



I already responded to your various ongoing bullshit assertions, so probably we are getting repetitive in terms of your not really providing anything new in your latest post.  

Maybe I could attempt to 'splain to you one more time what plaintiffs tend to attempt to be doing when they file motions for sanctions that are based on their assertions of either false evidence being produced or failure of defendant to cooperate or to provide documents in support of the claims of the defendant....

In those kinds of situations, Plaintiffs will frequently request adverse inference rulings from judges, which is what Ira's attorney has been doing in this matter on a fairly regular basis, which seeks to punish the defendant for his bad conduct by disallowing him from pursuing certain kinds of further evidentiary productions.

As we overviewed several times, already, ultimately, recently in this case the court rejected such sanctions motion from plaintiff's attorney (Ira's team), and ruled that there are factual issues being presented by defendant that should be allowed to be presented at trial that need to be resolved prior to any such ruling from the judge (part of that determination of issues of facts relates to CSW's most recent claim that he should be excused because he is a highly intelligent autistic).  

In other words, there is nothing really unusual about the arguments being presented by plaintiffs in such a motion in order to attempt to narrow down the triable issues and even to attempt to win some or all issues without having to present evidence at trial or trying to get some interim remedy or relief that does not allow the defendant to either profit (or further confuse matters) from his already established wrongdoing, and you largely already outlined those various arguments that you conceded that plaintiffs were making in this case.  

Even though you proclaim that the kinds of claims that plaintiffs are attempting to make are evidence of collusion and conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that the kinds of claims that plaintiffs are attempting to make are normal kinds of claims that plaintiffs make in these kinds of matters to attempt to win as much as they  can, to preclude evidence and issues at trial and to assure that they get damages from this kind of defendant, which again is NOT  unusual in this kind of procedural posture, you diptwat.  

You just seem to be inclined to give collusion and conspiracy weight to such arguments or otherwise to ongoingly get distracted by assertions that no one except you understands what is going on in this matter with your dumbass and lame interpretation of collusion and conspiracy based on such ongoing inadequate evidence and inadequate logic too.

So, yeah, seems that we have been getting increasingly repetitive in these whole recent discussions around the topic, and you seem to be unwilling or able to keep your eye on relevance and you easily get distracted away from the point or drawn into further irrelevant personal attack nonsense that maybe you were trying to make by blaming others for your ongoing lackenings in describing why the lame evidence you provide supposedly supposedly support your collusion and conspiracy theories.

i made it clear. i gave references. and i asked you to read the documents
heck i decided your reading ability must be limited. so i even made a pretty picture for you
..
then i said to not make social drama arguments about me. but just read the documents about the IRA&CSW partnership

BUT yet again
you cry like a baby about how you read loads of MY dribble (not the documents then(facepalm))
so again you didnt even look at THE DOCUMENTS

and you wanted to make your reply that my previous post was only about the page numbering(facepalm)..
again ignoring the content of the documents
the only comment you made about the document was the page number. so you are crying about page numbers in many posts.. again ignoring the content(facepalm)

your ignorance is your misfortune
dont bother replying unless you talk about IRAS REQUEST TO THE JUDGE
and THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS

(pre-empts JUAN reply to just be about me as usual insert pre-emptive facepalm))

Still all irrelevant.

You want to argue about petty things, and you create your own arguments by your lack of clarity and seeming striving to play "gotcha."  

You notice how excited that you are getting over nonsense related to page numbers.  There are 26 pages marked on the bottom of the page, so it was ambiguous what the fuck you were referring to in terms of page numbers and what claims that you were wanting to make by pointing out those page numbers.

Your summary, even shows how irrelevant that your claims are, so I stick to my original points already made in my previous post.


I have already read more than my fair share of your largely incoherent gobbledy gook of ideas mismashed into stream of consciousness stringing along of various lamely thought out ideas, to the extent that they even rise to the level of "ideas."



I am not trying to be right, just trying to figure out what the fuck you are talking about and whether or not you have established any kind of basic or meaningful claim in connection to your supposed collusion and conspiracy theories.



Did someone die and put you in charge of what i should do, or not do?  I did not receive that memo.


It would clearly save a lot of folks time if you just made your point much more clearly, and less ambiguously right from the start... which you still have not even established your case, but I can see a bit more clearly about the extent of your lame evidence attempting to establish your lame claims.


Huh?  this topic is not really very important or interesting anyhow, but I will choose on my own when and the extent to which I will or will not participate.  Sure, you might not like me, but really, I attempted to help you to better clarify your points, to the extent that you made progress in that direction still remains unclear because you still seem to be proclaiming that there is some kind of collusion and conspiracy going on and such claim is very weak, even though I do recognize what you are saying a bit better than I had initially saw from what you had said.

Hopefully, a lot of this back and forth has at least allowed either you or some other readers of this thread to recognize that the procedural posture of the case might need to be better understood when making certain kinds of arguments from evidence that you cite or any other member might cite to try to show certain points about what certain witnesses are testifying to or what parties might be trying to achieve in the case or even attempts at making broader assertions about what the whole case means in terms of the bitcoin space or the BSV space or otherwise.  

Of course, it is much better arguments to show briefs and arguments from Ira's team in terms of trying to proclaim what Ira's team is trying to achieve instead of your first evidence was providing none at all, and then your second evidence was citing parts of Gavin's deposition.  So, at least you have progressed a tiny bit on the third try (was it third try or more?) by citing arguments from Ira's team in a brief.  

There are a variety of ways to present evidence, too, and sometimes you can cite a combination of various pieces of evidence to attempt to make your claims, especially when you are attempting to make such  preposterous and extraordinary claims, like the ones that you are continuing to make, but I would not expect you to necessarily advance to such higher levels of clearly presenting your evidence, your arguments and your conclusory claims without a bit more practice.

seems you really are that ignorant and just want to avoid whats actually said


...
well here goes .. again
this time showing citing.. and showing what im proclaiming.. debunking your page number theory all in one pic



the genius of modern technology.. one image explains it all

oh look there are 28 pages.. oops your mistake.. ill say it once more. 28 pages . debunking your 26 page limit theory
oh look its iras side wanting the court to legalise that CSW was part of bitcoins creation(1)
oh look its iras side wanting the court to legalise that CSW owns all the coins he pretends to own(2)
oh look its iras side wanting the court to legalise that CSW get the patent IP rights of bitcoin(3)

and this request by ira.. is the 'punishment' (sanction) ira wants CSW to receive
..
next time dont try looking for excuses to avoid reading..
ignorance and finding a way to pretend "i didnt know because i refused to read" doesnt make you right
just makes you look stupid

next time just read it. not argue why you shouldnt read it
it saves EVERYONE alot of time and that includes you
if you dont want to learn about a topic. then just dont get involved in its discussion

Something like that, and they are trying to get a judgement.


I disagree with your claim that they are either colluding or have some kind of conspiracy.

I am starting to understand that maybe you are making a claim that neither of them are acting in the best interest of bitcoin, but that is almost like a BIG so what.  You are also wanting to claim that they are colluding and conspiring to damage bitcoin.. I am not sure about that.  Maybe Ira is trying to win a judgement and CSW is wanting the use the procedure to pumpening his fame and public attention, but still does not rise to the level of collusion or conspiracy that you seem to be wanting to argue with your quasi-incoherent and all over the place posts on the topic.


I have been saying that you are trying to proclaim that Ira and CSW are colluding and you are failing and refusing to establish your claims.. otherwise you are making a bunch of lame and incoherent claims about what Ira is supposedly attempting to achieve and any of us can read their briefs if we want to see various arguments that they make in order to attempt to win on various issues and to frame the case in various ways in their favor, including wanting to get a judgement from Craig the clown.


I have seen that you say a lot of weird things that are difficult to follow what exactly you mean, what you are trying to achieve and what point(s) you are trying to make.. so I suppose in that regard, there tend to be a decent number of assumptions contained therein, too.


And citing them to make nonsensical points.  Yes, i have seen that.  You seem to be all over the place in that regard.



Haven't you made this point many times before?  Maybe I should check with Doomad before I post, to make sure that we agree?  Is that what you mean?  (I am neither admitting or denying to be friends with Doomad, but I can assert that I am not colluding with Doomad or any other member in terms of whatever points that I post) ...Your assertion makes little to no sense.



It ends at page 26... so you are not citing much of anything, and get real franky.. you should not just be requesting that someone (anyone) have to read through three pages to figure out what the fuck you are attempting to proclaim is established therein.  You have no fucking idea how to cite support for a position, piece of evidence or argument that you make. You are like arguing with a know it all 12 year old, who does not have enough humility to understand what the fuck is going on in the world beyond himself.

One of the better ways to cite is to just snip out the relevant portions and put them in your response here and another way would be to cite which page and which lines.. but probably better to actually show the text that you proclaim shows you ongoingly seemingly lame ass and difficult to follow points to the extent you have any points.


There does not seem to be anything important to show your points on page 19


I don't see the reference... and anyway the document is about plaintiff's motion for sanctions.


Sure.  It might take me that long to figure out what you are talking about.


Sure.  Ira would like to get a judgment that is based on the trust being real, and that way craig owes them 1/2 of 850k bitcoins whether it is real or not.  Attorneys like to get judges to make adverse inference judgements all the time.  That is called attempting to make good legal arguments to prevail in the case and to get a judgement in favor of your client.

so i say IRAs team is not trying to:
call out CSW as a pennyless scammer.that had nothing to do with bitcoin..
but instead IRA's team IS trying to:
claim the partnership is real, that its involves creating bitcoin. that it includes a collateral of 820k coins
and CSW is just being deceptive about it

yet you disagree, still.. (facepalm x5)

i show you documents of IRA's team actually asking the judge to make a default judgement that shows this

and your still in denial
(facepalm x6)

i find it funny how you think im making assumptions
im the one actually quoting the documents and reading them
seems others are just finding an opinion that agrees with their friends

so here you are you can check my post history.. ive mentioned them and referenced them in many posts before. but hey once more wont hurt..
THIS TIME READ THEM!!!! FOR ONCE


22 May 2020 - pages 25,26,27 is of huge interest to the REALITY of iras position
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.0.pdf

24 june 2020 - page 19 is of huge interest to the reality of iras position
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.595.0.pdf

just read what IRAs teams requests are in relation to the partnership, the creation and IP of bitcoin. the 820k assets.

have a nice year (it may take you that long to wake up and stop just buddy following)

yep IRAs teams game is to say that CSW awkwardness if proof itself that the trust must be real.
funny part is that it is also what CSW wants the judge to come to the conclusion aswell.

You are full of shit, Biphuy7eth.

Should already be clear that the signing of the addresses was to show that fraudster craig wright was not satoshi.. no one else, with any note (or fame, if you want to call it that), is trying to proclaim to be satoshi.


Dear franky1, the seemingly disingenuous dweeb:  I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt and attempting to get through your thick skull, which seems impossible since you seem to be on a mission to keep repeating nonsense without even accounting for weaknesses and fallacies in your arguments and your approach, which I have attempted to point out to you.  

I guess what I am suggesting is the most important thing is what you are saying about the evidence you provide, rather than the evidence itself, and at least, I have been reading your posts and attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your various assertions and claims... You do not make it easy, but hey, I have been trying.

You, on the other hand, don't even account for my direct assertions regarding the various places that both your arguments and your presentations of evidence has been weak.. you just keep spouting out the same weak phony baloney and you fail and refuse to either account for my various outlines of the weaknesses or to improve either your arguments and your evidence in any kind of meaningful and substantial way.

Can't say that I have not tried with you, franky1 (on the other hand, you can say it, but again, insufficient evidence to establish)  



Huh?  Again, you don't even understand what the fuck is happening and the meaning of various rulings.

Let me see if I can try to 'splain this to you one more time.

Ira's attorneys were trying to get some favorable rulings for some of the issues, including the issue of whether Craig had provided fabricated evidence.   Since Craig's team had recently put forth a defense that Craig is an autistic genius, the judge decided that there was a triable issue of fact, and judges do not want to make issue of law rulings when there are possible triable facts that have to be resolved, and Craig has a right to have his issues presented in front of a jury in order to resolve some of the issues of fact.  

So, surely some of the trial might be complicated by having more and more issues to resolve, it frequently will be a more solid ruling if the issues of facts are allowed to be presented to jury, especially when the parties cannot come to agreements about the facts.. so in this case, the facts that are being presented by Craig seems to be whether his supposed autism had actually caused his submission of false evidence in such a way that would possibly allow him to either not be culpable or maybe to be less culpable.

To me, the autism excuse does not seem like a winning argument in either regarding the facts or how the law would end up mitigating some of Craig's possible culpability in terms of his submitting false documents to the court, but the judge is going to allow craig and team to present such evidence to a jury and Ira can also put forth his factual evidence and arguments too.  So frequently judges do not want to prejudice parties from being able to present possible factual disputes, so they get the opportunity to do that in front of a jury, which seems to be what is going to be allowed here, and surely would be a comical show if such evidence is actually presented to a jury rather than stipulated at some point prior to a jury trial because Craig is likely going to look really dumb trying to present evidence on these points, even if his acolytes in the public (the BSV bagholders) might love such stupid-ass clown show... since they already have shown themselves as so dumb to believe almost anything.  




The only cry baby seems to be you.  I already sufficiently made my points on the topic.



Those are likely going to end up as triable issues of fact.  Sure, the judge might narrow down what needs to be presented to the jury, but the parties still seem to be trying to work out these matters regarding what is going to be presented or not (or what issues are going to be allowed to be presented in front of the jury).  I doubt that resolution of these issues in favor of Ira end up being Craig's game, but instead, Ira's team does feel that they need to get rulings regarding the facts of these matters in order to get a judgement for damages in their favor.



Great.. In order to get a judgement, they need to have something to latch onto, which is the purported joint enterprise having value and Craig stealing Dave's coins or Dave's proportion of the coins (what should have been dave's that Craig supposedly stole).



Too late.  I already replied.


You can beg me until you are blue in the face, and my reading it does not matter. You already said what you believe the document says, and even if I give you all the benefit of the doubt, the matters still need to be presented to trial for resolution.. and you can spin collusion until you are blue in the face, it makes little to no sense.


Yes, they are using Craigs story against him to get a judgement in their favor... good for them.  You think that is going to affect bitcoin beyond the drama?  Let's say that the court rules that craig is the rightful owner of all the coins that he proclaims in the trust and craig is satoshi.  Therefore Craig owes Ira half of those coins, then you think that the court is going to be able to deliver half of the coins to craig so that he can pay Ira if craig does not even have the keys that he proclaims to have?  Whatever, you are living in a fantasy, franky1.  Anyone gives any shits about what the court proclaims about ownership, if they actually are not able to show the private keys?  Makes no sense what you are striving to proclaim about the supposed collusion/conspiracy of the parties, merely because Ira's team is trying to get a ruling that craig owes him and his family half of the value of the coins that they proclaim to have (even if CSW and their nutjobs end up not having those coins).


Who cares?  And who cares if the court rules him to be satoshi?  Does not matter, because he is not.


Again, who cares?  And who cares if the court rules him to be involved in bitcoin when he has been faking it since about 2015-ish?  Does not matter, because craig has been making up the vast majority of his supposed activism in bitcoin.  who cares what the court rules?  Apparently you do?


Even if some of their attempts to resolve some issues might align in terms of wanting to get a ruling that Craig and Dave had engaged in a joint venture and that craig had stolen dave's coins, still does not mean that they are either colluding or conspiring.. even if they share some interests that happen to be hostile to bitcoin itself, which seems to be the crux of your disjointed and all over the place nonsensical arguments.


I don't have any friends.


Stop bossing me around.


Your various points are nonsense, even if there might possibly be some truth in your point(s) in regards to shared issues of wanting to get resolution of some issues that might be that both parties want certain issues to be resolved in the same way, here and there.       Does not mean that they are both hostile to bitcoin, and who fucking cares if Ira and his team are hostile to bitcoin and they are trying to get a ruling that is hostile to bitcoin.   The main thing is that they are trying to get a ruling in favor of their client, which causes Craig to have to pay them damages, including half of any joint venture coins that are established through the trial and perhaps damages and attorney fees, as well.

No you haven't.  You have made assumptions.  You have speculated.  You have told a story.  That's not the same as presenting evidence that proves your fairytale is accurate.  The burden is still on you to prove it.



And you still haven't understood them in a way that leads you to formulate a conclusion that makes an ounce of sense. 



They have read it.  They have formed a sensible opinion based on what they have read.  It doesn't matter if they read it a thousand times more, they're still not going to see it the way you do, because your understanding is flawed. 

heres the funny part
juan is crying so hard. but has not himself read the actual parts of the latest documents

ill say it one more time.. but please this time let this sink in..
dont just instantly hit the reply button.. but instead
1. go read the document
2. se what it really says. not what a friend of yours told you it says
3. sit back and have a cup of coffee. calm down and let it sink in
4. ask yourself if your about to reply are you going to talk about contents of the documents. or just ignorantly attack franky1. if the latter. dont reply your wasting your time
5. if you havnt read below this point. read it and then have a break and really think of a good reply that is worthy of replying with.
6. and dont be as lame as some of your friends that are so ignorant and avoid researching they just reply 'wrong because franky1' thats no excuse

so anyway
juan pretends that i have not given evidence or pointed out parts..
yet post history shows i have
take the gavin interview. i referenced it i even said about how the first 80 pages are waffle and then how the next 25 pages when it got to the 'proof session' ira's team didnt go into detail. and instead on multiple times .. many more times than questioning the proof session. ira's team kept asking gavin about the partnership

heck i though juan was getting enlightened by asking 'why would iras team question gavin about the partnership' i actually thought juan had the courage to go against the grain of his friends opinion to have an independant mind and actually research what the documents actually say.. seems im wrong about that enlightened moment

anyways
i then referenced IRA's teams latest document requesting that a judge by default finds in favour that the partnership and creation of bitcoin was involving CSW&dave.. and that 820k coins are 'somewhere' and the partnership/trust has that value/ownership

again.. i referenced documents i talked about documents. i actually said what was said in the documents. but ill summerise it just one more time just for juan.. and then give you references again one more time

IRA is saying CSW is not supplying the real evidence of the partnership and so IRA wants the judge now or a jury later to by default judge that there is a partnership. judge that dave and CSW created bitcoin and judge that it has value.

atleast try reading it and stop being a cry baby
so do yourself a big favour. and realise in many posts now i have showed you
and all you wannt do is cry saying i have not showed you
so this time instead of asking me to show you.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND READ THE FRIGGEN document

here.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.512.0.pdf

that document has in many different times within it multiples times saying that the plaintiff(IRA) wants the judge to rule that the trust has value and CSW&dave created bitcoin

..
now dont bother replying and just read the document

you have no excuses left. just read it
i could show you many other documents that have IRA's team not really caring about the real fact that CSW is a scammer that had nothing to do with bitcoin more than 5 years ago.. but instead is pursuing a story that CSW had alots of involvement throughout including creating it.

no where does it say that IRA is calling CSW a fraud in regards to pretending to be satoshi. no where does iras team suggest CSW had nothing to do with bitcoin

so go wake up and realise the game CSW and ira are play together.. but against the community.

if you want to reply. use the documents. not your friends opinion that your following. use the documents and actually read them for what they are

my point is not about my opinion.. but about what is actually wrote in the documents.
try to do the same..

next time you pretend that i havnt provided any references... atleast realise bitcointalk has this thing called post history.. ..
heck i even said it multiple times in this topic and another topic of similar content..
yet weirdly but obviously ignorantly. you skipped it and then pretended it didnt exist because it opposes your friends opinion

...
P.S
i still cant beleive after so many days certain people would rather argue on a forum than just do the friggen research and read the documents.. first i thought it was ignorance or lack of ability or lazyness.. now i just think they just want to avoid doing anything that goes against their friends opinion. and instead want to earn merits from their friends by just being argumentative..
they're idiots if that is the case

Whoever signs all of these addresses wants to prove that this person is a fraud and wants to win some audiences by saying that he is Satoshi, but so far he has not succeeded in those claims, but has become a laughing stock among people.
Does anyone know who signed these addresses or knows anything about their content?
They have many currencies and it is difficult for it to be done by unknown people.
and after all of that some people support him