Topic: Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud - Tulip Trust addresses signed message - page 13. (Read 9816 times)

try to read it.
and take your stupid hat off and put on a hat that says "i dont care about gavins testimony, what tone/line of questioning is iRA's defense side displaying in this document'

as you say instead of going into gavins FACTUAL account of the signing process, they skip alot of things that the community think should have been asked. and instead jump straight to asking about the tri-party trust owners. several times
i do see a glimer of possible awakedness from you because you even asked
'why the fuck would they be asking Gavin about anything related to the trust when he hardly has any clues about the trust? '
so keep that exact mindset you had when you said that, in mind.

again its not one portion of gavins testimony you need to be concentrating on. again for emphasis because after many many posts you seem to remain unsure of the point. its about IRA's defense teams method of questioning that you need to really understand.

i was saying about how ira and CSW are playing a game of trying to keep the trust as valid valued and contracted in reality for a game that is of CSW benefit. i said how ira's defense team were not even trying to deeply explore the possibility that CSW has never had any collateral in a trust(a thing the community want proven) so while you cry like a baby about gavins responses. atleast take another read but from the prospective of the defense teams questioning.

all along ira's defense team have not been seeking to call out CSW as a fraud in terms of never having collateral. but instead subtly trying to validate the collateral and make it just  game of who owns it

but hey.. you can throw your hands around and get angry that im calling this whole case is meaningless drama that wont result in csw demise. and instead just used to delay things so CSW can escape a tax bill and escape his 'money men' from chasing him..
but a real actual court case that will see to CSW demise will have to come from a different case with a different party making a court claim against CSW

by the way. i had read many documents and stuff. i am not as niave as you think but over the years i have noticed how many others 'dont see the need to go through every detail of bullshit'

so pointing out more details would just make them(you) more angry, and just miss the point entirely.. as shown in the last few posts where you keep trying to redirect to to sound like im talking about gavin. when the reality all along is im talking about the defense teams questioning

so instead of arguing with me on a forum. take that spare time and actually look into IRA's defense teams methods. because its clear that some people get too defensive if not spoonfed the answers from a party they like and too defensive if spoonfed too much from a party they dont like..
instead they attack the messenger instead of just reading the message


so the only solution is to do your own friggen research. because your just wasting time trying to get answer from me because you seem to instantly ignore it before exploring it when im the one saying it.
so go check for yourself using the 'critical thinking cap' on iras defense team.
dont go blowing it into drama of gavin or me or others people. concentrate, for once on the defense teams questioning.

just ask your self and keep in mind
couple paragraphs about proof session validity. but dozens upon dozens of pages asking about the trust and its parties involved.
ask yourself what 'evidence' are they trying to achieve. what aspects are they trying to avoid

This is more confusing as many drama series!

An interesting statement, right in our blockchain :

1FuckYouGraigWrightxSatoshiXc6ppN   <<<  (Blockchain.com)

Do you even understand what the fuck you are reading, how much weight to give it, how much weight the parties are giving to it, how depositions are used in court proceedings, preparations and/or even latitude to explore topics?

You linked one deposition of one witness, Gavin Andressen, and have you even put that one portion of a document that you read into context?  Are there other depositions from the same witness on the same topic or different topics?  Are there documents that describe limitations on issues or scope of allowance that might not even be raised in the process of taking the deposition?

Evidence gathering, which may or may not reflect the overall proceedings or even the overall information that a witness might later be called to testified, if called to testify at all. or maybe they will decide to stipulate portions of the deposition testimony or even a variety of issues that might make some or all of the deposition totally superfluous because it does not get presented to a judge or jury.

Your assertion that you studied a portion of one document hardly even coming close to address some of my earlier points about your failure/refusal to substantiate your earlier lame ass collusion claims and to get caught up into likely irrelevance or even swimming in fact gathering that has not even been put into context until you see motions or briefings of attorneys (and that might not even be clear unless you understand the procedural posture.. and even account for both parties describing the procedural posture and issues and perhaps getting rulings from the judge, if warranted.. and sometimes there might be a preliminary steps judge, a settlement judge and a trial judge), so how much would a portion of the testimony of one witness tell us about the extent to which the parties might be colluding in a case that has already generated hundreds of other court documents and has even changed its procedural posture a few times.

Yeah, you say that they might not be adequately exploring certain topics with certain witnesses by why the fuck would they be asking Gavin about anything related to the trust when he hardly has any clues about the trust?   Also, sometimes in depositions parties will hardly argue about anything.  You know why?  Because they are trying NOT to pollute the witness's testimony in terms of various issues that are being presented in the case, so sometimes they might even purposefully mislead the witness in a variety of ways because the goal is to get evidence from the witness and from the witness's perspective, many times neither party will want the witness to be couching their answers in terms of small legal issues or even larger issues of the case... instead, what did you believe at time x, not what did you believe based on what is being prosecuted or potentially prosecuted in this case or how your testimony might be used for or against one party or another or stipulated to something that both parties agree to (but you, as witness, might not agree).

If you are proclaiming to be thoroughly familiar with this case you better be aware of a lot more documents than just part of one document that may or may not be relevant at all to the point that you had already proclaimed.  How many of the court documents have you read?  Do you even understand what you are reading, especially if you are trying to use the deposition of one witness as some kind of meaningful proof beyond what that one witness says about a specific topic at that particular time when the questions are framed in that particular way.

I feel that I am caught in the allegory of the caves, even though some people may have seen the light but you are not even aware of the light because you are down in the cave attempting to find meaning regarding the world from the movement of some shadows on the wall.    

just for fun and kicks, i went and re read like the first 115 pages of
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/590/5/kleiman-v-wright/

just to see if i missed something that juan noticed..

and my opinion remains

the first 80 or so pages are just waffle
then at like page 88 it talks about the 'signing proof' but doesnt really ask the questions of if the signature was fake. just has a litle subtle hint of saying possibly bamboozled

it vaguely suggests that its asking could CSW have had private keys. but it just doesnt even bother to go into detail about the proof being valid in the first place. it just lacks digging that hole. even after wasting 88 pages of nensense before it didnt ask the kind of questions that the community would expect

then the next dozen+ pages jumps straight into who was involved in the trust. the tri-party ownders of the trust

to me it doesnt really look like kleiman side is trying to catch CSW as a fraud with no collateral. but trying to ascertain if craig does have access to the funds to pay out and who were the 'partners' deserving of it

in short kleimans side is not denouncing the validity of the tulip trust, but instead trying to show proof CSW has access and daves estate deserves funding

not much digging was done into the 'bamboozle" statements. it just kept jumping to the tri-party ownership of the trust

I don't see any need for me to respond to each detail of your continued bullshit, and you are reading me quite wrong if you believe that I am trying to discredit you.  I am not.

Largely, I have been asserting, right from the start, that you made some bullshit claims that you did not back up, and I provided some examples to describe why you did not sufficiently back up your bullshit claims.  That does not mean that I have some kind of burden to study more in order to provide better examples, and sure you can disagree with me and proclaim that you have provided enough evidence and logic and blah blah blah. 

I disagree, and we can agree to disagree in regards to the various points that I had already made, and I am not conceding to agreeing with your points to the contrary or even your assertion that you know relevant or meaningful parts of the case that I do not.  If they are relevant and material to your making your claim, then show them.. sure you have tried, but seems to me that your facts and your argument continues to be weak in supporting your conclusion, no matter how much you continue to repeat it.

Sure, any civil litigant is going to come into a case with some kind of presumption that they are able to get paid (the plaintiff is Ira in this case, and surely their team considered whether they believe that they can get paid), even if they cannot prevail in the overall case they want to get paid for their time and their costs, and of course, they do not want to be accused of bringing a frivolous case.  Anyhow, plaintiff does need to feel that there is some ability for them to collect their costs (and a chance at collecting all or most of their requested damages). Ira has already received some judgements for costs (related to craig's abuse of process behaviors). 

Of course, you continue to stick to your position, which continues to come off as if you are pre-deciding that the parties are conspiring with each other, and without getting drug too much more into the weeds, I don't want to go into all the bullshit details with you.  You are the one with the burden to show your various bullshit assertions when you make them, and you have not been successful in supporting your claim.. I don't have any duty to further research about a claim that you have not shown... but of course, you can continue to repeat your claims and all over the place evidence that defies logic until you are blue in the face... I am just not going there into lalala fantasylandia with you.

seems your lacking actually looking at the case with a clear independant mind
and instead trying to point things in my direction with your own opinions

all in all this case is going to be more meaningless drama without actually ending CSW game.
funny part juan, is that your weird way of trying to discredit what i say. is actually what validates CSW game

the court case is set up not by some judge deciding to grab CSW and put him in court.
but instead a case set up by CSW and ira for them to bicker on their 'narrow scope topic'

courts actually are very much the theatre for many people
its used many times as arbitration to settle an argument between 2 different positions
even if both positions are wrong outside. on the inside all the courts do is weigh favour in one direction or the other

anyway
ever heard of patent trolls using courts to scam settlements for stupid flimsy patents just by letting it take years to really 'fight'
ever heard of the 'ambulance chasers' that use courts to get compensated for the smallest of 'incidents'
ever heard of cases where the aim is to keep people wrapped up in litigation for so long they give up fighting
ever heard of .. well i could go on with many civil cases that are just a waste of a good judges time

here is the thing. if ira accepts a certain narative and claims that he agree's to it. the judge doesnt jump in and says 'its all a lie, take CSW to prison', instead the judge simply says case win is in favour of X
and this whole case.. on both sides is saying that tulip has value.
thats its 'narrow topic'
both sides are saying tulip is valid.
rest of the world outside the court knows its not. but that does not matter inside the courtroom

the judge did not introduce the topic. and many people in this very topic and other CSW related topics think that the judge is all powerful and the judge will ask all the right questions and find that CSW has purjured himself.
sorry it doesnt work that way. and by ira not calling it out because its ira that holds the supposed case opposition, not the judge. then CSW is not going to get called out on it.

just read the case and actually ask yourself knowing the real facts of the public keys list CSW has not being a 'satoshi stash', with the fact that no private key proof was found. and all the other lame excuses.
ask yourself how many oppertunities has ira's side had to call CSW out.. and just not done it

the narrative, the scope the 'narrow topic' was set up between ira and CSW long before the case was even filed.

Perhaps you have been watching too much TV.

Courts do not tend to be theatre locations, and frequently, the court will have the parties meet on a narrow topic, or even discuss settlement options, so they are not necessarily going to go over the whole theory and/or punchlines of their positions.  They have not even gotten to trial yet.



Sure.  Craig continues to dig all kinds of holes for himself maybe believing that attention or possible resolution in one direction or another can help him in another matter, or just to pump his crap scam coin and play off of the gullibilities of dumb fuck BSV bagholders.


I don't give that many shits either way... so you do not have to worry about spoiling anything for me with your prognosticating.. that has already been shown to be a bit lame in terms of either facts backing it up or reasonable logic to try to tie together materiality and relevance.


To the extent that they might have mutual goals they can enter stipulations of facts or even stipulations of legal conclusion or even stipulations that are merely for the purpose of "this proceeding" blah blah blah. 

I doubt that you understand their mutual goals, to the extent that they have any since you are already striving to establish that they are largely on the same team.. which hardly makes any sense, unless you are just selectively choosing certain evidence (that might not even be relevant) and ignoring other evidence.




I doubt it.  Sometimes lawyers do get along well for the purpose of getting through various proceedings, whether dispositions or evidentiary trials or discussing motions in front of a judge.. does not mean that they are frenemies... what a load of crap... just making shit up, right franky1?



Largely an irrelevant point about what people might prefer in terms of disliking that twat.


Of course, not being a criminal case has some relevance and would allow more leeway in terms of how egregious the perjury and/or the submitting of knowingly false documents would need to be before criminal charges might be brought.  There may be a bit of a goal of the civil court judge(s) to get through the proceedings before raising criminal charges, in the event that criminal charges might be warranted.


Sure.  that's possible.  Still does not mean that you are not full of shit with your lack of evidence/logic assertion that the parties are on the same team.

when you actually read the conversations of both sides in court. you do not read it as ira trying to 'out' craig by showing proof craig is a scammer.
the questions asked are hinting that the trust/craig does have value/ hoards and that its just bickering over who deserves what %
emphasis.. nothing to do with proving craig is not satoshi/unvalued

do not think that this case is the final/only case that will occur. and definetly dont think it will be the one that 'outs' craig as a scammer.

if you are thinking this is the final chapter in craigs saga. then i must spoil it for you.
ira and craigs goal is not to prove if tulip is truly real with real signature proof of collateral.

instead its frenemy bickering to try to make it appear that there is no way to disprove tulip/craig value.
but hey.. i know we all want it to be the final nail in craig coffin.. but the bad news is. this is not the case for that.
heck its not even a criminal case. so kind of no harm no fowl for craig.

craigs true nail in the coffin will come from another case at another time. this case is just drama incepted by his ilk

More weekend fun coming from mister Wright, after reading publication of Gavin Andresen depositions.  
Faketoshi asking for a job at Bitcoin Foundation...


Kleiman v. Wright
Document #590, Attachment #5
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/590/5/kleiman-v-wright/
Document #590, Attachment #6
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/590/6/kleiman-v-wright/


And more stuff:












https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/1274276367262081024

     Lol. This is the first time I have heard such a big fraud in the crypto currency industry. I really am surprised that there really are some people with this much guts to fool a lot of people in a large scale and even toying with the authorities or the court. This is quite scary and also funny at the same time. I just hope no one follows this dumb example tho, because not only will they surely end up the way this guy did, but also put a lot of other people in unnecessary trouble/hassle.

You are just unnecessarily striving to convolute matters when you are trying to suggest that level of conspiracy or purported cooperation.

in the good ole days courts were used for real cases of trying to find truth. where there were 2 people on opposite sides.
but when both craig and ira are on the other side and IRA is not calling out all of craigs BS and is continually playing along with craigs game that tulip has value and try to get the judge to believe it enough that whomever wins they both win.. its not going to turn into any jailtime.
if things get too hairy. one side will just drop the case. and then repeat elsewhere.

certain people in this topic know craigs a fraud but cant grasp the fact that ira is actually playing on team craig. and they are just pre-game sparring partners.

try to ask yourself when the real questions and evidence is so abundantly clear. why ira is not using it. asking it
this whole civil case is just a delay drama piece. a sham case.

the real court case would have to be another court case, with real questions asked and real punishments on the table.
current case is not about ira vs craig its about trying to validate tulip by deception

*Satire*

"Maybe we should get mentally prepared to disown Blockstream. Nuke the satellites from orbit, just to be safe." - SWIM ...  


The Streets - Has It Come to This? (Official Video)
- https://youtu.be/22U2LLVRwtk

---

In other news ... not *Satire* ...

"Craig realized his mistake!

In depo Craig said May/June 2011, and stash under control by a woman he can't locate. And now hacked in February 2020 again?

Oh, and these BTC came straight from a cold storage address of Mt Gox. It was stolen."
- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1272878004495147010



 

...

"You don't have to help to work here, but you are clearly mad!" - BitcoinFX ...  

I agree with everything you said, bearexin; however, I would like to supplement what you seem to be saying.

Each of us can make a kind of character assessment, and conclude fairly early on that a guy like craig fucktwat is a deranged and deluded scammer, but then also we might also want to consider how much of an impact he might have on the public, and sure, there is some element that seems to suggest that NO reasonable person should believe his load of crap, but then some of us meet people in our real life who seem to be smart and reasonable, but they fall for similar levels of obvious phoney baloney, which we might consider to cause some kind of obligation for those kinds of people to be protected from seemingly obvious scams and purposeful misrepresentations.

I have a tentative belief that in the good ole days, a guy like him would have been locked up for a decent amount of time, including merely just submitting fraudulent documents in a court (even if it happens to be a civil, rather than criminal proceeding), but it seems that either courts have become more whimpy or maybe the threshold for locking up someone like him is a bit higher than I am estimating it to be.  So, sure, I could see Craig fucktwat getting locked up, but, like you, I have doubts about how likely something like that would be - or is it just merely wishful thinking that we might be able to remove some obvious fraud scammers from the public space for a meaningful amount of time that might either allow them to learn a lesson (seems doubtful) or at least protect society for a while.

Right from time when I heard about this guy I don’t stress myself when it comes to things that has to do with him. He is not the first person that claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, there are lots of scammers that have done that and when I saw him I just said to myself ‘this is just another liar and a thief’. Never stressing myself, knew right from time he was fake and, the worst part is that every lie he throws out to the public always comes back to haunt him.

I hope he’s sentenced to jail this time around where he’s going to probably cool off for a bit. Not sure his offence are eligible to be jailed for the sake of giving us break, judges must go for that . Usually I do hate the personal attracts but I guess I must breach my own resolutions for this guy.

From the end of the article ( https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/craig-wright-accuses-tether-kraken-funding-10b-bitcoin-lawsuit-against-him/ ):

I love stuff like this, that's correct Ayre is not funding the litigation. He is just giving CSW tons of cash and he does with it what he wants.
That and from the buckets of cash they are making from their followers.

I just lump those people together with the people that invest in any other scheme that is obviously fraud.
Some are looking to make a buck off the other suckers who are following (and some will) while others are the suckers throwing their money away.

-Dave

https://cointelegraph.com/news/craig-wright-denies-hacking-mt-gox-says-he-bought-those-bitcoins

Lawers might know better

better
https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-hack-could-see-bitcoin-rights-settled-in-court/

He is back in newspapers again and now accusing Tether and Kraken for funding $10 Billion Bitcoin lawsuit against him.
Must be fun to be in CSW skin (not) 
https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/craig-wright-accuses-tether-kraken-funding-10b-bitcoin-lawsuit-against-him/

* I indeed merited your post. 

Made me laugh.  Probably the best way to get merits out of me regardless who you are.  This post deserves at least 7 merits for the laughs, originality and effort in the artwork. 

You're welcome!

This forum is such a shitforum sometimes, Vlad even gave my post merit - hilarious! [citation's needed]

Right, back to the main topic then ...

*Satirical* *Meme*

"Metanet = Skynet - Proof me wrong"
- https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1272777272534216704