Quote
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), the Court deems the following facts to be
established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.
established for purposes of this action: (1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.
Page 28
The court specifically stated they are not making a ruling on whether CSW was SN. How can you ignore this? What you quoted:
- does NOT say CSW is 1/2 of Satoshi
- applies even if they mined ZERO bitcoin together, which is likely to be the case
C'mon man. You're just trolling everybody now. Your investment got hammered because it was a shitty one. Trying to play word games isn't going to save it.
The court said it clear - it is not required for it to decide is CSW Satoshi or not, so it doesn't decide, as it doesn't have to.
However, the evidence that was accepted as true drove Judge Reinhart to establish those facts:
Quote
(1) Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.
a 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual property and to mine bitcoin; (2) any
Bitcoin-related intellectual property developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman’s
death was property of the partnership, (3) all bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to David
Kleiman’s death (“the partnership’s bitcoin”) was property of the partnership when
mined; and (4) Plaintiffs presently retain an ownership interest in the partnership’s
bitcoin, and any assets traceable to them.
Also, the Court did not strike ALL CSW defenses - striked 3 to 10
1,2,11,12,13 defenses were accepted by the Court. Now, go ahead and see what those defenses represent and also note that an appeal was made and most likely will pass as there are sufficient grounds.
You call me a troll, when stating the obvious started to count as trolling?
