I understand that my judgement is not relevant for the matter, however, you question the only US Federal Judge's findings on this matter - the creator of Bitcoin.
It appears as if you are under the mistaken impression that the judge's statement about their partnership supports CSW's claim to be Satoshi:
"One, Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into a
50 percent 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual
property and to mine Bitcoin."^^^ This does not assert that said partnership created Bitcoin, only that they were supposedly developing Bitcoin-related IP at some point.
Which bit of the judge's statement explicitly clarifying that they were not ruling on the matter of Satoshi Nakamoto's identity confuses you?
I see you still have trouble in reading the whole hearing from 08-26-2019, I will try to help.
Ms McGovern, Dr.Wright's lawyer:Your Honor, the Court ordered Dr. Wright to produce
a list of public addresses, or actually the Bitcoin that was
held as of 12/31/2013. So the issue before this Court is
whether Dr. Wright has demonstrated an inability to comply
with this order. The decisions that are addressing this
shifted burden explain that it's composed of the following:
An explanation as to why compliance is not possible; and a
good faith effort to comply using all reasonable efforts
possible.
In response to the Court's order, Dr. Wright has
provided the first 70 of those public addresses. There are
over 16,000. In addition, Dr. Wright has disclosed his full
holdings of Bitcoin as of December 31st, 2013, and has stated
under oath exactly how much Bitcoin he holds as of that date,
and has confirmed under oath that that Bitcoin has not moved.
The explanation, the first part, Dr. Wright
testified before Your Honor in a full-day evidentiary hearing
under oath that the public addresses are contained in an
encrypted file that cannot be accessed at this time. The
testimony was unequivocal. When asked whether Dr. Wright
specifically could provide a list of those public addresses,
and, in fact, whether it was impossible for him to provide
those public addresses at this time, he testified on page 22:
Yes, it is.
In addition, when asked specifically if he could
provide the remaining list of public addresses beyond the
first 70 that he provided, that if he could do it, would he do
it.
And he testified unequivocally: Yes, I would.
Beyond that, Your Honor, he explained why it makes
no sense that he wouldn't. From a credibility perspective,
which is something that the plaintiffs have argued on this
issue before this Court, this limited issue before this Court,
the plaintiffs essentially have argued he cannot be believed.
That's not evidence.
In explaining why he would provide the list of
public addresses if he could -- and, in fact, it strains
credulity as to why he wouldn't do that -- he went into
detailed explanation as to how the process worked. He
specifically explained that in 2011, he disassociated himself
with the file with Dave Kleiman's help for a number of
reasons, the first of which was that he did not want to be
associated with the name Satoshi Nakamoto. And the reason for
that was because the invention that he testified under oath he
created was being misused in terrible ways: As heroin
markets, pedophilia centers and other things.
So his testimony when asked, how is it possible that
someone with that amount of Bitcoin wouldn't keep a file so
that he could access the public addresses later, he explained
he wanted total disassociation with it. It strains credulity,
according to Dr. Wright, and it seems reasonable to believe
him, that someone would want to be associated with that kind
of an invention. So the rationale for disassociating himself
with the file and the Bitcoin at that time is not incredulous.
In addition, the value of the Bitcoin in 2011 is not
what it is today. Today the numbers are staggering, there's
no question about it. That wasn't the case then.
Additionally, Dr. Wright explained that this process
in which he encrypted the file and the reason why he cannot
access it, it is impossible to access, is because Dave Kleiman
is dead. In addition, the information that could possibly
help him decrypt the file now, apart from the fact that he
can't speak to his good friend, Dave Kleiman, is the fact that
the files, the electronic devices and the information that
Dave Kleiman had at his house has been discarded, overwritten,
and is encrypted.
Those are undisputed facts in this case.
Dr. Wright further testified under oath that it is
very possible, based upon the manner in which the encrypted
file was set up, that the information to decrypt the file,
process the algorithm that would allow him to generate the
public addresses and provide that information could be
available in January 2020. Discovery has been ordered;
discovery is not complete.
If, in fact, Dave Kleiman's devices are later
decrypted and information becomes available when the forensic
analyses are complete, and that information allows an earlier
access, that may remedy the situation even earlier than
January.
In addition, Dr. Wright produced testimony, or
provided testimony and produced information in an effort to
demonstrate to this Court all reasonable efforts in good faith
to comply with this Court's order. Dr. Wright instruction
high-level staff at nChain to do everything that they could to
provide what was a probabilistic list of the public addresses
beyond the first 70 that were produced.
The plaintiffs criticized that process, arguing that
the information and the criteria that was used was in the
control of Dr. Wright. Of course, it was. It was, in fact,
the information that Dr. Wright had that was utilized to try
to generate a list of the probabilistic public addresses that
would be available. That information was explained by Steve
Shadders, who testified under oath as to the procedures that
he followed, and that he provided that information at the
instruction of Dr. Wright, who was attempting to comply with
this Court's order.
The list of public addresses, a probabilistic list,
was a attempt at a complete inclusive list of public addresses
that Dr. Wright had beyond the first 70 produced. That list
was provided to plaintiffs' counsel on June 28th at the close
of the first evidentiary hearing. After the close of the
evidentiary hearing, Your Honor, it was then produced to them
in electronic file.
At the cross-examination of Steve Shadders on
August 5th, the second day of this Court's evidentiary
hearing, there was absolutely no evidence provided that any
analyses on that probabilistic list was done.
Steve Shadders also testified and provide --
provided exclement (sic) explanation as to what the public
address information would provide to the plaintiffs. We
believe that's important, Your Honor, because the holdings
that Dr. Wright had as of December 31st, 2013, have been
provided, and the information regarding the public addresses,
if, in fact, he had a list now that he could say, I've done
everything I can to just remember the 16,000-and-some public
addresses, wouldn't necessarily provide the plaintiffs with
any additional information, because as Steve Shadders
testified, as well as Dr. Wright testified, ownership cannot
be determined by having a public address.
Further, whether somebody mined with another person,
even if it were possible during the relevant time period,
which it was not, cannot be determined by having the public
address.
So the information that a public address can provide
to the plaintiffs in this case should be considered by this
Court in addressing the inability to provide that to
plaintiffs at this juncture. It's our position, Your Honor,
that the evidence shows, that the evidence demonstrates, that
that information does not provide plaintiffs with information
that merits the kind of allegations that are being made
surrounding its, the plaintiffs', inability to obtain that
information now.
Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence in this
evidentiary hearing that defeats impossibility, Your Honor.
There's been no witness provided that rebuts Dr. Wright's
unequivocal testimony that he cannot provide the public
addresses at this time.
Plaintiffs' expert did not address that question.
Instead, plaintiff spent most of the cross-examination of
Dr. Wright on reviewing and reading verbatim lines in metadata
with respect to e-mails and other documents. Apparently, the
primary argument in response to impossibility or the inability
to access the public addresses is something -- is simply or is
nothing more than -- I'm not saying that it's -- should be
taken lightly; credibility's important. The plaintiffs'
entire theme on this issue before this Court is that
Dr. Wright should not be believed. Supposition and belief is
not evidence, and the rationale and the explanations that
Dr. Wright has provided as to his inability, separate and
apart from his unequivocal statements that he is unable to do
it, makes sense.
When asked if Dr. Wright has already sustained or
has already suffered certain consequences as a result of these
contempt proceedings, his answer to this Court was: Yes.
Can't speak to his mother; he's having difficulty talking to
his wife. These are serious allegations the plaintiffs have
lodged in this case, and he's here today for that reason. He
is being charged in this case in this -- on this issue before
this Court with a willful violation of a federal court order,
and he has testified and explained that he is taking that very
seriously.
Your Honor, we understand there's been a delay, and
Your Honor asked Dr. Wright about that delay on June 28th and
specifically asked if you knew about -- or that you knew that
you weren't able to access the encrypted file with the public
addresses at the time they were requested, why didn't you just
say that? Why was there a period from February, March and
April, when we were discovering that and reaching a full
understanding of what you're testifying under oath now?
And if we could go back, Your Honor, we would. If
we could go back with a fuller understanding of what the
issues are in this case, I'm sure the plaintiffs would. I
don't think Ira would have wiped out the files with pictures
of his children. Or perhaps there's something more. But at
this stage, things have been done that wouldn't have been
done, particularly in light of the fact that in 2014, when
Dr. Wright contacted Dave Kleiman's father, he specifically
said: There is important information in Dave Kleiman's
devices, protect it, and the opposite was done.
So during the period of time in which the issue of
the public addresses was being discovered, there were a lot of
other things happening, as well, in this case. There is a
massive amount of discovery that has been conducted in good
faith in this case.
We don't mean to suggest, Your Honor, that we don't
understand the issue before you, and I'm certainly not trying
to detract the Court's attention on what the issue is. We
understand it, and we're very -- taking it very seriously.
But in terms of context and in terms of explanation,
we think it's important to understand what that context is.
So when you're unable to do something, and you're trying to
understand exactly what the circumstances are about it,
particularly in light of the fact that we have so many
computers and so much data, and corporations and available
resources, we wanted to make sure that, in fact, all of the
information was put before the Court and it was accurate.
If Dr. Wright did not wish to allow the plaintiffs
access to the public addresses, he explained under oath that
the last thing he would have done is provide the first 70,
because that, in fact, as he explained, identifies him as
Satoshi Nakamoto. Producing the rest of the public addresses
provide -- causes absolutely no concern.
And importantly, plaintiffs have offered no
explanation as to why he wouldn't do it; why he would put
himself, his credibility, the credibility of his counsel on
the line if the public addresses don't do what the plaintiffs
are claiming it does; and if he's already tried to comply by
providing the first 70, and if he's asked his staff to give a
list of every single public address that could possibly be his
based upon the criteria that he was able to narrow.
The explanation that the information may come in
January 2020 is important in light of the fact that discovery
is ongoing. But it's also important because we're not even
done reviewing Dave's devices. We haven't gotten to the
point, Your Honor, of even being able, from a defense
perspective, to go beyond simply the identification of the
files that were deleted. By court order, our forensic experts
are reviewing that information, and we're not at the point
where we can, as they say in today's parlance a lot, take a
deep dive. But we're very anxious to do it, and we believe
information, critical information, about this case is
contained there.
To take a leap and claim and argue that Dr. Wright
should be foreclosed from a defense, a robust defense in this
case, on claims of an oral general partnership, a default
judgment for half the Bitcoin, some sort of punitive sanction
stated publicly about his intentions regarding this Court's or
regarding the inability to comply with this Court's order is
simply not proportionate to the facts and circumstances that
have been presented and the evidence that's been presented on
this issue.
Your Honor, I'd also like to say that this issue is
not every issue in the case. We come before Your Honor and
often hear the same mantra about things that aren't related to
the issue before this Court. We believe it's very important,
Your Honor, that the issue before this Court, which is a
limited issue of a noncompliance of a discovery order, doesn't
mean it's not important. Simply talking about the definition
of what is before the Court not be conflated with other issues
that have been presented to the Court on other facts and other
allegations.
In other words, Dr. Wright doesn't lose his right to
due process to a jury trial because there have been some sort
of credibility determination vel non in this case that he's no
longer entitled to those things.
In the absence of any evidence, Your Honor, that
defeats impossibility, that's what we're left with.
Your Honor asked if the parties, counsel for the
parties, could think about appropriate remedies in this case
for what has transpired concerning the inability to provide
the public addresses and the timing of that. And, Your Honor,
we are very, very mindful of the importance of mitigating
potential harm. Exxon is ringing in my ears. But we do
believe that it is important to keep in mind here that it is
not a willful noncompliance that we are looking at here. The
intentions were not to hide and deceive. If that were the
case, common sense would dictate that you wouldn't say exactly
how much Bitcoin you have as of 12/31/13, you wouldn't provide
the first 70, and you wouldn't pull high-end staff away from
other projects to provide a list, a probabilistic list, an
all-inclusive list of the public addresses that they probably
are in light of the fact that the admission under oath, which
is not refuted, is that the Bitcoin hasn't moved.
So in terms of the remedy, Your Honor, we believe
this Court should determine first and foremost, in light of
the absence of evidence regarding a willful violation as to
what information the plaintiffs have not received, and, in
fact, the prejudice to the plaintiffs if they don't receive
that information at this time. If, in fact, the Bitcoin
hasn't moved, and in light of the fact that discovery is not
over, and with the very high possibility that this information
will ultimately be provided to plaintiffs before trial, we
don't believe, even assuming that the Court were to impose a
sanction, that anything beyond a sanction for the period of
time that was taken in reaching a full understanding of this
issue should be imposed. In other words, the plaintiffs'
counsel engaged in efforts that perhaps were not necessary and
could be determined to have been wasted had that information
been provided sooner, and we understand that. The same is
true, Your Honor, on our side.
And if that's the case, any remedy that the Court
should impose reasonably should be limited to that reasonable
amount of time that the plaintiffs spent working towards that
ultimate understanding. We don't believe, Your Honor, that it
would be fair to include the evidentiary hearing on that
issue, and here's why.
We highly doubt plaintiffs' counsel would have
simply taken Dr. Wright's statement that the file is encrypted
and he cannot access it without requesting an evidentiary
showing. We believe, Your Honor, we would have needed that
evidentiary showing, and we would have needed to engage in
that process anyway. But for the period of time that Your
Honor referenced on June 28th, where you specifically asked
Dr. Wright about that time period, we believe any -- any
sanction should be limited to that reasonable attorney's fee,
which can be presented to Your Honor and addressed as to its
reasonableness at a later time, and we do not believe, Your
Honor, that that sanction should imply in any way a willful
noncompliance with this Court's order, simply because the
gravity with which that kind of finding carries would be
unfair.
In an ideal world, Your Honor, in light of the fact
that discovery has not been completed, and Dr. Wright has
testified as to the very high possibility that he will receive
that information in January, we ask that you -- that the Court
refrain from imposing any sanction at all, including a
reasonable attorney's fee, until January 31st, 2020.
I know what you're going to hear next. It's going
to be a request for the highest sanction possible: Default
judgment, strike pleadings, essentially determine the case
over and claim game over. The law is not designed to set a
litigant up for failure. And without evidence -- and there is
none -- that Dr. Wright has willfully failed to comply with
this Court's order, we believe, Your Honor, that even the
suggestion of that kind of a sanction cannot be reconciled
with our court of justice and with our system.
We also recognize, Your Honor, that the Court has
spent time, and the Court has put in effort in reaching a full
understanding on this issue. I know Bitcoin's not new, but
Shamir schemes, and Bitcoin, and protocol, and code, and all
of those things wrapped together, and a deceased, the other
main witness in this case who cannot speak and whose files are
not available, because they're encrypted themselves or they've
been erased, doesn't necessarily come up in one case all at
the same time.
So we're working through it, and we're working
through it in good faith, Your Honor. I can say -- and we
just have to glance over there to the right real quick, that
everybody on this side is honored to be in front of this
Court. Dr. Wright has come from the UK for a day because --
might not be the right word -- but in the form of an
allocution recognizes what this Court has done.
The mere fact that an explanation was provided in
the manner in which provided is a testament to the kind of
system that we have, which is a system of truth and arriving
at it, and the ability to be able to explain things that are
difficult to explain, even if they're not perhaps fully
explained the first time because they're complicated.
THE HONORABLE BRUCE E. REINHART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Therefore, as a remedial measure pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(i), the Court deems the
following facts to be established for purposes of this action:
And, by the way, I find that no lesser sanction is
sufficient than what I'm about to announce.
One, Dr. Wright and David Kleiman entered into a
50 percent 50/50 partnership to develop Bitcoin intellectual
property and to mine Bitcoin.
Second, it is deemed proven that all Bitcoin mined
by Dr. Wright prior to December 31st, 2013, was joint property
of Dr. Wright and David Kleiman at the time it was mined.
Because Dr. Wright's 10th affirmative defense relating to the
statute of frauds challenges the existence of a partnership,
it is inconsistent with these findings and these facts, so it
is stricken.
As a further punitive sanction, I deem the following
facts:
One, any Bitcoin-related intellectual property
developed by Dr. Wright prior to David Kleiman's death is
jointly and equally owned by Dr. Wright and by the plaintiffs.
And, two, any Bitcoin mined by Dr. Wright prior to
David Kleiman's death and any assets traceable to those
Bitcoin is presently jointly and equally owned by the
plaintiffs and Dr. Wright.
Dr. Wright's third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,
eighth, second seventh affirmative defenses assert that David
Kleiman surrendered has legal rights in return for shares in a
corporation. These affirmative defenses are inconsistent with
the facts as I have deemed them, so they are stricken.
I do not strike Dr. Wright's first, second, I think
ninth, or 11th and 12th affirmative defenses. So I do not --
I do not strike all of his pleadings. I do not enter a
default judgment. I leave in place the affirmative defenses
relating to statute of limitations, latches, res judicata and
the one I can't remember.
In addition, Dr. Wright's April 18th motion which
was in substance a motion for protective order was denied, the
plaintiffs' June 3rd motion to compel was granted, and the
current motion is also granted. Therefore, I will order that
the plaintiffs are entitled to receive reasonable attorney's
fees and expenses related to each of those motions.
https://wizsec.jp/20190826_kleiman_wright.pdfI hope you can identify the implications and consequence this case has. If not, oh well, maybe later.
The above quote of judge Reinhart are facts established by the Court, your quote is not there so it is not relevant.
