Update on CSW $5 billion lawsuit against him.
Thanks for this comprehensive summary.
I hadn't been keeping tabs on the "what Coingeek has to say" aspect recently, but its just as ridiculous as I would have imagined. Their idea of what constitutes a victory for BSV is so flimsy. The entire lawsuit is predicated on the idea that Craig had a hand in inventing bitcoin. So, of course Kleiman's attorney isn't going to object to Craig saying he is Satoshi. Does that mean he
is Satoshi? Of course not, yet Coingeek would have us believe that it does.
It is a historic day because he said it under oath. This means that if it is successfully debunked later the penalties could be severe.
I personally believe that he is trying to stall the Kleiman case so he can launch his libel suits. In my personal opinion the libel suits could potentially be used by him to claim legal privilege to block access to some information.
Whether the US court will accept such a legal argument is another story. If he sues enough people from the early bitcoin days he could potentially avoid them from being called as expert witnesses.
CSW already has attempted to claim marital privilege (based on UK and Australian settlements with his ex wives) to block parts of the discovery process.
These are interesting articles too:
https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/05/kleiman-v-craig-wright-part-2.htmlhttps://cryptoslate.com/craig-wright-committed-fraud/Wright filed a motion with an Australian court saying he had no connections to Florida or W&K. He then supported these claims with a sworn declaration stating he was never a shareholder, member, agent, employee, or representative of W&K.
However, it was found that Wright submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where he confirmed that he owned 50 percent of W&K Info Defense LLC, while Kleiman owned the other 50 percent.
He then doubled down, saying that “W&K Info Defense LLC was an incorporated partnership” and that “all shares are held jointly.” According to the court documents, Wright also said he called a “shareholders meeting” in 2013, where he was the sole vote that nominated the director of the company.
The affidavit directly contradicts sworn statements Wright had made to the court in Florida, where he asserted that he had never been a shareholder or a member of W&K and that he never exercised any authority or control over the company.
Documents which Wright signed as the “authorized representative” of W&K were revealed, as well as multiple occasions on which he identified himself as the lead researcher of the company.