Topic: Updates from the COPA v Craig Wright trial - page 5. (Read 4032 times)

Why LeezHamilton does not understand difference between cryptography hashing, signature and encryption?

No body can go to heaven to find out - if whether the God exist ?  But any one can go to the High Court and claim to to be Satoshi Nakamoto.  For Craig Wright - he knows that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto. He also knows that it is unwise for him to claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Even though he is trying his best to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.  But all the time the Bitcoin experts proving that he has forged the documents. He is claiming that Bitcoin is not encrypted it is bloody paper ledger and he want alter the Blockchain. Why he does not understand that each block of Bitcoin is encrypted with SHA-256 and other cryptographic methods ?  Is he so fool that he has no clues what the Bitcoin is ?





 

This Faketoshi circus is getting next level crazy.
It's funny to hear that his sister Danielle DeMorgan said that once she saw him dressed as a ninja, and other time he was working in a room full of computers, and that was the evidence for her that he created Bitcoin.
I thought that Faketoshi was the only crazy member of his family, but oh boy was I wrong  

cussing infront of the judge


closing arguments

 What will be the next session on 12 March 2024 ?

The cross examination has completed for both party.  Is Justice Mellor alone is going to make the decision if whether is is fraud and the brazen liar ?   Supposed say Craig has lost the case and judge is not satisfied with Craig's forged documents and COPA win the case after 12 March.  What kind of legal orders Justice Mellor will issue on Craig ?

How will it affect Craig's litigation against the Bitcoin Core Developers ?

If Justice Mellor is unable to make correct judgement for some bureaucratic reason or for some other reasons for instance, neither can confirm that Craig is liar or he can confirm that Craig has forged the doccuments but he cannot justify if whether Craig is Satoshi ?  So what could be Justice Mellor's verdict on the main issue that Craig is not Satoshi, which he is not.  

Suppose, Craig and his barrister convince Justice Mellor that, if whether he is the author  of the Bitcoin White Paper or nor, it is not COPAS business to file this litigation case against him. He can argue that COPA is not the author of Bitcoin White Paper. So the COPA's litigation against him is illegal. He can say only the real Satoshi Nakamoto can legally  file litigation case against Craig for infringement of the  Bitcoin White Paper. Therefore, how COPA can sue Craig ?  

While the real Satoshi Nakamoto did not appoint COPA to sue Craig, so Craig can just evade and ask the Judge to throw the case out, because COPA has no legal right to sue Craig.

If this litigation is orchestrated by Craig Wright and Jack Dorsey with a mutual agreement, its mean this litigation case is not a genuine case. As the real party the author of Bitcoin White Paper is absence. So,  you Bitcoiners must try to understand that a cat is hidden inside the blanket. Some one must shake the blanket and let the cat out. So all the Bitcoin developers and investors and traders will see that this Saga Bitcoin Drama case is just a mock saga drama as the Coingeek wrote today in a article below.

What are the odd ?  

https://coingeek.com/sights-and-sounds-of-the-satoshi-trial-copa-v-wright/

Well, they usually push back on the excuses/lies, but only once and then just quickly move on. You would think they would push him a little further given the ridiculousness of the blatant lie, but hopefully the judge is aware of the fancifulness of Craig's excuses and that's all that is needed. Craig's lies are pretty much the legal equivalent of the dog ate my homework. These are all documents he submitted as proof of his claims and now they're doing the opposite it's the shaggy defence of it wasn't me. Why can't Craig just go back and get all the "original" unedited non-hacked documents (because obviously he can't because they don't exist, but I'm surprised the lawyers haven't asked for these). It's like a murderer sat in court and the judge asking why he was found covered in blood, holding the murder-weapon and a receipt for the knife in his pocket, and the only person with motive to commit the murder is that person, but his defence is it must have been someone else or the evidence was planted. How many forgeries are enough? Every document he has submitted has been proven to be forged or tampered with in some way and many are blatant, even the physical notepad should have ended any doubt. If Craig isn't found in contempt and there isn't another trial for that with potential jailtime I think this whole process will have been a farce. If Craig loses this case is he going to be barred from claiming to be Satoshi, or just in the UK? Is he going to just ignore that and possibly move to a different country and still make the same claims whilst no doubt appealing the verdict. I'm really hoping he gets a taste of his own medicine and ends up in several lawsuits that he's never out of court.

Oh, and we've nearly got a bingo:

i hope copa lawyers actually use the airport bag security check-in analogy
it doesnt matter if someone claims someone else did it/hacked/swapped things/added. what you hand in needs to be checked by you because once handed in, its your responsibility and everything is then on you

(well not the analogy itself, but point out that his excuses hold no weight as whats filed is his responsibility)

CSW's efforts are akin to a school kid handing in his homework. the teacher gives him an F grade and the kid is like "um um but but, its not my homework sir, please give me an A for effort".. in this analogy he deserves detention, twice. not just a F grade

Day 17

The shortest day of the trial so far at little over an hour due to Craig's side dismissing most of their witnesses. Not much happened obviously, but the day opened with COPA confirming the recent email forgeries and they would have a report ready on them soon.

Day 18

The "cryptocurrency expert" Prof Sarah Meiklejohn came across very well. It's funny how lawyers try to spin things in both ways. When Craig is caught plagiarising and his excuse is I was hacked, it's always well, is it possible he was hacked?, and the answer of course is I suppose it is possible, but just like it's possible aliens from another dimension also beamed the forgeries onto his computer from their spaceship. I mean, you can't prove that they didn't do that, so I suppose it is possible. When they were going over Craig's failed signing sessions Meiklejohn gave several ways Craig could have faked them including domain spoofing, wifi-hijacking etc, and Craig's team were pushing these as pie-in-the-sky claims but Meiklejohn's it is possible was dismissed as unlikely fancifulness, even though she stated she didn't believe this is what likely happened (I don't think Craig is smart enough to do this when all it takes is changing a bit of code in electrum, which is probably what he did).

Zem Gao, a blatant Craig Wright fanboy was also cross-examined. I missed the first part of his evidence and him being sworn in and I initially thought he was on COPA's side he was making Craig look so bad. Not sure why Craigs defence had him on, and they ended with going through all his pro-Craig writings at the end which was pretty much an embarrassing slam dunk for his impartiality.

There was no day in court today and the trial will resume tomorrow, and if I understand correctly, Craig is back on the stand to answer the recent admission of the forged email. This should be interesting, but of course he will almost certainly just blame someone else. Hopefully both COPA and the judge take this opportunity to grill Craig rather than just letting him pass the buck to someone else, especially as this is a forgery that took place during the trial. For those wanting a quick refresher here is what happened with the forged email:


https://twitter.com/oisyn/status/1763202102266929394

If you want to enjoy another couple of Craig's unbelievably stupid and sloppy forgeries here's a two more:

https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1763201157713838500
https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1763252633177915783

And if you want to read the COPA forensic reports used during the trial here they are: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4y3gdele4foy15006z8ch/h?rlkey=scs42wew1o3vwfv0nduhc43dm&e=4&dl=0

Day 16:

Mostly boring in court today and ended a little early today as Craig's council decided not to cross-examine their own forensic experts given the obvious. COPA witness Patrick Madden was cross-examined for most of it and I don't think he came across great or did any favours for COPA, but the day ended on an absolute bombshell with the revelation Craig had supplied a forged email purported to be from his previous lawyers and even better was put forward by Craig's own council. Craig's previous lawyers confirmed the faked emails Craig has submitted so that's another nail in Craig's coffin surely. Further details on what actually happened here: https://blog.bitmex.com/copa-vs-csw-day-16-craigs-lawyers-do-copas-job-for-them/


Oh, well I guess Craig is Satoshi then . Did they hire a so-called security exert who gets hacked multiple times a year? I haven't seen any evidence of him doing anything with the Australian stock exchange, and the same goes for most of Craig's fabricated C.V. What Craig usually does - assuming the claim isn't just a flat-out lie in the first place - is take a kernel of the truth and either inject some backdated lies into it or shit some more lies all over it, sometimes both. Take the meeting minutes from BDO Kendalls: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.828.34.pdf

BDO, a company Craig allegedly worked for, but obviously never had anything to do with bitcoin, so Craig forges and backdates some 'proof' that alleges he mentioned bitcoin long before the publication of the whitepaper, only he gets caught in this physical fraud by writing the notes on a notepad confirmed by the makers to not have existed at the time. Craig lies so much it's impossible to know when he's telling the truth, but you can usually assume he is not.

Christen Ager-Hanssen released his evidence against Craig today which is worth a read:

https://medium.com/@agerhanssen/bdo-drive-october-2007-extracted-2023-you-wanted-evidence-82593c431a11

Along with a load of texts: https://twitter.com/agerhanssen/status/1762110519010312307

For those wanting a current update I would recommend checking out the latest Dr Bitcoin podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aproxaMcFL4

You shouldn't give that troll the time of day or react to his nonsense.  

Responding to troll often just makes the problem worse since trolls feed off the attention.  Instead, the best way is usually to just ignore him, and with no reaction from others, he will lose interest and go away.

LeezHamilton.. aka bitcoinmoses.. shut up and disappear again for a few months.. come up with something actually worthy of posting

had to go through notes..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2003/1011.html

i know that you will try to find bombshells like "oh look mr greer of ASX told a CSW employee that CSW worked for ASX"* but that is later called into question in later cases, including how CSW tries to suggest he had no business with ASX and was only contacting lower level employee's of ASX, and such..
 funny part is CSW having a "system admin" who said greer said to "system admin" that CSW worked for ASX..
.. wait CSW needed a system admin..
.. wait "system admin" didnt know by default if CSW was working with ASX via them actually actively doing things for ASX
.. wait system admit had doubts of CSW involvement in ASX
(also)
didnt you think CSW was the system admin.. oh wait he employs people, but doesnt do the "genius"work himself
the rabbit hole only gets bigger from there.
just wait for the plot twists


by the way have you heard of google, you can find the court cases yourself. all of them, try it.
oh by the way demorgan went into default as it had no assets, no product no proprietary, no ip, no patent
because CSW and first wife left MR holding an empty bag of pretend big investment of big client
(you will soon learn it the more you read of the cases 2003-2005)

*keep in mind your own earlier link how ASX dont outsource contractors and done the monitoring in-house (not CSW)
using software that was not even a demorgan/CSW creation.. but sold as such with fake licence to pretend its a demorgan product
(much like he is trying now with bitcoin, falsely claiming it as his software to re-licence it)

If you can share links it would be much appreciated .

it started in 2003 and ended after 2005.. (many appeals and asking for continuances and such stupid avoidance tactics)
he was ordered to not compete in 2003

I'm always glad to see people doing their own pow . Anything to add to my previous post ?

You mean the 2004 case ?

i was actually reading the court filings of the 2003 case..


you really wanna pull the pin in the granade you hold... fine

CSW.. the human (incompetent at coding) did not write code for demorgan nor actually do work. his wife employed people to code or they buy/steal/ claim software  as their own.. to re-licence it (notice how he is doing it again now with bitcoin)
the ASX did not take up an offer to have CSW as the IT manager monitoring ASX systems.. they  done their own monitoring in house

ASX did not outsource or contract out work to CSW, they gave demorgan MONEY for a licence of software (software unrelated to CSW)
also the 2003 court case noted how demorgan after CSW left was found to be an empty shell company

Any source other than van pelt ? I see you almost "copied" his article about that part . https://mylegacykit.medium.com/faketoshi-the-early-years-part-1-9964fc1639e3
The problem is that i probably have read everything you have and much more . You just stick to your bias as others and don't want to spend any more time . Have you watched his series with Ryan ? the masterclasses ? the interviews ? and more ? Probably not , as you still think that bitcoin is just a form of scarce money .

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/a-billion-reasons-for-in-house-it-20020528-gdfb94.html

"The ASX has also bought some ready-made systems, including a derivative trading system from Swedish company OM technologies, and a 24-hour security monitor by Melbourne company DeMorgan.
(It is, in turn, kept in check by an in-house security monitor.) "We'll do it (outsource) where we think it's necessary and where we think the risk is manageable," Olsson says."

Probably he plagiarised that system too , right ?

What ASX done at that time was unique , no other exchange had something similar in the world . I don't think they would choose someone incompetent . Of course i can stick with your word as you guys know better . Or not .

he worked at ASX? according to? wiki, media? that can only source CSW's own word for it

ever tried to do research to find proper information..
EG
after resigning from his families business(demorgan(sisters last name) (founders CSW and his first wife))* which the exit came with a non-compete
he then approached ASX trying to offer products/services("independant consultant") where he treated ASX as a (potential/solicited) customer of his shell company.. not where CSW was an active employee of ASX... oh and CSW got 28 days prison time for approaching ASX offering ASX products and services...**
even funnier.. CSW appeals the guilty judgement of the breach of non-compete by trying to say his involvement/solicitation/approach to ASX was ambiguous(no deals made) thus in CSW view was thus not competing***


the wording of the court cases back then, were not that he provable worked for, was contracted to, or subcontracted to ASX, but instead ambiguous at best was just approaching companies like ASX asking for business. and that alone was enough to be a breach of his exit contract(non-compete) from demorgan

have a nice day

*he duped an investor into buying a large share% of demorgan, promising fake profits.. then he stepped down signing a non-compete.. but leaving the investor holding an empty bag of crap as the sole owner of 'demorgan'(which had no products or services).. but had a promise to provide service to its potential customers  but never did provide services under 'demorgan'..
**then setting up 'ridge' he approached ASX employees trying to win new contracts(but didnt succeed)
***by saying that demorgan wont offer services promised and they should go with him.. ASX however forwarded that contact communication to the demorgan share % owner and it went to court

yep he was even scamming back in early 2000's

That is utter nonsense. Companies hire incompetent and lazy people all the time. Have you ever heard of terms like nepotism or bribery? Craig is exactly the type of person who would lie, cheat or try to buy his way in. Obvious example: plagiarizing his PhD thesis or lying in court about his expertise, while physical evidence says otherwise.

 If Craig Wright confess and regret and and repent then Satoshi might forgive him. Why he is trying to be a pseudonym of of some one who invented the Bitcoin and Blockchain ?  He just want to bank on some one else's intellectual property.  Satoshi Nakamoto is watching every thing. He might file a case against Craig Wright soon for infringement of the Bitcoin White Paper Copyright and his stollen property BSV. 

Satoshi Nakamoto created BSV on Google Platform in May 2007. Some one hijacked it from Satoshi Nakamoto and Craig Wright bought it from him in 2018. Craig Wright did not invented or Forked BSV. BSV is not stand for Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision but Bitcoin Security Version. BSV is a stollen Property. Those who buying BSV thinking it is the original Bitcoin will be in troubles.