Yes.  This is exactly what seems to be happening, and the court system allows for making the kinds of damages claims that Ira has been making.


How do you believe that you get from point A to point B in the US judicial process?  

You don't just say I want 410k coins from CSW and get it without both having to prove that you have a valid claim to those coins while providing the other side the opportunity to contest your claim... which is exactly what is happening here.  

There is no materially important or legally significant difference to see, as you seem to be continuing to argue such nonsense that they are trying prove something outside of the normal claim for damages or that even if Ira were to obtain a favorable ruling in this case that includes the judge saying that CSW owning the coins that CSW is satoshi, those rulings would NOT end up applying in some other context..

CSW would have to prove his ownership again in another case or that he is satoshi again in some other case, if those issues were to come up in some other context...  Of course, scammers don't give any shit if their claims are valid or not, they use legally insufficient information to make claims, such as copywriting the white paper.. remember that legally insignificant nonsense that CSW was playing for a period of time last year?

I thought that we were starting to make progress, and now you proclaim this nonsense?

Maybe you need to outline your logic a bit better?  How do you get from a court case in which Ira is attempting to get CSW to pay him damage to be able to have the power to rule that CSW has ownership over the coins that he says that he does?

When there is a judgement that comes out of a situation in which CSW proclaiming that he owns the coins, and Ira says that he is entitled to half, and then if the court agrees for the purposes of the judgement, CSW owes half, the court is not ruling that CSW owns the coins, it is just going along with CSWs proclamation in order to grant damages to Ira.  You don't get any more from that ruling in this case, even if CSW might want to attempt to scam people on such a ruling that does not even go to making a material judgement about his ownership of the coins, the court merely presumes such ownership and grants damages to Ira.

Now, if CSW either proclaims inability to pay because he cannot get into the account, then that might be another case about damages that comes after the first proceeding.. Of course, they could choose to have a hearing on both liability and damages at the same time, but that might end up overly complicating matters.   Courts have discretion regarding how many issues that they might litigate in any one proceeding or if they will allow the addition or subtraction of issues along the way.



Oh? It's already been resolved?   I did not know that.  You might need to provide a link if you are suggesting that some of these issues have already been resolved, and I did not know about it.  I don't proclaim to know everything, even though it seems that I know a fucking lot more than you about presentation of ideas in a more clear way.


Sure, any case is going to be a moving target.  Evidence is developing, and their are broader rules and issues that might not be known at time 1, but they become known (or develop) at a later date.

For example, we did not know that fucktwat CSW was going to be raising the autistic genius defense, so sometimes it can take the other side a bit of time to make adjustments to new claims and new rulings.... or even our discussion in the public sphere (such as spaces like this) might change based on new information - even though the overall broader picture items might not really change merely because some issues might be changed along the way, here and there.




I am just attempting to respond to your ongoing nonsense.  If I am operating on bad facts (or wrong facts) then point them out.  I don't have any problem correcting my analysis if there ends up being some material and relevant facts that exist for which I have not accounted.


Well seemed like you were making some strange ass claims that were not related to what seemed to be being asked for by Ira, and you were also projecting how things will or might play out, but we have not even gotten close to that far yet in the proceedings.  We merely have Ira petition for certain kinds of default sanctions (damages), and the court largely rejected Ira's motion by saying that the court is going to allow the matters to go to trial.  Sure, Ira's team might be prejudiced by such ruling, but the court seems to be trying to just allow the various issues to be presented, and it might have been more problematic for the court to grant Ira's ruling and to disallowed Craig from presenting evidence on his autism/genius defense, even if it seems like a real long shot defense it does seem to raise potential material issues of fact (that are either currently unknown by the court or in dispute). 

In some sense, also, the court is still leaving its options open by rejecting Ira's default judgement claim because it can allow such facts and arguments to be presented during trial, but then come to realize later down the line that there might not be any material and significant facts in dispute, and the court could thereafter remove such issue from the jury and make a ruling on the sanctions matter at a later date without allowing the jury to determine facts that end up not being in dispute by the parties.


Many many posts you have shifted all over the place in either what you are saying or evidence that you have attempted to provide to establish what you are saying, but I will concede that you have been repetitive, also, in your various nonsense assertions, so there is that, too.   


You mean that you referenced the page numbers of the closing part of Ira's brief to the court in regards to damages?  Seems that I have largely accepted your representations regarding what Ira is requesting, so we do not have any dispute between us in regards to what Ira had requested.  You just seem to want to attribute some higher level of motivation, such as colluding or conspiracy to that request, when in the end, it is merely a more or less normal request for a default judgement (in regards to sanctions) that would come from a plaintiff in a case like this.  You know that plaintiff's try to preclude evidence and/or to get rulings in their favor all of the time. Those are allowable practices within the American court system, even if you believe that there is some ulterior and deeper motive that relates to those normal practices.


You are repeating yourself, again.  I have already responded to this, several times, but sure, you persist with rambling nonsense.. you persist.  We disagree..  No need to keep repeating with the same arguments and no newer information/facts, right?

You are NOT making any point that I have not already addressed (likely several times), so in that regard, you have gotten the last word, except that technically this post does happen to come after your post so that might inspire you to repeat your baloney one more time.        

Since I am having so many funzies going back and forth with you with basics and repetition, franky1, please feel free to wake me up, when you have something (likely further nonsense) that might possibly be new that you feel that you have to say.     

Before the court can rule about the compensation, it is necessary to define the legal status of the partnership Dave Kleiman/CSW. Most people here know, that CSW used a regular font as Dave's signature, which would mean, that this contract about the partnership is NOT valid. This would be pretty easy to prove for Ira, but he has certainly no interest in proving that there was no partnership, because this would mean that CSW owns 100% of the Bitcoins and the case would be closed. Sure, these Bitcoins most likely are not under Craigs control, but how can Ira know this with certainty? And again: It is not in Ira's interest to prove that these Bitcoins are NOT controlled by CSW. Even if Craig now comes out and says he lied (the reason maybe autism) and never controlled those Bitcoins, the jugde might think, that this is just an obvious tactic to avoid paying Ira's share.

It´s like that pic shows: https://ibb.co/mtGjpCB 

Some people just poop out of the wrong end

and while certain people keep circling the endless squabble over 'its about the money'

the point is
this case is if a judge makes an order that dave&CSW were the creators
that piece of paper would get taken straight to the patent office and the trademark office and establish CSW as the bitcoin creator
then the patent troll cases will ensue

while certain people on other pages will start saying
'yea but um but um maybe IRA can then go to court to then um maybe um ask for payment'

the game is already over
dave and CSW already achieved their goal

we all know IRA doesnt actually have a legal claim of 50% of coins. because we know CSW never had them.
HE IS NOT NOR EVER WAS SATOSHI

so trying to make it about IRA needs to win to then get paid.. is foolish drama
to hand CSW legal judgement that he created bitcoin.. is not a win for the community.
nor is it actual punishment for CSW

certain people in this tpic are trying to promote the agenda as
1. make a case about coins and IP
2. argue about evidence of coins and IP
3. get judge to default in favour there is coins & IP
4. ira then punishes CSW for not paying coins

..
reality is
1. make a case about coins and IP
2. argue about evidence of coins and IP
3a. get judge to default in favour there is coins & IP
3b. ofiiciate the IP with patent & trademark office to legalise the partnership
3c. patent troll any dev or any user they can
3d. ruin the community by every means possible

i know certain people are iffing and butting and could be and maybe the point 4.. but concentrate on point 3abcd

if all you want is to promote point 4.. ill give you a spoiler ira will never get 410k coin never. impossible
anything in 4 and beyond is just speculation and fantasy.

what the community need to be aware of is points 3b 3c 3d
as thats the more true ending to the story if 3a occurs

it is.

Yes.  Good luck to you and your buddies with that.  You will need it.


Of course, he wants payment, but he would likely be willing to settle for less.  You are correct.  Frequently, settlements will be less than full judgement because parties would rather pay less than both go through further litigation and also experience uncertainties around actually being able to collect, versus having the party directly pay you voluntarily.


I thought that dave died.. You mean Ira?  Ira did not get paid, yet.

I recall that they had settled last year, and then CSW backed out.. and made some mumbo jumbo lame ass excuses, which largely were likely ways to just delay a ruling and attempt to play the matter for some more drama.


It helps Ira's case, if CSW is proclaiming both things.


Of course, it is foolish, and maybe that is why it had settled initially... but what you gonna do?  Ira wants to get paid.  That seems pretty clear, otherwise he would not have bothered bringing the case, and now that he has invested into litigation, received a few rulings in his favor, and has seen how stupid various CSW defenses are, it makes it more likely that Ira is not going to give up on his claims to get paid.. and he might even be locked into litigating partially because the attorneys want to get paid.. especially for a lot of work that they already did (and expenses that they have incurred).


Why would they care about the community?  That is not one of the calculations of either side. At least not a major one.


Seems like punishment if he cannot pay, and maybe he could end up in jail because it is so much money to owe.  Of course, he could liquidate all of his assets.  That seems like punishment to me.


Does not matter too much what we say.  The parties are going to do what they are going to do.


Reality according to franky1. 

what a world.

what a world.




Makes me sad.      Especially on the inside.   

You seem to be talking about yourself, because you are the one 'circling the endless squabble' about a shitty theory that makes no sense and you seem to be stuck in this idea, that you need to defend your rubbish thoughts in endless repeating posts. Is it because you only want to be right and the rest of the users in this topic are wrong? Why this fighting about a theory that has no proof? Maybe you should go and talk to a shrink about it.

Remember when I posted a link to a very well known website (Cryptome) and you attacked me, saying that I am only doing it to promote my own website? Not sure how you came to this conclusion, but it has been branded in your brain, just like this theory about the collusion Ira/CSW.

Narcissist never change, because they are trapped in their own opinion, which - to them - has more value than anybody elses.

Take me for example. I am not narcisstic like you. If it turns out that Ira and Craig are colluding I am probably the first one admitting that you were right. I don't expect the same from you, when your theory turns out to be complete bs. You will go silent about it and probably switch to your next fixed idea.

I'm done with this topic until the judge takes a decision.

I believe franky1 has a point. Tin-foil hats on, but the Borat-like character played by Craig Wright is not what it seems. There's a deeper motive under the silliness of the character, and his claims.

Plus why did Gavin Andresen risk destroying his own reputation by vouching for him? There's something the community shouldn't know.