I'm not good at deciphering lawyer-speak. Does this mean Hodlonaut is winning or not?

Yes. It means that if the judge has any sort of understanding about the case, Hodlnaut will be the winner. I think it’s been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that CSW has falsified documents in an attempt to prove he was satoshi and is now telling the court to take people’s word for it. If this works for CSW, I will also be calling myself satoshi and forking the chain to unlock his coins for myself. Anyone who is willing to state that I am satoshi can have a cut.

And then someone complains that this forum is not good enough when it comes to freedom of expression, which unlike the mentioned platform is some kind of futuristic democracy. In my opinion, it is even too tolerated when it comes to various BSV shills or those who claim to be Satoshi without any evidence.

---

I want to believe that the Norwegian court will look at all the evidence and rule in favor of Hodlonaut, and the only thing that worries me is how well the court will be able to understand the evidence presented, because it is not something they have encountered before.

if a ceramic pot was smashed a years ago, then stepped on hundreds of times over years until its dust.. you cant then blame person number 20,000 who has annoyed you for repeating the pot is damaged, for said damage

hodlenaut comments were not just personal lies hodlonaut made up to harm someone. his thoughts are based on information that the community already knew and he simply ensured other people new it too, to save newbie people falling for scams.... hodlonaut did not create anything damaging. thus didnt cause any damage that didnt already exist

---

though CSW doesnt care win or lose.. its not the game he is ultimately playing..
for hodlonaut the case is going hodlonaut way

though CSW says he wants to use future courts as proof of identity..
to  prove he has a credible reputation worth protecting.. ..
not proving it means he has no credible reputation NOW ... thus nothing to protect or get damaged

 defamation/insults/call outs that already occured are not about maybe one day someone will prove something.. its about what information is and was available now and in the past to support someone opinion now and in the past...
and how real/factual/credible that info is to prove/disprove identity and create a reputation(good or bad) that needs protecting(of/from) when the insults occured.
yet there is enough proof of the bad non existant rep. that the stuff pretending to be of good rep has been debunked, proved as lies and shown as forgeries and counterfeit. thus the fails of CSW past is a good enough reason to call him out on his failures.

his reputation has been pre-damaged for decades, he has been sued by former employers, colleges have discredited his involvement, old investors in his "it security" scams have discredited him, Australian tax office have called him out on his crap..

thus general opinion of the community has been that CSW was already a sham/fake/con artist. far longer than hodleonauts comments.

Wright’s Satoshi Proofs ‘Not Credible’ and a ‘Farce,’ Hodlonaut Lawyers Say
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/09/19/craig-wrights-satoshi-proofs-not-credible-and-a-farce-hodlonaut-lawyers-say/

Claims by Australian computer scientist Craig Wright to be the founder of Bitcoin were dismissed as “not credible” and a “farce” by lawyers for Twitter personality Hodlonaut, otherwise known as Magnus Granath, in closing arguments offered in Oslo’s District Court Monday.
...
DPA’s findings were “consistent … with what KPMG found in their report,” van Schijndel told District Court Judge Helen Engebrigtsen. “This would include the findings in regard to the fonts.”
That was enough for Ørjan Salvesen Haukaas, Granath’s lawyer, to conclude a pattern of misrepresentation by Wright.
“This document has been manipulated. There can be no doubt about that,” said Haukaas. “This isn’t something that happens if you move it from Windows to Linux … it’s something that happens when you use a text editor and you change the text.”
“The fact that these documents were forged wasn’t even contested by Wright in his statement” to the court, Haukaas said.

  ...  

So Hodlonaut's team have now finished their closing statement, and CSW's team is giving theirs. Some absolute howlers coming out of CSW's team today:

You don't say!?

Expects the court to believe there is no link at all between CSW And Calvin Ayre in relation to doxing individuals? Lol. I'll just leave this here: https://nitter.it/CalvinAyre/status/1115913884823707649

---

Today is the last day. I'm not sure if we will get a judgement today, or if the judge will take some time to deliberate first. Anyone know?

Trial is finished. Apparently the judge has set a date of November 8th for a decision (!), so we are going to be waiting ~7 weeks to find out the outcome of the case.

Costs are being submitted within 2 weeks, so there is still time to donate to Hodlonaut's legal fees or to help fund future cases against CSW: https://opensats.org/projects/opensats_legal_defense

A quick verdict may look rushed. Justice is famous for taking its time.

I don't know how the costs thing works, but I'm afraid CSW may try to drag it longer by dragging the completion of costs documents.
Even more, the Nov 8 may be the "upper limit" and the result may come earlier. I hope so.

How much is paperwork and procedures that just take time. The decision has been made, now it must be written, proof read, documented, references cited, those references checked, approvals from others, and so on. It seems to be the same in a lot of courts, when it's major and important and you can pull in a bunch of people things can get done quickly. For things like this, although *we* think it's important, it really is just another case and it gets done when it gets done.

For now we can only sit and wait.

Since I only really know US courts and how long they take I can't comment as to that amount of time in general being fast or slow or average.

-Dave

Did they state anywhere whether it will be released at a later time maybe?
I guess if the original is out there, we wouldn't watch their commentary and go directly to the source instead, so that may be a reason..

I've yet to catch up on day 7, therefore I may have missed such announcement.