This is proof that even with a lot of money and an army of lawyers, you still have to be intelligent in order to create a top-notch forgery, which might then be believed by an inexperienced/bribed judge or some senseless commission or something, as was the case in Colombia. Anywhere else in the civilized world with a somewhat independent judiciary, Faketoshi and similar fraudsters don't stand a chance and are starting to look more and more like people who have started to lose touch with reality.

LOL I can't believe he is so stupid to use public font Otto that is available for free commercial use  
His law team are well aware of this scam but now they have no other choice than to continue playing this circus show with him as a main clown.

Wait a second, I just received few more ''secret messages'' written by ''DaVe KleiMaN'' using exact same handwritting:




https://www.1001fonts.com/otto-font.html

I would imagine that Craig is way smarter than his lawyers (and the lawyers of the other side too)... It's part of the reason why guys like him tend to have to rotate through attorneys because they are always way smarter than their lawyers.  

Many attorneys (the more integrity-based ones) do not like having such rogue (renegade) clients, but like DaveF mentioned, many attorneys will still go through the representation motions if the pay keeps flowing and makes up for their inconveniences and possible risks to their licenses by representing such scammers/scandals.

Yeah. At the start of the proceedings however many years ago, CSW was being represented by Ontier. At some point he changed over to these new layers from Schjodt. In the trial he claimed it was because his previous lawyers refused to let him bring forward witnesses (). Perhaps it was actually his previous lawyers insisted on some kind of hard evidence rather than just hearsay, and when presented with the stack of obviously forged documents, emails, code, etc. which ended up being submitted, they just noped out of there realizing that CSW is a complete liability. But as you say, there is always someone else willing to take on losing cases if they will be paid handsomely for doing so. And although costs have not yet been submitted, I've been reading suggestions CSW's legal fees were more than double those of Hodlonaut.

There are so many problems with CSW's 0.0.8 code that it cannot be believed by a thinking person. He somehow included a bug fix which Hal Finney wouldn't point out for several months, but then reversed the bug fix for when he released 0.1.0. He somehow includes a compressed bitcoin address, support for which wouldn't be implemented for several years. His 0.0.8 file has an incorrect checksum, but its checksum just magically happens to validate perfectly for version 0.1.0. He includes code plagiarized directly from this forum, including cutting off early with incomplete code as a post on this forum did when it hit the character limit (apparently he was too stupid to realize the next post in the thread had the rest of the code).

The whole thing is an absolute smorgasbord of incompetence.

ok so i have a tough question to ask the last 4 people that posted..
it might seem harsh and tough to answer and may seem like a poke. but i feel the answer will answer their own biggest question of why is CSW lying and his partners believe/follow him even when there is evidence that debunks what he says

i am not interested in yet another social drama debate. im not even asking you to answer which would out yourselves, but just think about the answer for your own purpose

so first a describer
within the last 5years . some individuals that dont like researching have been fooled via social bias and echo chamber games of a narrative they trust due to social allegiances/loyalties  where the story is that there was a btc upgrade that was, in their belief a natural, soft consensus upgrade.
.. but the only proof ever shown of their narrative was each other quoting other people as their source of proof(echo chambers)
vs
the hard facts of node code of mandatory hard fork. petition/agreement document of economic nodes agreeing to flag for the mandatory effort to activate it with a fake promise of a extra upgrade later to appease the upgrade objectors.
and backed up by the hard immutable data of the blockchain plus the data of the altcoin created at the date. which all show that the mandatory contentious hardfork occurred..

where these people have been loyally and robustly trying to push the fake narrative soft upgrade narrative for upto 5 years. and want to cause debate if anyone talks about the real events

so the question (its rhetorical and i dont need to know it. just answer it in your mind for your own enlightenment)

why after 5 years do certain people still prefer to follow the social drama narrative of lies, just to back up and be obedient to their buddy group.
rather than admit they fell for social drama lies
rather than just come clean.
rather than realise there is actual evidence that debunks the narrative. rather than admit they were wrong, get over it and move on with their lives

i dont need to know the answer. the answer is for yourselves to think about and realise that people are too easy to trust other people based on some social/greed reason. where they even want to play dumb or ignorant at the hard data that debunks their beliefs

---

CSW has never shown good knowledge of his supposed IT, data forensics degree's but he really is well versed in his theology degree and he uses it more then any other degree he supposedly has

theology: the study in how people believe in something unseen/mystical without needing proof

Of course in the court system, depending on the kind of case that is litigated, there might be some questions about whether CSW is actually Satoshi, and many times, there is no need to really answer that question in terms of whether anyone needs to prove that CSW is not satoshi.. because the burden is actually (or should be) on CSW to show that he is Satoshi.. not for others to prove that he is not.

Of course, the lower threshold has been met many times, including 2015/2016 when CSW started becoming quite vocal about supposedly being Satoshi and never actually proving it when he has the burden to prove it.

So the court cases get confusing depending on what is the issue that is being discussed, and in a court case like this, the initial lawsuit was in the UK filed by CSW saying that Hodlonaut had sufficiently defamed CSW and caused damage to CSW through such defamations.  So the trial was filed in Norway in order to attempt to preempt the ability to go forward with the UK trial to establish that Hodlonaut could not be sued in the UK over such issue because the Norway courts had resolved the matter. 

So then sometimes there can be questions regarding who has the burden of proof and who has the burdens to produce evidence, and these kinds of issues will vary from court to court in terms of what kinds of questions that the court believes that it is attempting to resolve so then there would be questions in terms of whether the charging party has met its burden of production and its burden of proof.. so in this case Hodlonaut had become the charging party because he was trying to preclude the bringing of the case in which CSW had been the charging party.

But if we get back to the question of defamation and whether Hodlonaut had based his accusations (defamation) against CSW in ways that were sufficiently reasonable and fair in terms of what others had thought about CSW based on information then available during the times of the allegedly defamatory statements, but then there can be some value in producing evidence to show that the alleged defamatory statements were actually true, even though when there is not exactly freedom of speech in some locations, then the truth of the statements might not even be a complete defense to whether a person could end up being liable if there are assertions that the statements in themselves had caused the damages (in this case damages to CSW's reputation and even income capabilities). 

I guess part of my point is that questions regarding who has what burdens can become confused, even though the court will likely come out with a decision to say whether or not Hodlonaut met his burden to sufficiently establish that he had not defamed CSW to a high enough level that would preemptively cause the Norway case from being able to be decided in the UK because the matter had already been sufficiently resolved by the Norway case.

No matter what the court says, it would be enough to establish CSW as not being Satoshi, and I am sure that they would get a lot of pushback if they were to proclaim that he is Satoshi, but in either case, the vast majority of regular bitcoiners (and even shitcoiners) realize that CSW has the burden of production and the burden of proof to show that he is Satoshi and he has not even come close to meeting either of those burdens... the burden of production would be providing signed keys from known satoshi blocks and the burden of proof would be to convince us that those signed keys were valid and that those really are satoshi blocks or whatever further argumentation that might be needed to connect the evidence provided with the logic regarding why CSW is satoshi... which many of us know that if CSW had the capabilities to accomplish such, he would have already done it... so all these alternative means are hardly convincing and even many times go the opposite of what CSW is supposed to be trying to show (that he is Satoshi).

To be fair, that change alone would be consistent with it being a "draft" that he supposedly fixed.  What blows that up is that it's the correct symbol in the other font.  So it was impossible for it to be an error, the wrong character had to come from being substituted with a font that didn't exist until long after the paper's supposed date. Same issue that lambda has.  It is funny that when checking his forgery wright didn't even notice wingdings replacing his mathmatics.

Ironically, the theology degree is almost certainly the fakest of them all. It looks like the situation there was that he wanted varrious masters degrees for self promotion purposes and learned that his crackerjack school would grant credit for IT certificates (which are done via computer based testing, which presumably he cheated at). But a problem he should have faced there is that he had no undergraduate degree to meet the prerequisites. So he cooked up a fake theology degree because who the heck is going to check on that?


I think harassment and intimidation is clearly a primary motivation-- he's pretty much said so himself in some of his more unhinged rants on his public slack (during hodl he was falsely alleging that the slack was private: Not so, not any more than a newspaper you have to pay for a subscription to is private).

Mr. Wright himself must know that he has zero chance in court-- even where he might have the chance of a massively confused court he manages to submit enough easily beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-provable-forgeries that his eventual loss is guaranteed.   But the same may not be true for the people financing him (and paying for his lifestyle).  I think it's likely that he's suckered various high-wealth-low-scruples people into thinking that they're going to "won all the cases" and get a jackpot of tens of billions of dollars.

It's really just a new take on a very classic con:  I convince you that I'm a card hustling savant but down on my luck because I got caught by the last casino (AU tax office) and now I can't finance my big comeback. The mark gets the idea of financing me so I can take down the big win (convince some court to magically award Satoshis Bitcoin), and I accept a split with the mark.  I pretend to work with the mark to get the big score, but I'm really just pocketing as much of the mark's money as I can while I keep dragging out the conclusion.   The fact that I can use the process to harass and intimidate anyone who gets in my way is just a super bonus.

God knows what they could pull off if they really did manage to silence and intimidate everyone.

Before being the target of litigation I really didn't appreciate how taxing it is.  Especially being in a prolonged situation where you can count on any word you speak being heavily misconstrued, where you have no hope of a gain only a hope of minimizing losses,  where your future schedule is dictated by what is by all appearances an organized crime group directed by a madman. Where you don't know if you will be hit with millions of dollars in costs if donors run into issues or be forced to abandon a competent defense if you can't pay them. Lately they've been trying like hell to silence me off the internet completely.

It's like how people romanticize war, but war is not romantic-- it's hell.  While I'm sure being the target of litigation is not comparable to war,  there are some similarities-- your future being taken out of your hands, the constant powerless *waiting* for the next disaster to strike commanding a immediate emergency response, and the fact that any misstep could guarantee your loss, even against a generally incompetent opponent. Lots of people want to help but there is really little anyone else can do except sending supplies... And while normally litigation doesn't involve the risk of death, when dealing with a criminal cartel that thinks you're in the way of billions of dollars in profit that risk can't be discounted completely (certainly there have been enough threats, including by wright himself).





FWIW, I was on the webex for most of the trial and so I directly heard all the parts in English --there were quite a few that haven't been published-- and had some other translation of much of the rest.  Based on the twitter feeds I think Hodlo's position is looking good, but my impression from the trial was even stronger.  There were a number of cases where I was disappointed to not hear Holdonaut's lawyer press a witness only for the *judge* to turn around and do so.

There were a number of cases of perjury that should be prosecutable but experience says that just won't happen.

In general the Norwegian courts came across as very ... soft. Not pressing witnesses into corners when it seemed likely that doing so would yield an admission or a contradiction,  I guess we'll see if that translates into an equally soft rulings.  The judge very much was paying attention and asked many highly intelligent questions.

They will take money from the rubes on twitter for sure-- but most of those folks aren't a rounding error in terms of the cost of their litigation. They are spending many millions on litigation.  Do the math on what they're likely getting from the rabble.  Pretending to just be trolls that want attention is part of the disguise that creates an ineffective response to the attack.

It's largely because of the basic egoistic nature of most people being too proud and arrogant to admit that they were in the wrong, so in order to hide that, they make nonsensical excuses which lead to more nonsensical theories and so on.