and no cobra does not need to reveal himself..
much like "government" has representatives(solicitors/lawyers/prosecutors) cobra does not need to personally turn up, he can just send a representative.. much like how gmax(and other devs) didnt need to attend or fight the case in the UK for the COPA vs CSW. instead they hired solicitors to stand in court
when any business is sued, the ceo does not need to attend
There's more to remaining anonymous than simply not needing to show up in court.
In order to hire representation, he probably needs to identify himself to his solicitors. Additionally, my understanding is that, even if sealed by the court, his identity would still be revealed to the court in order for the litigation to proceed. The suit may also involve discovery of documents that will tie his identity to his nym. All of these things could happen that would result in him revealing his identity to someone else, none of which requires actually showing up in person to court.
If it were possible for Cobra to have representation while remaining anonymous, I believe that is what would've happened when the original lawsuit against him was brought. The judgement against him is a default judgement because he refused to defend since doing so would reveal his identity.
wrong
it seemed more of a matter that he didnt want to FUND a lawyer but then if representing himself(avoid expenses) would involve revealing himself..
theres a difference
the case against bitcoin.org was not a case against a named person. so cobra could have hired anyone he wants without revealing himself
anyone could have been c0bra
all he has to do is on the website announce his representative for the site is [insert representative] and the courts would see that as valid proof of who represents the site
many websites do this. many brands do it too. courts do not go through whole processes of investigating that stuff
cobra could even say "for all legal enquiries or actions please contact [representative]"
lawyers dont need to meetup and ask for identity of their clients. they form a contract revolving money as the retainer not their clients identity
this is how businesses and governments operate..
after all when government representatives defend the government.. ask the question "WHO IS GOVERNMENT"
give me the single name and birthdate of "government" which government lawyers need to hand to the courts
same goes for trusts, foundations an corporations
..
although CSW named lots of devs in the 'btc core claim'.. guess who turned up to defend it(as official defendants):
Defendants in the BTC Core Claim
JONATHAN HOUGH KC, JONATHAN MOSS (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP)
and TRISTAN SHERLIKER (of Bird & Bird LLP) appeared for COPA.
LORD GRABINER KC, CRAIG ORR KC, MEHDI BAIOU, TIMOTHY
GOLDFARB and RICHARD GREENBERG (instructed by Shoosmiths LLP)
appeared for Dr Wright.
ALEX GUNNING KC and BETH COLLETT (instructed by Macfarlanes LLP)
appeared for the Developers in the BTC Core Claim (Defendants 2-12, 14 & 15).
TERENCE BERGIN KC and JACK CASTLE (instructed by Harcus Parker LLP)
made brief submissions on behalf of the Claimants in the BTC Core Claim
note no devs are named officially
