Monday is usually the worst day of the week for every working person (except in UAE) but we cannot help but smile when we see our favorite saga still has a lot of seasons ahead. And no, we’re not talking about Games of Thrones people, even though the name suits it perfectly.
Of course, it’s all about our favorite negative character, kind of a Batman’s “Joker” – Craig Wright. So, last week we wrote of how, among all the lawsuits with which he showered his opponents, Craig is under one as well. And it’s a multi-billion dollar big.
Now, The United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida issued an order on May 3 requiring self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto Craig Wright to produce a list of his public Bitcoin (BTC) addresses.
The court order in the case of the estate of Dave Kleiman vs Craig Wright was in response to the following request from the Kleiman estate:
“The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the following additional discovery: (1) make Dr. Wright produce the list of bitcoins owned as of December 31,2013; (2) make Dr. Wright identify all bitcoins he transferred to the blind trust in 2011; (3) make Dr. Wright produce documents related to the blind trust; (4) make Dr. Wright identify, under oath, the identity of the current and past trustees of the blind trust, the beneficiaries of the blind trust, and the manner in which the bitcoins were transferred to the blind trust; and (5) permit further deposition of Dr. Wright with regard to his ownership and control over bitcoins. DE 162 at 5-6. The Court finds that this additional discovery is warranted.”
The “sua sponte”, or spontaneous, order means that the court is not moved by Wright’s argument that he cannot obtain the information, which he claims is controlled by a blind trust.
As a result, the court required that:
“On or before May 15, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Dr. Wright shall produce all transactional records of the blind trust, including but not limited to any records reflecting the transfer of bitcoin into the blind trust in or about 2011. The production shall be accompanied by a sworn declaration of authenticity.”
Wright added that to produce a list of his Bitcoin holdings would be “unduly burdensome”, however, the same is “not supported by facts” states the order.
The court document reads:
“In essence, he does not argue undue burden, he argues impossibility. The argument that Dr. Wright is incapable of providing an accurate listing of his current or historical bitcoin holdings was never presented in any of the prior hearings before this Court, when the Court was crafting the scope of discovery.”
Someone would think that, if he is really Satoshi Nakamoto, Wright would provide us with proof in a blink of an eye. However, it seems that “Fake Satoshi” doesn’t have that Joker smile on his face anymore. Bare in mind, last time on the court, there was an email submitted where Wright asserts invalidates Kleiman’s claim to W&K assets.
After Vitalik, Wright is Suing Roger Ver
Last month, Wright’s lawyers had sent a Letter of Claim to co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, asking him to retract defamatory comments made against Dr. Wright, publicly apologize, and admit to the truth that Wright was the creator of Bitcoin and the man behind the pseudonymous name Satoshi Nakamoto. However, Buterin didn’t respond to legal Letter of Claim and now could face High Court of Justice. As if.
Latest victim, who exclusively confirmed to Coinspeaker that “he knows Wright is going to sue him” is Bitcoin Cash supporter Roger Ver.
Last week Ver received legal documentation from Craig Wright’s reps at a London crypto social event, which was meant to be an informal meeting but ended with receiving a claim for libel.
Craig Wright made his accusation of libel towards Ver on the basis of a video. It was initially posted on April 15 and titled “Special Message to Craig Wright”. As per pro-Wright website CoinGeek, Ver’s exact words were “Craig Wright is a liar and a fraud. So sue me. Again.”
Since Ver decided not to hold a pinky with Wright, he was also presented with the libel claim. requiring apologies and a compensation totalling £100,000 and a prohibition to prevent Ver from making any further allegations. As if.