On November 1, the latest court document in David Kleinman v. Craig Wright (CSW) showed that the CW, who claimed to be the Bitcoin creator, told the plaintiff that he could not pay 500,000 bitcoins ($4.5 billion) in settlement fees .
In view of the earlier settlement of the case, the plaintiff stopped the lawsuit and began to focus on the settlement process, extending the deadline to the end of October at the request of CSW. Afterwards, CSW was accused of violating the settlement agreement:
- Central Bank Governor Yi Gang: There is no timetable for the launch of digital currency (with full text of the speech)
- World Blockchain Conference · Wuzhen second batch of surrounding activities exposed, want to give a ticket to see here!
- Funds Fair Win and imitation led to the congestion of Ethereum in the past few days, and the number of confirmed transactions was as high as 120,000.
- Xiao Lei: Why do the two central banks around the world propose to fight for digital currency leadership
- Viewpoint | Is Bitcoin a macro hedging tool?
- Bitcoin Investment God: How to quickly filter out 1% of valuable tokens
"On October 30, without any prior notice, the plaintiff was informed that Craig would no longer fund the settlement and was 'violation' of the non-binding settlement agreement."
The court documents issued this time are the accelerative motion of the plaintiff requesting the revocation of the foreign witnesses. The testimony pointed out that in September, the plaintiff discussed a settlement agreement with CSW, stating that his statement implied that he had the ability to pay these fees.
Therefore, as the CSW violated the settlement agreement, the plaintiff resumed the lawsuit.
The plaintiff contacted James Wilson, CFO of the company in 2013 and 2012. “Dave is still alive during this time, and Craig claims that he sold his company’s shares to Dave in exchange for a large Bitcoin."
On October 31, Wilson expressed his willingness to travel to Washington, DC, to testify on November 8. On the other hand, the defense lawyers said they would not agree to Wilson's testimony on the above date. The plaintiff pointed out in the document:
"According to local regulations, a party must be notified seven days in advance in Florida, but must be notified 14 days in advance to appear outside the state."
To this end, the plaintiff asked the defendant and Wilson to obtain a permit to appear in court through a video conference and to complete the testimony within 14 days – according to the court's approval, this was earlier than the local time.
Defence lawyers need to respond to next week's approval of the video testimony. The court has issued an order requiring CSW to respond before tomorrow, and the time is urgent.
It is almost impossible for CSW's lawyers to convince the judge to refuse Wilson's testimony.
Remind that the magistrate and the magistrate in charge of the case have repeatedly pointed out that the CSW has perjury and he has been severely punished. If the case really enters the trial, he can hardly defend himself. In particular, the court stated that CSW “deliberately submits fraudulent documents to the courts, obstructs judicial proceedings and provides perjury. This is a complete violation of the judicial system.”
So, for CSW, the case will be worse than before, almost unimaginably bad. He is now angering everyone, including two federal judges, and maybe even his own lawyer. He has to pay a fine, and there is hardly any good defense.
However, the plaintiff did have tactical problems – if they really won the case, the probability is 97%, they still have to work hard on the verdict. Therefore, for them, reconciliation through negotiations is still better than going around for a favorable judgment.
