Business

Kleiman v Wright Day 10: Plaintiff Rests Their Case, Defense’s First Expert Witness Takes Stand

It is day 10 of the Kleiman v Wright civil trial, and after a cross-examination by the defense of expert witness on forged electronic messages Dr. Matthew Edman and a redirect by counsel to the plaintiff Kyle Roche, the plaintiff finally rests their case.

The plaintiff in this controversial case is Ira Kleiman, who is representing his brother David Kleiman’s estate and W&K Info Defense Research, LLC. Ira Kleiman is alleging that David Kleiman was Craig Wright’s co-author as Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin white paper and that the two men mined 1.1 million Bitcoin through a business partnership in W&K Info Defense Research, LLC.

The 1.1 million coins in question are now worth over $66 billion, and the plaintiff is demanding at least $11.5 billion or the value of up to half of the said coins, plus punitive damages. The lawsuit rests on the assumption that Wright makes up at least half of the identity behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto and that he now has in his possession all 1.1 million Bitcoin.

The defense’s argument lies in the fact that there is no proof that Wright and David Kleiman co-wrote the Bitcoin white paper together; there is no evidence of a written or verbal agreement that states that Wright and David Kleiman mined the Satoshi coins together in a business partnership; and W&K Info Defense Research, LLC, in fact, was not used to mine Bitcoin—which can be verified since all of the plaintiff’s evidence and witnesses have already been presented.

 

Due to the overall lack of slam-dunk evidence that would 100% prove their allegations, the plaintiff is now relying on discrediting Wright and establishing him as a serial forger. Dr. Edman has been called in for this particular purpose, testifying that a total of 40 emails, PGP messages and Bitmessages exchanged between David Kleiman and Wright have been forged.

During the cross-examination, defense counsel Andres Rivero makes some interesting points. First, Dr. Edman admits to the plaintiff providing him with these 40 pre-selected electronic messages to check for forgery and that he found all of them to be forged. What are the chances that all 40 pieces of evidence submitted by the plaintiff to Dr. Edman were forged?

Second, there is no way to verify that it was Wright who actually forged the emails. It could be anyone who had access to the alleged forged messages. For instance, Ira Kleiman still has access to his brother’s email until now.

Third, Dr. Edman actually has no formal or official certification or credential in recognizing and identifying forgery in documents. Rivero then proceeds to clearly state that Dr. Edman, in fact, is an expert witness being paid $560 per hour to testify for the plaintiff.

And last and the most suspicious of all, is that some of the documents being alleged as forged by Dr. Edman invalidate are actually some of the more compelling pieces of evidence the plaintiff has presented in court.

“It is confirmed that I have B[itcoin] 320,832.1 and change. As agreed, I will not tell you who the others I have used here in the U.S are,” one of the alleged forged emails from David Kleiman read.

What could be the motive behind this act, considering the plaintiff is already working on a glaring lack of evidence? It is a mystery that may be answered in the plaintiff’s closing statement.

Whatever the case, it seems that the plaintiff is grasping at straws in attacking Wright’s credibility through these forged messages, which Wright adamantly claims to not have forged. Even if Wright was indeed a serial forger, as the plaintiff wanted to establish, it is still a far cry to proving that David Kleiman co-wrote the Bitcoin white paper with Wright and that the two mined the Satoshi coins together.

After Dr. Edman finished his testimony, the defense calls in its first witness, blockchain expert Kevin Madura, who is examined by lawyer Zalman Kass. Like supposed Bitcoin expert Andreas Antonopoulos did for the plaintiff, Madura begins to explain to the jury the history of Bitcoin and how it works.

What stood out the most so far with Madura’s testimony is him clearly stating that the creator of Bitcoin was “a sophisticated coder” and that after learning about David Kleiman, he was not that sophisticated coder.

“Did you see any evidence that Dave Kleiman knew how to Code,” Kass asked.

“No,” Madura replied.

It must be pointed out that while David Kleiman had no formal education or certification in C++ programming language that was used to code Bitcoin, Wright is actually a professor of C++ programming at university level.

The court session ends with Madura being on the stand for a mere 20 minutes. His testimony will continue tomorrow.

As the defense begins to build its argument against the plaintiff, many are at the edge of their seats expecting for bombshell evidence that will prove that Wright alone is Satoshi Nakamoto and that Wright alone created Bitcoin.

Many are even expecting the Satoshi coins to be publicly moved by Wright in order to prove that Satoshi Nakamoto is none other than himself. Whether or not he will actually do it, everyone can only wait and see for now.

 

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button