Craig Steven Wright’s Attorney Denies COPA Injunction In Satoshi Nakamoto Case

by

As an experienced legal analyst, I find this case intriguing due to its complexities and far-reaching implications in the world of cryptocurrency. Craig Steven Wright’s (CSW) persistent claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto have resulted in significant financial and personal consequences for individuals like Peter McCormack and Hodlonaut.

As an analyst, I would recount the events by saying: On the 7th of June, 2024, in a crowded courtroom, I found myself facing a hearing where I, Craig Steven Wright (CSW), was required to address potential injunctions and orders following my losses in several legal disputes. The hearing was led by Jonathan Hough KC, who represented the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance (COPA). In the course of the proceedings, four distinct claims were presented: the COPA claim, the BTC Core claim, the Coinbase claim, and the Tulip Trading claim.

Hough KC Argues For Injunction Against CSW

As an analyst, I cannot help but emphasize the significant costs and personal repercussions that CSW’s actions have entailed. Not only did these events come with a hefty price tag of over 10 million pounds to untangle Wright’s deceptions, but they also took a heavy toll on two prominent figures, Peter McCormack and Hodlonaut, who dared to challenge his claims.

COPA’s Hough pointed out that McCormack experienced stress-related heart problems and hospitalizations, whereas Hodlonaut was subjected to surveillance and faced threats. Moreover, Hodlonaut was compelled to resign from his teaching position, which in turn affected his young daughter.

As a crypto investor, I can tell you that the actions of CSW and Calvin Ayre drastically disrupted the lives of many people in our community. Furthermore, I’ve personally encountered menacing messages from them. One message stood out, where Calvin Ayre taunted, “all it takes is one troll to sway a judge… just waiting for a volunteer to bankrupt themselves trying to prove a negative.”

Additionally, the preliminary decision by COPA suggested that the CSW team should abandon any legal efforts. This is aimed at preventing Wright from making further claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto in courts around the world.

During this period, CSW’s legal team, headed by Craig Orr KC, aimed to modify “pursue” to “initiate” in order to enable Wright to mount a defense. Hough KC cautioned that such a modification could create an opportunity for a favorable party to instigate legal action against Wright and revisit the matter.

Legal Team Of Craig Steven Wright Counters Injunction

Orr argued that Wright’s claim to be Satoshi, regardless of its truthfulness, is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. He insisted that Wright’s belief in being Satoshi should be recognized and respected. However, Hough countered by reminding the court of the previous finding that Wright had knowingly misrepresented himself as Satoshi.

He added that the proposed order didn’t restrict Wright from voicing similar assertions in private settings. Instead, it targeted his public declarations. The discussion also touched upon the challenge of expunging Wright’s past statements from publicly available records, considered an unrealistic and laborious endeavor.

KC Hough acknowledged the difficulty but believed it would be a smaller hardship compared to the harm inflicted upon McCormack and Hodlonaut. COPA attempted to order Wright to publicize the court’s decisions on Twitter, Slack, his website, and in The Times newspaper, with these publications remaining accessible for six months.

Further, they advocated for the investigation and possible charges against Wright, Stefen Matthews, and Robert Jenkins based on substantial proof of perjury and document falsification. Nevertheless, Orr KC contended that the court’s revelations had already gained significant exposure through reputable media outlets like the Financial Times and the New York Times.

Wright’s lawyer argued against COPA’s intentions, stating, “COPA aims for extensive decrees to prevent CSW from repeating past litigation. However, COPA’s actions stem from a thirst for retaliation and a need to inflict punishment and humiliation on CSW. Such behavior is unjustified.” Additionally, Wright’s legal representative emphasized that COPA had not experienced any tangible harm.

I’d rephrase it as follows: “I want to clarify that I am not Satoshi, and I never claimed intellectual property rights over Bitcoin. My IP rights have not been infringed upon, and neither have I been defamed nor are the developers. The relief requested by me is quite extensive, innovative, and uncharted territory in crypto law.”

Read More

2024-06-07 17:10