Archiwum artykułów

Biografia Jesse LIVERMORE

19 kwietnia 2021

[ENG] Kleiman vs Wright – chronological story of Satoshi Nakamoto.

** This article will be updated regularly
** Last updated 03/05/2021

– Could you please tell me which way I should go?
– It depends a lot on where you want to go
– Actually, I don’t care
– Then it doesn’t matter which way you go
– I’d just like to get somewhere
– Ah, you will definitely get there, if you only walk long enough ..

I begin this post after I spent over 300 hours analyzing the public – released by the District Court of the South Florida District – materials from the case no. 18-cv-80176 by Ira Kleiman, the alleged heir of my brother – Dave Kleiman.
Despite many theories, discussions and conducted ‘internet’ investigations in search of the creator of Bitcoin, I decided to devote my time, which no one will return to me, to collect all this various information into one chronological whole.
Contrary to appearances, this case contains a lot of valuable information.
Now that I have a huge fact sheet in front of me, and in my head I have accumulated knowledge and knowledge about things that even seemed trivial to put them there, I can finally express my own opinion that yes .. I’m sure .. and I know who is Satoshi Nakamoto.

From this article, or rather from the data shared later, you will learn that Satoshi looked far ahead on how to secure, scale and use Bitcoin to become not only a global electronic cash system.
And it really doesn’t matter that most say otherwise .. it really doesn’t matter at this point ..
Someone gets in, someone gets out and the car goes on …

Even before you start reading the file that I have prepared and that will appear in the near future (I want you not to get lost in the maze of information and data), I will present you a brief background and the essence of the whole process.

You must be aware that the trial 9: 18-cv-80176 (Kleiman vs Wright) is a civil proceeding and NOT a criminal proceeding.
Civil proceedings are initiated by filing a statement of claim, and the entire burden of proof rests with the claimant, but .. there is no pre-trial investigation (unlike criminal proceedings) preceding the entire case before the court. This is a big difference, because in the preparatory proceedings many activities are carried out, which determine in the first place whether the prohibited act was committed and if so, whether it constitutes a crime. Preliminary proceedings are carried out by law enforcement agencies, eg the Police, during many activities ALL witnesses are interviewed, not selected witnesses, evidence and / or forensic traces are secured, but most importantly, the case is thoroughly explained, regardless of its size or time.
In a civil trial, all circumstances are not explained “comprehensively”, and the parties to the trial arbitrarily juggle the evidence, just so quickly I would summarize these differences; although I am referring to the Polish course of proceedings, I think that in this context it does not differ much from the American one.

Why am I writing about this? Don’t you recall the headlines of articles in which Dr. Craig Wright was called “Faketoshi”, “cheater”, “counterfeiter”?
First – since it was so obvious already in 2016. after its public disclosure, and then for 2 years (until 2018 – filing a lawsuit), every single quote, every publication was ubiquitously questioned and every speech and entry was mocked.
Second – since Ira (Dave’s brother) already in 2014 had knowledge of the existence of discrepancies in the documents of W&K Info Defense and the forging of the ownership transfer agreement is …

WHY has no criminal complaint been filed?

Instead, we have initiated a civil lawsuit with a huge entity that manages almost unlimited capital that finances litigation.
At this point, it is also important to bear in mind what the US lawsuits look like, and although many of them end in a settlement, the way in which conclusions are drawn has been deeply entrenched there in the way trials are conducted.

If you were to remember any US lawsuit so quickly, even from the movie, how do you imagine it? What image do you have in mind?
A full room of bystanders, cameras and attorneys in unbuttoned jackets, their hands in their pockets, torpedoing witnesses with uncomfortable questions? Isn’t it a bit like a show?
The show here results from a different model of adjudication, or to be more precise, from the adversarial principle used in the American judiciary, or simply speaking – the presence of a jury.
And although I could write a lot about it, I want you to understand that the “theatrical tricks” of lawyers are to make the greatest possible impression at the court and jury.
And the jurors? Well .. the jurors are selected from among ordinary citizens.
As for the “tricks” themselves, this is a deeper psychology that we usually ignore.
If you started reading the official trial documents yourself, you would notice how many conclusions from Ira’s attorneys include duplicate sentences “turned out to be false”, “falsified”, etc.
What do you think is underlined so much?
And what will be like during the trial, the panel of defendants repeatedly hearing the word “fake” – how will it affect them in the context of the assessment of Craig Wright? 😉

But it doesn’t really matter.
When reading what I have prepared, try to keep an open mind ..
Pay attention to the nuances, look for hidden intentions – who will gain and who will lose – and you will see whether what you have read about the case so far is true, a fraction of the truth or a twisted truth …
I tried to do it carefully, but I might have missed something as well.


In closing ..
Look for external links and links in this article, where I invite you to read a summary of the case, pleadings, testimony, e-mails and correspondence.
The data will be arranged in strict chronology, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute.
The material contains ONLY case data.
There may be times when you lose a thread, but this is because not everything has been made publicly available by the court and simply .. not everything has been made available by the parties to the dispute, but despite this, there is a wide range of information.
If the material will be read in audio form, the author will explain the ambiguities himself.

If the wording includes the words “reason”, “reasons”, “Ira” – I am simply referring to one side of the dispute – Ira Kleiman.
If the wording includes the word “defendant”, “CSW” – I am referring to the other side of the dispute – Craig Wright.
If the content in a cell is contained in a “quote” – it is a quotation from the case file.
In some cells there are hyperlinks that lead to selected poems, correspondence and testimonies, so that you can be aware if the thing is consistent and has appeared in the past.
Some of the content of the testimonies has been edited to contain a logical whole:e.g.
– If the attorney asked – “Did you know Dave”
– and the witness replied – “Yes”
I wrote it down – “Yes, I knew Dave”

You’ll see a wider context for the whole story!

And you will check for yourself where the rabbit hole leads …

*** One project has been completed and is only awaiting publication in due time.

The evidence materials gave me fuel for my next project:
“Analysis of the BTC flow between the addresses in the case
Ira Kleiman vs Craig S. Wright “

  • At the moment I have over a dozen thousand transactions, in which there are addresses of people and exchanges that you probably read about;
  • 93 established wallets with a positive balance of X BTC;
  • transaction numbers from which the payment was made to known exchanges (even in 2021);
  • associated BTC addresses with @WhaleAlert account messages;
  • many other ambiguities and a lot of work ahead of me ..

But for that, i need motivation …
BSV — > 1GEBug4eMotxK38jZzwg3epgdPmjh2aMq5