Upcoming Kleiman vs. Wright VerdictTM: Satoshi Trial Recap in Florida Day 15

The Kleiman v Wright trial is coming to an end and we could be within 24 business hours of a verdict. The courtroom reached capacity as spectators, media representatives, lawyers and interns eagerly watched the two legal advisers deliver their closing arguments. Many people even expected the jury to deliver a verdict on Tuesday, but at the end of the day, the jury still hadn’t come back with their decision.

Freedman’s argument

Plaintiffs’ attorney, Vel Freedman, delivered the first argument of the day. Freedman’s argument highlighted all of the key points that the plaintiffs wanted the court to observe from their case. He began by telling the court what the plaintiffs were seeking to get out of the case: half of the 1.1 million Bitcoin that Dave Kleiman and Dr Craig S. Wright are said to have mined together.

Freedman argued that Dr Wright told NSW Police that he and Dave Kleiman had been working on Bitcoin since 2004. That Dr Wright forged Dave Kleiman’s signature to fraudulently transfer assets that belonged to Dave Kleiman to himself, and that Dr. Wright falsified documents he submitted to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and his lawyers.

Freedman emphasized the idea that the law does not require a written agreement for a partnership to be formed, and all that is needed for a partnership is a common goal, common interest or owner, and joint control over the partnership. . Plaintiff’s lawyer also argued that a partnership also does not require formal registration documents, then cited Lynn Wright’s testimony in which she said that Dr Wright often does business informally. and that the only time she had seen him pull out formal documents for business was when working with lawyers and recruiting new employees.

Freedman has tried to highlight the idea that Dave Kleiman and Dr Wright intentionally operated in secrecy, and this is another reason there isn’t a great paper trail. Freedman said that Dr Wright and Dave Kleiman deliberately suppressed all evidence of Bitcoin’s creation and cited a lot of evidence that implied Dr Wright and Dave Kleiman teamed up.

Freedman then questioned Dr Wright’s autism diagnosis and said it was strange that Dr Wright was diagnosed with autism at the age of 50 and found it interesting that the doctor who made the diagnosis was paid a significant sum of money by the defendant’s lawyer to work for the case.

As Freedman concluded his argument, he explained to the jury how he wanted them to answer each of the questions on the jury’s verdict form. Interestingly, Freedman introduced Dr. Wright’s IP assessment at this point, a topic that was barely discussed during the 15 days of the trial. Freedman argued that since Dr. Wright’s intellectual property is worth $ 252 billion, Dave Kleiman should be entitled to half that amount, raising the stakes involved in this case from $ 33 billion to around $ 150 billion.

To close his argument, Freedman reminded the jury that they were deliberating whether Dave Kleiman and Dr Wright had a partnership in which they mined 1.1 million Bitcoin together and whether Dr Wright stole property from Dave.

Rivero’s plea

Defense attorney, Andres Rivero, began his argument by subtly pointing out that plaintiffs are relying on evidence they say Dr. Wright falsified or lied; and for this reason, the plaintiffs have built their case on quicksand.

Rivero then reminded the jury that they were deliberating on whether or not Dave Kleiman and Dr Wright had a partnership to invent Bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto and mine Bitcoin; then reminded the court that Dr Wright and Dave Kleiman did not have a partnership before the formation of W&K Info Research Defense LLC.

Rivero referred to the many testimonies in which witnesses said they never heard Dave Kleiman say anything about Bitcoin, Bitcoin mining, or partnering with Dr. Wright on issues related to Bitcoin.

He also pointed out that none of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs – other than the email correspondence in which Dr. Wright asks Dave to modify the Bitcoin white paper – was produced before Dave Kleiman’s death; and that the most significant evidence would probably come from when Dave was still alive.

As Rivero began to conclude his final statement, he claimed that Dave Kleiman was too ill to perform the maintenance required on a large-scale mining operation; and that for a partnership to exist, the ownership and percentage of ownership between the partners must be clear.

Freedman’s rebuttal

Freedman had a very short rebuttal to Rivero’s closing argument. Freedman told the court that Dr Wright is a multi-billionaire. Then he called back to the court – and ended his rebuttal – saying that Dave Kleiman and Dr Wright deliberately kept Bitcoin-related issues secret, then cited a lot of evidence presented in court that allegedly implied Dave Kleiman and Dr. Wright intentionally operated in secrecy.

Pat’s opinion

Each of the closing arguments highlighted the key points that each legal advisor set out to show to the court throughout their case.

Vel Freedman’s closing argument was very strong and was backed by a great presentation and a compelling presentation. His main ideas were that Dr Wright is not a credible person, that he falsified many documents, and that Dr Wright and Dave had a secret partnership in which they did work related to Bitcoin.

Rivero’s closing argument was OK; it was very factual, he presented solid information, but the delivery was very sloppy and the Rivero team struggled with the technical side of their presentation which had a noticeable impact on what was Rivero and was unable to show the jury. To add insult to injury, Rivero spilled a glass of water over his presentation notes as he approached the microphone.

The main points of Rivero were that there is no evidence or document explicitly stating that Dr Wright and Dave Kleiman had a partnership in which they worked together on issues related to Bitcoin, that several pieces of evidence and testimony support this. assertion, and that the complainants are relying on the documents they believe to be fraudulent and, therefore, are in fact damaging their own case.

Having heard both pleadings, my personal conviction is that the plaintiffs are a little more successful than the defense. However, I don’t think there is a clear winner yet; what supports this idea is that the jury was not able to render a verdict today, which suggests to me that there was not a complete consensus on what the verdict should be.

The jury is expected to deliver a verdict on Monday, November 29.

CoinGeek features Kurt Wuckert Jr. in a recap coverage that will be broadcast live daily at 6:30 p.m. EST on our YouTube channel.

Watch our Special Report from Day 15 of the Kleiman v Wright trial here:

Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube Playlist.

New to Bitcoin? Discover CoinGeek Bitcoin for beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learning more about Bitcoin — as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto — and the blockchain.

Source link

About the author