Thread by @kurtwuckertjr

Granath VS Wright Day 🚨SIX🚨 Master Thread.

#ManVsCat

PLEASE RETWEET. I'll be live tweeting as it happens today.

🧵👇

Gregory Maxwell already Zooming, looming, judging us all.

Judge and Cat Attny discussing "certain things" that are missing in Wright's documents, and a "key witness."

Mans: We spoke with Team Cat yesterday afternoon, and this wasn't brought up. There's been 3.5 years of case prep, and a deadline of 23 August.

This Peter Todd Twitter material was presented too late already, and this tweet from Justin Trammel where he disagrees with CSW testimony - he had problems with the code, and he mentioned "Hal, Dilinger, and *later on* Justin Trammel." This was after the genesis block.

If you see the Civil Dispute Act, we are after the opening, statements, most witnesses... There is no longer the opportunity to present new evidence. In our experience, the opposing party is using almost exclusively the internet. They can't just grab new evidence from twitter...

Judge: I'm going to check the prevision [of the law.]
Cat Attny: I totally agree with the basic point. We spoke yesterday, but the evidence shows that there was an incorrect statement. I couldn't know this would come up.

Judge: This is WAAAY too late. I understand why Manshaus is annoyed. I am going to admit it because it was caused by his statement, but I will NOT allow the witness to testify. If this witness was important, it should have been admitted before.

Mans: This really shouldn't be included.
Cat Attny: There's a lack of evidence submitted.
Judge: The gap we need to close is "why?" CSW's tone on twitter has to Todd[ler]. Trammel has to do with something from court.
Mans: Object all you want, but this is their fault

Mans: Todd tweet is from years ago, for example.
Judge: We're not admitting that. We will allow CSW the ability to comment if desired. Maybe we should do this first. Court order will be entered. Also, I will close the video conference if people don't mute.

Cat Attny: Attaching muh tweets. Bringing it up on screen. [discussing why black box is in the Todd tweets...]

CSW response on Twitter: "Screw you toddler" to a tweet saying "Satoshi had brilliant ideas, they also had ideas that haven't worked out..."

Judge: Are we ready now?

Judge: For the witness, please.
Witness Thomas from BDO.

[takes oath]

Mans: What is BDO?
Tom: Fairly similar to KPMG. Audit, digital forensics, investigation, consulting...
Mans: Your background?
Tom: IT and special investigator police, electronic evidence work in private sector. BDO for 8 years..

Mans: You're critical to KPMG's methods. What is the formal certification for this sort of work?
Tom: Internationally, yes, but in Norway, there aren't quality standard enforced, so there are no requirements for any certification or standards of this work.

Mans: I remember writing lab reports when in school, is that what is standardized internationally?
Tom: Yes, it's important to have information about the tools, testing environment, etc... ISO certification exists, but isn't well established here.
Mans: In your report, it's...

...not possible to prove what KPMG says they proved. Is this accurate?
BDO: Their report is extensive and complex, but in general their methods weren't documented, so we don't know that they can be controlled. This is insufficient.
Mans: You listened to their testimony?
BDO: Yes

Mans: Is CSW a normal user based on what you heard?
BDO: I don't know CSW, but he's clearly very high tech, high certified, credentialed. We shouldn't expect that his environment is "normal." We know he was using multiple operating systems, so his info is complex.

Mans: In Windows, there's Word and Open Office, and then in Linux, there's other word processors. What does this indicate?
BDO: If you only move files without opening, the metadata will mostly be kept, but if you open them, save again, the metadata will change over time.

Judge: What happens if you open files in different programs and operating systems? What about errors and unexpected behavior?
BDO: Things can change in unpredictable ways.
Judge: Inexplicable errors?
BDO: Not in a rigorous testing environment.

Judge: So you're saying that it's not a given that the metadata will show exactly what was done unless it's in a controlled environment? We CAN'T verify?
BDO: There are traces, usually, but it isn't a given that the data will all be there.
Mans: What if you only use 1 system?

BDO: Different versions of software still use different amounts and types of metadata.
Mans: If you move a 2008 doc to OpenOffice, will it make a change that muddies this?
BDO: IDK exactly, but it can read all Word doc types, and we should expect the metadata be different.

Mans: We're in 2022. Phones connect to everything, etc... What was 2008 like in regards to interoperability?
BDO: That's a very complex area. Interoperability was worse then, and apps required lots of updates and OSs were in flux, etc...

BDO: Service Pack 2 required some serious software changes, for example.
Mans: These files are 10-12 years old, been on many systems and handled by many people. What should we expect of them when looking this year?
BDO: Based on forensic principles, DNA can't be contaminated..

...same with digital evidence. It needs to be virgin evidence. We don't have control of what happened between then and now.
Mans: On the method, did KPMG's methods impact BDO's ability to work on these files?
BDO: We had a very short window to explain all possible explanations.

It is important to reproduce KPMG's findings, and we have NOT been able to due to the testing environment. We didn't know what apps were used. We weren't able to use 2008 systems, for example...
Mans: No further questions.

Cat Attny: You're critical of KPMG's methods. Can you show us where?
BDO: We're not critical of the whole report. Many of their findings were verified by BDO, but I don't have the report in front of me to show problems with reproducibility.
Cat Attny: You confirm their findings?

BDO: My colleague is the one prepared to discuss these sorts of specifics.
Attny: Moving OS is a major point in your findings?
BDO: It is an example, yes. Opening the file and saving can make these changes, yes. If you open a doc in a new version of Word, it can effect the doc.

Attny: That will impact the doc?
BDO: Yes.
Attny: More details?
BDO: I'm the overview guy, not the detail guy.
Attn: SSRN Doc. Can fonts be changed without changing timestamp? Word vs Acrobat, if last change is 2008, how can newer fonts be in the doc?

BDO: It's an anomaly, as you said, but all possibilities need to be tested, and I can't recreate the environment from their findings.
Attny: You don't have knowledge of what's on pg1388?
BDO: Which part? We couldn't analyze because they didn't document their method.

Attny: Could you recreate the last bullet point?
BDO: Yes.
Attny: Any comments on methods in 1391?
BDO: They probably used a virtual environment to mimic 2008, and so did we. Most of our report does match with KPMG's, but templates couldn't be recreated to verify conclusions.

KPMG guy interjecting [weird]: You said there's a probability that metadata will change from one system to another?
BDO: I said an act must be carried out. Not moving the file.
KPMG: Does anything change just from moving?
BDO: The file system may, and the timestamp.

KPMG: It will change what?
BDO: It will remain largely intact unless an action occurs.

[Why are witnesses allowed to bicker in court? lol]

Mans: Pg 1405 BDO report: Saying "manipulated" implies active change... [translator behind...]

Mans: KPMG can't show that metadata is changed and just conclude that it was done in manipulation. Is this your assessment.
BDO: "Manipulated" is a VERY strong conclusion. Their work MUST remain objective, but their focus has attempted to find manipulation when there...

...could be other explanations. They must report the other possible scenarios and prove that those were not what occurred. They are indicating a human act of manipulations, but they can't do that here.
Attny: 1405, manioulation could be an explanation. What other explanations?

BDO: It's not my place to say, but other explanations should have been examined, period. These files are 14 years old. Many, many things could have happened. They should have noted that foggy history in their assessment that it was manipulated.

Attn: KPMG 1171: 23 day editing time but timestamps don't indicate this. What is that?
BDO: A number of factors could apply.
Attny: Like?
BDO: Any number of issues with clock synchronization, etc...
Judge: Anything else to add?
BDO: No.

Next witness (also BDO) [Switching to English]
"Dashley"[sp?][Oath time]

Mans: Background?
BDO: Masters in cyber forensics. Specialist. In police and university. Then years at BDO.
Mans: Method in KPMG?
BDO: Problematic.
Mans: In the bitcoin.pdf as a reference doc to compare to SSRN, what's the problem?
BDO: We downloaded the file too, but

BDO: Our file had a different hash value even after testing multiple times, so we can't verify that we had the same file.
Mans: Is it possible they'reidentical?
BDO: No, our starting point files MUST be different.That's the purpose of the hash value. We could not find their file.

Mans: Can you tell if the change is big or small?
BDO: Not from the hash, no.
Mans: Does this imply the file on SSRN has changed since KPMG did their report?
BDO: Yes.
Mans: Does the server say it's a new file?
BDO: It shows upload in 2019?
Mans: Could it be?
BDO: No

Mans: How many times downloaded?
BDO: Many.
Mans: So it's been there a while?
BDO: It implies that, yes.
Mans: So is it more likely the file was changed on the server or in KPMG's possession?
BDO: Both plausible, but more likely the change was at KPMG.

Mans: If I was a cop, what else could have happened? Could they have pasted in the wrong hash?
BDO: Yes.
Mans: Could they have opened and stored it wrong?
BDO: Yes.
Mans: Can you conclude anything?
BDO: No, I can but shouldn't speculate. It is simply a different hash value.

Mans: Any other doubts?
BDO: We noted discomfort with continuing with this file at all, but decided to use the contents for further analysis as well, while noting the problem.
Mans: Several files are just scanned files. Is this useful?
BDO: No. Scans only reflect scan data.

Mans: KPMG asking about KPMG 1171 and editing time. they were uncertain about this difference. Can indicate clock manipulation. What did you do with this?
BDO: Simulated 2008 WinXP environment, let it hibernate. We observed a longer than actual editing time on the doc...

BDO: I tried to simulate on Vista with 2007 Word, and hybernation did not do this same thing. I got a strong indication that the OS is a significant factor in this situation.
Mans: So the editing timer doesn't run in one but does in the other?
BDO: Yes.

Mans: Is there a difference in how a laptop vs a desktop might handle this?
BDO: Yes, specifically in regards to hibernation and battery conservation.
Mans: Could manufacturer also be an issue?
BDO: A manufacturer may have additional settings that control their own settings.

Mans: KPMG 1171 period type problem.Your thoughts?
BDO: The Word screenshots show ".m" in 1173, FTK software had a disrepancy, so we dug in. BDO 1397...
Mans: Office 365 shows normal dot m.
BDO: If you opened an old template in a new Word and saved, it would swap out old for new

Mans: So an old Word file opened in new Word version will impact?
BDO: It will change the way the program reads it, yes. Word isn't for forensics. It's for writing. Opening the old doc in new Word, it will not show you what was used. It shows what it WILL use.

Mans: Can a change of template change things like margins, fonts, language, header/footer, etc?
BDO: Templates are there to give default info. They can replaced or edited, or they can be changed through use.
Mans: In 14 years, could these files have been changed this way?

BDO: Yes, if opened and edited, new versions can impact the template.
Mans: KPMG 1219, text file of notes. What format is this?
BDO: Word doc format.
Mans: Fonts in PDF version. Arial and Calibre. Indicates file could have been made later. Help me with this doc.

BDO: I can't say why a PDF is used when the evidence is a Word doc. It is strange to trust the conversion of a doc from Word to PDF and then assume information won't be impacted.
Mans: KPMG 1169, comments?
BDO: It is possible to erase info with OpenOffice, but shoule be some...

...data retention at the OS level.
Mans: Is it normal that there's a black hole here?
BDO: From experience in law enforcement, metadata is usually replace when malicious. Leaving it blank draws more attention.
Mans: KPMG 1177: Total editing time should show last edit not all?

Mans: There was an inconsistency here. Comments?
BDO: I believe the info might reflect hibernation mode.
Mans: In general, how reliable is editing time?
BDO: After investigation, I am unsure that editing time can be trusted unless very carefully analyzed.

Mans: KPMG 1221, were you able to replicate?
BDO: We followed their instructions to convert from PDF to Word, and we couldn't replicate their findings. We checked their screenshots specifically, and couldn't get replicate any of their results.
Mand:
BDO: I don't know.

BDO: It is a simple test. We tried on many systems including the simulated 2008 environment and couldn't do it.
Mans: KPMG 1232, file size discrepancies. Please comment?
BDO: Word files have lots of formatting data and other data. Notepad files are just text.

Mans: KPMG can't see version 344. Why?
BDO: We were noticed this, and tried to identify this version of the software. Can't get it, but can find references to its existence on forums. People refer to it, but weird that it's not visible anywhere.

Mans: No further Qs

Break, and back

Cat Attny: Editing time Q: It's possible to make this hibernation situation occur. The editing time is 3 minutes longer than the created and last change date. Is that possible?
BDO: I didn't test for variables like this.
Attny: Could you hibernate longer than the last change?

BDO: Theoretically, no, but it wasn't checked for.
Attny: So, there's 2 options. Either the clock has been manipulated or it could have been hibernated and displayed a bug?
BDO: Those are 2, but maybe not all.
Attny: These files are old and could have been done. This is active?

BDO: Yes, hypothetically, this could happen to older files.
Attny: Old files don't lose metadata though?
BDO: I can't exclude automated processes like antivirus that could happen, but in theory, they should remain the same.
Attny: BDO 1385, in your opinion, something happened?

Attny: KPMG is more likely to have handled the documented to make the hash change?
BDO: imo, that is more likely than the other options.
Attny: Wayback machine versions has a differences. Does this imply SSRN makes file changes?
BDO: Some, but should be documented and hashed

Attny: BDO says different versions could be uploaded or automated changes could happen.
BDO: I respect KPMG, and several things are possible.
Attny: 1386 the hash was different, but you agree the document is materially the same?
BDO: The text and fonts appear to be the same

BDO: We believed it was suitable enough to analyze.
Attny: BDO confirms KPMG findings on text analysis. Please explain.
BDO: KPMG analyzed fronts and copyrights. We saw the same results as they saw.
Attny: Just some parts had new formats.
BDO: Yes

Attny: You tried to recreate but couldn't?
BDO: We wanted to see if user action could create this. We couldn't recreate this.
Attny: We established this doc contains newer fonts that don't fit. You tried to recreate scenarios. If someone went in and changed text, would that?

BDO: We looked into that, and yes that is a possible explanation.
Attny: The only way?
BDO: Yes, but I must mention that I didn't conduct every action possible in the world.
Attny: You said "when going through SSRN info, we got cross reference stream warning from bitcoinpdf...

...as a test, BDO edited the file with added text, and we got the same warning. The implications are unclear." What does this mean?
BDO: Stream reference isn't quite clear, and we can't be sure what is implied.
Attny: What reasons could exist?
BDO: A great many [paraphrased]

Attny: Copyright issue...
BDO: Copyright, 2009 appears to be embedded into the document but I would think not before 2019.
Attny: Report on pg1389, did you review the references?
BDO: No. Added a note that referenced may have been missing.

Attny: You haven't investigated the reference?
BDO: No
Attny: pg1390, your findings agree with KPMG's report?
BDO: Yes.
Attny: Please explain.
BDO: In regards to font info on Lamda. We had no objection here.
Attny: Date of the fonts too?
BDO: I think this was scanned.

BDO: We can't analyze font data on a scan.
Attny: I understand. Pg, 1392, You confirm KPMG's findings?
BDO: We agree with their factual findings.
Attny: 1393, you agree with KPMG including the font findings?
BDO: Yes
Attny: So this doc matches SSRN?
BDO: I didn't compare.

Attny: Do you know if it includes copyright information from 2009?
BDO: I would have to check.
Attny: Pg 1394, you agree with KPMG?
BDO: Yes.
Attny: This doc was made with software from 2015 on?
BDO: I defer to their report.
Attny: 1395, talk about "dot m" just an error?

Attny: Did you do analysis of the XML files of the doc?
BDO: If it's not in my report, then no.
Attny: KPMG 1174, do these dates make sense?
BDO: This is inconsistent with my expectation.
Attny: pg1401, fair to say you agree with KPMG?
BDO: Yes.
Attny: No vers of calibri?

BDO: Correct, we couldn't find a font that matched.
Attny: 1404, agree with KPMG?
BDO: Yes.
Attny: Checksum consistent with your expectations?
BDO: No. This is inconsistent with expectations.
Attny: 1382, you agree KPMG is generally thorough?
BDO: Overall, yes.

Judge: Anything to add?
BDO: No, this is ok.

Done with witness.

Next witness: Claudia from Cyphor. Cyber and corporate investigator.

[Oath}

Mans: Expert report, additional extract pg 9. Please state experience and background.
Clau: Bachelor in computer forensics. Worked in the field for 5 years. cybercrime investigator.
Mans: What do you do now?
Clau: Investigate and analyze digital evidence.

Mans: What's the difference between Cyphor and KPMG or BDO?
Clau: We ARE ISO certified, so we are externally credentialed in ways they are not.
Mans: What does that mean?
Clau: Our processes are accredited.
Mans: What have you done in this case?
Clau: Review KPMG report...

Clau: Confirm a couple of specifics.
Mans: Any general comments on KPMG's methods?
Clau: Their report is extensive and thorough. They use testing to prove/disprove findings. I note the lack of description of their environment though. I agree with BDO, testing requires...

...that they should try to recreate the environment.
Mans: Was the environment satisfactory, to you?
Clau: I didn't see adequate description of their environment.
Mans: Do they provide info to assess?
Clau: Not in my opinion.
Mans: would cyphor do this differenly?
Clau: yes

Mans: is this a formality or crucial?
Clau: Environment is VERY important in reporting on forensics. Recreation is a crucial part of reporting.
Mans: Hal Finney said his vers of bitcoin crashed. What's that about?
Clau: SN and Hal emailed saying vers 0.1.0 crashed...

...on WinXP SP3, but SN says SP2 worked. Software has dependencies. In bitcoin, these dependencies could have been different in SP2 vs SP3. I didn't test that they were, but this should be tested.

Mans: How reliable is the editing time given in a document? [Cat passing his laptop to attny who nods. someone helping cat with info for the cross...]
Clau: Not perfectly reliable.
Cat Attny: What is your mandate here?
Clau: High level overview.

Attny: Critical analysis of KPMG is said here. Which is it?
Clau: It's my job to do critical analysis, but I didn't have enough time, so I report than my analysis is only high level due to time constraint.
Attny: Bitcoin software crash. How did they solve this?
Clau: Unsure.

Attny: You made edits in Word, and said clock didn't change. Is this your job to comment on?
Clau: Yes.
Attny: Pg19, you agree hashes don't match on SSRN white paper and KPMG's?
Clau: Yes. It is likely KPMG made an error as simple as pasting the wrong hash, but IDK.

Attny: The hash is different on WayBack machine. Does this explain it?
Clau: Not in this case.
Attny: Why?
Clau: The purpose of Wayback is to show old states of the internet. So, it would be prior to 2019.
Attny: OpenOffice issues, have you researched this deeply?
Clau: no

Attny: KPMG says the earliest vers is from 2008. Can you confirm?
Clau: No.
Attny: On total editing time, can this have been longer than the period where the doc was saved?
Clau: I didn't have time to test.
Judge: Would you expect it?
Clau: This is an unreliable metric.

Attny: Did you test for the entire analysis?
Clau: A forensic analysis is not a full report. I'm commenting on their methodology, not their entire report.
Attny: Pg20: Have you tested any reasons for inconsistencies?
Clau: No, time constraints.

Attny: Exhibit 29, Why would fonts have copyright info from 2015?
Clau: I can only comment on the timestamp.
Judge: Anything else to add?
Clau: No.

NOTE: Not the strongest witness to finish on, imo.

Cat Attny: Go to pg 998 Excerpt A. [something about CSW is a fraud.]
Mans: Judge, can we go into the context about this?
Judge: I agree CSW isn't agreeing he's a fraud.
Attny: But this email should be added to evidence.
Judge: which part?
Attny: "there was a promise, no cams

"the only way out was going into hiding. Rob would have liked what Core was doing. I am a fraud, but a fraud that is free to do what I would like to do."

[commenting on the social consensus opinion about being a fraud not mattering to him.]
Attny: Pg576, from Satoshi Affair

Reference an email from Kleiman, but the CSW's statement... Quoting from the doc about Tulip Trust. Kleiman would get 350k bitcoin that CSW would get in 2020. This is FROM the trust doc.
Judge: anything else?
Attny: No.
Judge: LUNCH! then closing arguments.

THOUGHT: This was Granath’s strongest day, and the first time I’d be optimistic as a small blocker.

Not sure why his attny didn’t have today’s mojo for the rest of the trial, but this is a strong day for Granath.

Things are getting juicy!

Cat Attny Closing: In this case, the case is about CSW's use of lawsuits and claims of defamation to prove he's SN. This is a tactic that CSW started in 2019.

Ayre tweets that they will sue people who claim CSW isn't SN. "The judge will rule Craig invented bitcoin."

And that's what this case is about. We see other similar tweets. "Waiting for some moron to come along and ruin themselves by trying to prove negative facts."

This so-called moron will be ruined in his attempt, as we see here. [wait, what? lo]

"We only need 1 troll..."

We know that there's a lot more than that, and Granath was unfortunately targeted in this strategy. Not because he had a big influence, but because he was an advocate for Lightning Network.

We might think...

[IT guy arrives because there's noise on the microphone line.]

Granath deleted his tweets to avoid being the object of a suit. But CSW continued pushing. CSW wanted to be acknowledged as SN and receive an apology.

So Granath deleted the tweets and ceased tweeting. CSW persisted because the tactic was to sue a moron.

We have seen the promise of the documents and the documents themselves, and KPMG has shows the docs cant be trusted. I would argue, they have been forged.

What can we trust? CSW wants us to trust witnesses who claim they saw him invent bitcoin in 2008.

the court won't decide if he's SN. They will decide whether he deserves restitution from Granath. But what is the defamatory element? Foul language? Harassment? But CSW yells at people and claims it isn't defamatory.

I agree there's a defamatory element in his tweets, but...

...is there a factual basis to claim that CSW is SN? If the court finds that there isn't a basis to prove CSW is SN, then are the tweets justifiable holistically?

In practical terms, is it fair to compensate CSW if he isn't SN?

I will touch on freedom of speech, defamation and other things.

CSW started on 2013, a scheme to get a tax refund based on fake bitcoin evidence. ATO saw that he hadn't purchased anything with bitcoin, never had access to bitcoin, and has no access to SN's bitcoin.

Instead, he is just lying to the ATO to claim deductions.

CSW refers to almost nothing but manipulated evidence. Why haven't they submitted evidence showing who manipulated blog posts and other things? So he's trying to defraud us.

On the founding of nChain, an agreement was created in 2015. The alleged IP was supposed to be transferred, but it wasn't. They just paid his lawyers and never used the IP for anything. nChain is just built around BSV as a cryptocurrency and CSW's claims to be SN to pump values.

As part of that agreement, they wanted to reveal him as SN and then sell the IP for a lot of money. We don't know when he was supposed to be revealed, but everyone says he didn't want to prove his identity. That's why the proof sessions were as they were.

It's convenient when someone else reviews you. Wired and Gizmodo use the same evidence as CSW. Emails to Dave, Tulip docs, and he admits he manipulated them, perhaps while drunk, and sent them to Wired and Giz.

These proof sessions were very, very strange to prove something...

It is weird that nobody else can verify.

There's no reason to do it that way unless the evidence isn't strong enough for the public to verify themselves. No technologist would do it this way if they wanted to prove something.

Evidence presented here about Gavin and Jon shows they saw the signing, but weren't aware of

the mountain of false documents. Nobody could know how far they'd be willing to go to fool everyone. There is no evidence to substatiate claims, and the red flags are numerous on Gavin proof. It took too long because he was trying to hide something he couldn't control.

Then, the alleged BBC signing and the Sartre post... There was nothing there. The key point here is that you don't sign in a blog post. You do it with people, but the post is incorrect, and everyone agrees that the hash in the SN7 file isn't a hash of the Sartre speech.

It's a hash of the Finney txn. He took the raw data, hashed it, put it into the SN7 text, put it into a Sartre file, then hashed that file, but none of it matches. What's in the Sartre file is raw data. What's in the post is a lie.

After the signing, we learned it was the same file. IT was just a signature, key, etc... Between Matonis, Jones, BBC and CSW, we see in the audio that he will give them a signed message that they can take home...

It's incorrect. There's no reason to do this this way.

The reference to the Sartre speech isn't relevant either. Sartre saying "signing isn't the same as..." is not actually connected to Wright's position. Sartre is saying he wouldn't be the same person if he had the Nobel prize.

He came out as Satoshi and HE changed.

Sartre is being logical, CSW is not. Subsequently, there was an intention to provide evidence in the Sartre post, but then it was back-peddled that somehow McGregor had taken over CSW's email when he was in the hospital.

But CSW wasn't admitted until May 4.

It makes no sense that McGregor would be emailing as CSW on May 2.

Something else we heard was that CSW could have proven but chose not to. I don't think any of us understood his explanation. If you only verify in private, it shows he never had access to the keys.

He would have if he could. It's easy to do. He promised afterward that he would move bitcoin as more evidence and show that he accepted that the previous evidence wasn't goof. He blamed McGregor again. But he wasn't in the hospital then, so that doesn't make sense.

Extraordinary claims require proof. [Reading CSW message apologizing to Gavin.] The point is that he understands the world will never believe his proofs.

My point is that what happens on May 7, breaking the hard drive(s), in my opinion, this holds ZERO credibility. Who would destroy their access to such a fortune on a whim?! There is absolutely no good reason to do that.

It's too convenient why he can't sign for the court today.

He has never withdrawn from the Satoshi identity since then, and he intensified this in November 2018. He claimed the project called Blacknet was shown as evidence from 2001, but only contains later SN changes to bitcoin.

This doesn't make sense.

The Blacknet opening doesn't make sense, etc...

At first glance, it's interesting, but falls apart with any rigor. You don't need to look as hard as KPMG to see that all of these documents are manipulated. There are so many bad docs which is why the defense doesn't even claim 'm

Why wouldn't they use useful docs? Why wouldn't they submit docs that they can claim as evidence in the future?

First, item222, the versions of the white paper: the abstract handwritten? This is trying to create the impression that Satoshi wasn't sure about the name "bitcoin."

On the last page, he lists other proposed ideas. CSW said bitcoin was a word he came up with later, but the way it was used in the middle of the document on pg87 uses the word "bitcoin" casually in the document as if it exists already. It did exist when it was written!

Because he wrote this later.

The scan metadata DOES tell us something. If it was scanned in 2005, that would tell us something useful. This does not.

The Timecoin draft (attchment 27) This doc contains later changes. Pg 197 added red that shows an added line. KPMG says "not normal."

Mansaus asked if metadata could be removed, but there's NO metadata, and that is strange. That doesn't favor the document's authenticity! The simplest explanation is back-dating.

The reference to Wei Dai doesn't make sense because SN told us when he learned of Wei Dai's work. It was in 2008, so how can Timecoin paper reference it in 2006?

Combined with the metadata, this is clearly back-dated.

The draft bitcoin white paper (203), he submitted this

claiming that it was from earlier in 2008. But the metadata shows that this document shows it was created the same date as the bitcoin white paper and then changes happened after. This wouldn't happen from moving the document around. This is a manipulation.

When you analyze the text, you'll see the changes were made with a newer font as well. There's also changes in timestamps, and other things that are newer than the document would indicate. And this a pattern, not just a happening.

On early versions of bitcoin code, this is falsified. Exhibit 24 shows alleged code from 2008, but this code is in email body, so anything can be changed. You don't even have to be good at making simple changes this way.

The code here shows a section called "commentary."

You can make the changes you want, and you can see the fonts are crooked in some places. on pg 632, the ending is the same ending in the post. Early SN code was posted in December 2013 but someone who got access.

It was shared publicly. And CSW's code was copied from BitcoinTalk

It couldn't have come from before.

KPMG analyzed the file and found that the versions couldn't have happened.

[my hands are cramping]

tips appreciated handcash.me/kurt

On to the checksum. The built in checksum doesn't correspond to the real file. This shows very clearly that we are working with a different file. In addition, when KPMG analyzed, they saw a timestamp which shows January 11, 2009 as creation time. That's same as 0.1.0

So, someone tried to compile the file to make it look like something happened. This doesn't happen from moving files. This is deliberate.

Here, they say Craig Wright is the holder of the copyright. The problem with this code (pg 1230) claims to be older than a bug fix that it actually contains. That strongly indicates the code comes from after the bug fix.

Exhibit 26, the article about Tomonaga Nakamoto... Nobody says what it's supposed to prove. It implies that Craig went to this article for the name, but they don't say it.

Doc 1204-05, the fonts don't match. Simple: they edited, printed, then made notes, then filed to court.

This isn't a document they have claimed. There's a reason why they didn't.

The last email is one I accessed a few weeks ago from information-defense.com. He's saying he is going to write a white paper under a pseudonym on blog. But we've seen email forwarded to Ira...

We can see timestamps from these emails, but metadata from the emails stops before March 2008. There's a missing email in the middle.

Another email from 2015... [translator trailing off...]

325, CSW seemed to think this was manipulated. He probably forgot it was him that sent this email.

BREAK TIME

Nevermind. Still going

The private keys, I tried to get an explanation from him. CSW has consistently refused to do this, but he explains some kind of algorithm that hashes it multiple times. In 2011 he claimed there was a company structure under the Tulip Trust name that made it hard. But no clarity.

285, letter from Dave K to CSW, CSW explains it's a document that was false thought it looks real. The Tulip Trust docs were written later, but this doc has been used for years by O'Hagen, Gizmodo, ATO, etc...

So it's been back-dated and then used for evidence. IF he wrote this on a bender, it shouldn't have been used for anything, but even some supposedly authentic documents don't even seem to exist. Why is there so much conflict even in the pleadings of this case?

If they didn't clarify in evidence, why shouldn't we assume it's authentic. We can't even prove that the Trust exists, so we should assume the keys don't even exist.

BREAK NOW

First they tried to sign private, then they tried to make it about documents, now they want you to think witnesses will do it. He said 100 witnesses, and we've heard some of them. CSW had to replace his lawfirm in order to go this direction.

Witnesses spoke vaguely about things that happened years ago. Paradox might not be the right word, but bitcoin is digital signatures to be validated by everyone.The white paper even says not to trust a third party. Trust isn't part of the project. Don't trust, VERIFY.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT

But Craig wants us to trust people's words that Craig invented bitcoin. Where are Andresen, Matonis, McGregor, Grainger or the rest of them? NOT HERE.

Stefan Matthews, Chairman of nChain, depends on Satoshi's identity for his company's success. He introduced CSW as Satoshi.

He is an unreliable witness for this reason. CSW may have special skills in IT, but the version of the paper Stefan received isn't known or available. He answered quickly that there's no documented proof that this actually happened.

It's remarkable to hear him speak in great detail about tons of things that happened years ago. But when it comes to Satoshi stuff, he can't recall. "I don't know about now" sorts of things about the current business plan, etc... Why would he remember a paper he saw 6 years ago?

If it didn't mean anything to him at the time, why would he recall it so vividly now?

On Rob Jenkins, he heard bitcoin in 2011. He didn't see a white paper. Shoaib Yousef didn't get a white paper. He heard CSW was SN from the media. He got info about C01N business from CSW.

But this business wasn't real. He just trusted Wright.

Neville Sinclair confirmed Craig's skills, but didn't hear bitcoin until late.

David Bridges heard about bitcoin after pizza day 2010, and heard about CSW as SN in the media in 2015. CSW proposed the bitcoin bank to him

The last witness, Max Lynam, CSW's cousin doesn't remember receiving the bitcoin white paper, he didn't know what it was. He said they had a computer that was running software. He was told in 2013 it was mining bitcoin.

It was remarkable because CSW only said it had bitcoin...

...when it was confirmed to have been thrown away. The family had "known for years" that CSW invented blockchain, but that isn't true. Satoshi just used the tech that already existed.

So, all versions have been manipulated, Matthews isn't credible, the code has been manip'd,

and Wright has never had access to SN's keys or bitcoin. His proof stories aren't credible, and it's all based on manipulated evidence...

It has been proven that CSW has lied on many occasions that he's SN, and that's why we're here today.

Calling free speech "libel" is an infringement on Granath's rights. It is important to criticize people with power. Citizens shouldn't fear sanction for their speech.

Society doesn't want untrue statements protected, but allowing free speech helps society seek the truth. [paraphrasing from legal document]

When we decide whether something is libel, we need to be fair.

Granath doesn't like the behavior of a Faketoshi. It isn't a crime to criticize. It doesn't matter what is defamatory, and it's unclear what about CSW's reputation has been harmed. Craig being "clearly ill" or other twitter lines are acceptable because it's obvious he isn't SN

Granath has fatigue from all of the fraud and scamming, and is merely expressing his frustration.

#CraigWrightisaFraud Week is open to interpretation. The definition of "fraud" isn't necessarily determinate on the legal definition of being convicted of the crime of fraud.

[reads Webster dictionary]

The word fraud says nothing but dishonesty, truly, and we've established that there's a lot of dishonesty that he's allegedly committed.

[Tweet showing hodlonaut saying Gavin has enabled this fraud]

He's retweeting technical criticisms showing technical proof how he's a fraud.

"Double taco rations tonight" tweet celebrating that CSW is kicked off of twitter.

This isn't defamation. This is celebration.

[Back to the case law about free speech]

Value judgements are more protected than factual accusations. You need fewer facts behind you to express your own opinion. The limits between value judgements and facts.

[Noting Nilsen and Johnsen V Norway]

Basically clarifying value judgements instead of facts.

The question here is whether Granath is making value judgements or stating facts. Fraudulently claiming to be SN may or may not be a criminal offense, so are these accusations defamatory?

One must violate someone's reputation. There's no evidence of this. If you accuse someone of having done something society would condemn, that's defamatory.

Accusations about crime are always defamatory [if untrue?], but the point is that you must harm their reputation.

An accusation against a pediatrician, for example, could cause damage. The reason we word that CSW has fraudulently claimed to be SN, is that we believe this isn't defamation.

[Halvor clearly flabbergasted]

Society would condemn harassment of the real SN. CSW is just not the person that he claims to be. He has presented lies and manipulations only.

Back in the case law [too fast to type. Hands cramping]

Basically, you can say the basis was reasonable when I said it. If I can be proven wrong, I'll apologize.

When it comes to what's true doesn't matter. What matters is what you knew at the time of the statement.

If you didn't know it wasn't true, it isn't defamation.

We see that, in the law, the standard of proof is actually unclear. If someone steals something, it must be proven. The prosecution needs to prove that the defendant should be convicted.

There was a slip of the tongue where he talks about how he read the bitcoin white paper when he wrote it. All his blog posts in 2016 admit to things about his evidence being insufficient and that he understands that he looks like a fraud and is ok with it.

Female Cat Attny: I'll be brief. Granath has his rights... [translator dropped for me]

Speech that is critical to power is good regardless of the power, whether public or private figures. Case law shows that the degree of general interest and the type of accusation matter

If there's a strong indication that a statement is true, then protection is strong from case law. So let's briefly discuss the central element. Free speech in the general interest of the public is protected...

[This translator is impossible right now...]

The context and public reaction to information are also crucial. The point of our case is that the identity of the creator of bitcoin is of the general interest. CSW has considerable history of inventions, and SN is an idol to many.

As we heard, the general public must step up the plate to participate in consensus. The users MUST get involved in bitcoin to assess them. This is important to help people choose the right cryptocurrency too. We don't want to see noobs fooled out of their money.

That's who Granath and witnesses are advocating for: Noobs.

BSV is not the right bitcoin. BTC is the right one, which provokes the BSV community.

CSW is a public person.

If we check the court of human rights, CSW qualifies as a person involved in the general interest.

The point is a public figure must endure greater criticisms. Nobody is criticizing his private life. They're criticizing his BSV advocacy and his role in that, and that's ok.

He forges evidence himself, and has to endure criticism for that. He intensified his work in 2019.

With the BSV fork, the Blacknet paper and other things bringing out the public interest, he is making it easier to criticize him...

END. Back on wednesday.

As I predicted, the KPMG report was the strongest hand for Cat, and while his attorneys are conservative in their general delivery, they had a strong day today.

Cat was clearly happy with their performance, and they summarized their arguments well.

Conclusion Wednesday!