Thread by @kurtwuckertjr

Granath VS Wright Day 🚨SEVEN🚨 Master Thread.

#ManVsCat

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

🧵👇

Miss Cat Attny: Granath DID delete tweets, but CSW continued to pursue him and put out a reward to identify him. We asked for evidence that CSW is SN in this trial, and the things we have received have all been manipulated. Paper, hand-written, code, etc... Forged.

Then these private signing sessions in spring 2016. These were based on false basis. Matonis said in blog: he saw an early version of the white paper. It must have been one from this case which is forged. Stefan Matthews gave a testimony that cannot be trusted.

And CSW gave untrustworthy testimony. For example exploiting voids in known information to confuse. What is in the black box? CSW uses every gap in knowledge to confuse and deceive, etc... Then, let's talk about freedom of speech! It doesn't hurt him to NOT be SN, does it?

He can't be trusted because he can't be trusted. There's so many pieces of forged evidence that he just can't be trusted at all. He also has a long history of this type of fraud, and THAT is what Granath's tweets are commenting upon.

Now, let's discuss legality. We believe we have shown that CSW even refers to himself as a fraud in a blog post.

Then, there's nature of CSW being a public figure, and that bitcoin is of the general interest. So, I want to focus on a sentence from evidence:

Balaskas Vs Greece: Restrictions shouldn't apply to political speech or matters of public interest.

[Detailing more deeply]

Little is required for something to be of public interest.

We have to look at this holistically, [translator feed cut out]

...Some of the most important aspects mentioned are the degree of offense. The more serious the content, the more caution needed to check facts. There will always be requirements of us to establish what was actually said.

Granath isn't accusing CSW of anything except that...

...he is untrustworthy. The degree of seriousness must be relative to the culture as a whole, such as on the internet.

Regard must be had to specificity of communication especially when a low register of style is the norm.

We see a similar standpoint from [missed it]

NOTE: Translators are extra rough today...

Discussing use of the word "slut" and someone racist in internet lingo.

[LMAO I think she's just trying to do shock therapy on the court by reading crass lines from previous cases. Maybe not a bad strategy]

Back to commentary about threshold tests.

Also, courtroom full of high school kids who are snickering lightly lol

The point here is not that different rules apply on the internet. It's that Granath's statement is NOT remarkable on twitter. Any normal participant can understand that his comments have a certain level of jest inherent, and that CSW is a public person.

Often, things get very heated on Twitter, but the tone is not very serious.

I am going to say something briefly about anon statements on the internet. Judgement from 2021: Anon enhances the value of political opinions. Without this protection, people could be silenced.

Anon has long been a tool to avoid problems forever, but now more so. Anon is a tool for freedom of expression.

CSW forced Granath to be public as a warning to others who may want to be critical. This weakens the freedom of expression.

[continuing to read other case law from around the world. Curious how much weight foreign cases might have in this country.]

It is relevant what this is all connected to, and that CSW is a public figure. Granath didn't state anything new or unknown. There were 7000 tweets

that said Faketoshi and fraud that predate Granath's tweets. His tweets were made to counter Wright's claims and his reputation of manipulation of evidence. If he's going to manipulate documents, he needs to accept the criticism that comes from that.

There's no doubt that CSW speaks more strongly about other people on twitter than Granath has ever spoken about CSW. CSW says "fraud" and "scammers" about other people. "Stick it in your little X" "absolute cuck" and "soy boy." He even called Assange a rapist here.

So he cannot complain when other people use often milder forms of criticism to describe him.

We have heard that hashtagging, twitter algo, etc... In our case, there is nothing to indicate that this is anything other than a small number of tweets from a small account, and that..

...tweets were deleted quickly. Tweets with 1 retweet and 12 likes? We heard CSW's statements that people received threats as a consequence of these tweets, but he forgot that he received the same threats years early.

If he receive so many threats that he forgets them, either..

...he gets them so constantly that he can't tell them apart, or he has never received them in the first place.

This case, though, isn't about these gross statements. This about Granath not wanting to acknowledge CSW as SN.

In our case, CSW had the right and ability to reply. He had 9x the followers of Granath at 70k. Twitter works differently than blogs where people just openly comment.

It is true that CSW did disappear from twitter, but he has access to a media institution to get across opinions

In this case, CSW is in the best position to prove this is dumb. He can sign or move coins and shut everyone up, but he doesn't want to. He could easily refute everyone, but of course he CAN'T. Not because he lacks opportunity, but because he lacks the ability.

Back to Mr Cat Attorney.

Granath's privacy has been violated. I'd like to comment on pg 476 last paragraph. Discussing something about privacy and due dates [translator is struggling]

But on the content of the claim, a violation of privacy must include disclosing private information about them.

Nobody was familiar with CSW's diagnosis of autism at the time. So the consequences of autism can't be held. For restitution to be paid, there must be damage.

The damage here, if it exists, would be non-financial. This case isn't about money, but about Granath being mean. But the requirement that he be acknowledged as SN is not possible because cat doesn't share that opinion.

Judge: Just make your claim.

The reason we did it this was not to impact item 1. Cat doesn't have any liability in my opinion.
Judge: If he's acquitted, do you believe it should say he has no liability?
Attny: Yes because subpoena asked to be exonerated from all claims because this is a global case

There's a jurisdiction thing here too. CSW's counterclaim is about many things. Including how it impacts the UK case, but that's not heavy to us reaching our conclusions here.
Judge: I interpreted this as each country will hear what they want, but we apply Norwegian law

Attny: The fact that this is in the UK too is too bad. It shouldn't be looming over our court here.
Judge: Well, why do you have this tweet included here?
Attny: This tweet is exclusive to the UK case, but I Want to be sure it's included. I need this done this way so he...

...doesn't waive his claims...

Judge: Recess!!!

[I guess that's it for plaintiffs?]

Note: I keep going back to thinking about Granath as a school teacher while taking the position of "everyone hates this guy, so it's ok to harass him."

Halvor Mansaus:

On this 7th day, we look back on the extensive evidence from the whole of the case with a focus on 2 things:

1: The tweets
2: The parties and witness statements.

We have established that they agree on the understanding of the tweets. They expressed...

...that they understand these are libel. Making reference to the dictionary definition of Fraud is curious. This was a lasting, reckless campaign designed to encourage others to take it on. CSW is called a fraud but also mentally ill. There are so many derogatory accusations made

Quite simply, this is bullying - systematized. Cat says "this is consensus" "this is how it is."

He's right, this is the consensus of bullies - hunting together. You can say it's just the internet, but witnesses from cat's own side say they wouldn't have tweeted these things.

But cat stands by his statements and their content. He doesn't want to reflect on the consquences of what he said. The only reason he stopped was because he was looking for employment, so he himself realized that his behavior is NOT OK.

We believe that CSW's identity is proven not just through proof sessions but also the breadth of witness statements, but also his overall body of work. His story is corroborated by people connected to CSW in very different ways. Cat claims that everyone is...

...just empty shells and fake businesses, but we have shown that CSW is a renowned person of expertise in many fields, commercially and academically. Meanwhile, they cite Wikipedia and blogs on their side.

There is an enormous difference between these things.

What I have said about the evidence, the cat understands as well. His statement of claim even changed!

It's ok to engage in debate! But the purpose wasn't to have an objective debate. It was to encourage people to pile on and attack him.

That's clearly different, and he is merely trying to back up his presumptions with KPMG - who said they can't conclude manipulation by CSW.

But CSW hasn't invoked these docs as proof either. We will come back to that.

If the court finds that in isolation there is libel and invasion of privacy, you must find for compensation. We believe the accusations are severe, and not written in a state of high emotion.

The cat sat and planned this. Not as a position of debate. He is trying to get attackers riled up. Which is why even when he deleted the tweets, he hasn't asked the community to stop the assault he started.

This is remarkable.

After 3 years of case prep, he gave up item 2 of his claim which stated that CSW isn't SN. He dropped this without prior notice - a key part of what the case was to begin with. As the case stands now, cat had a basis, but the changes show his own uncertainty about SN.

when it comes to methods, the moving targets and shifting claims create overlapping basis for liability, so we have to interpret X... [going into case law]

Would the court of human rights uphold this? Craig could invoke his rights there clearly. The question to ask is if Cat is part of the media? Is he protecting the public interest as a watchdog? Does he follow the due diligence of his basis?

The basis for this all is about the speaking of truth about unjust sanctions from power. This is based on the internet and its culture, blogs included in the pleadings (Lopp), and other things which are opinions stated as facts.

Or Wikipedia... We submitted a report from Dr. Klin, an expert, and their retort is a blog post about narcissist using Dear Abby as a reference. How can we even accept this if you can just google references that say anything?!

This isn't evidence of anything except internet

culture and its lack of rigor. The requirements for evidence when you accuse someone of something serious, the level of quality needs to be high. Fraud requires the same level of evidence as a criminal case!

Passing to Helle

Judge: So I understand, Mans, do you find this

not to be a public debate at the time?

Mans: No, I don't think you can call CSW a public figure in all contexts. In this one, you can debate about public interest, but this was different.

Helle: There's been vast material submitted. Legally speaking, he can take a rabbit

out of his hat based on whatever he wants because there's so much to pick from.

If you look at various case law,

[reading excerpts] references to application of law needing to truthful at the time it was made in Norway. Instead of referencing foreign law, we should focus on Norwegian law.

We must hold a high standard of our accusations, and [reading] we need to establish the basis for his fact finding at the time the tweets were made. As Mans stated in, we have a wide difference of opinion about how he has handled this.

Was this part of a debate with CSW?

No. The discussion about SN is an ongoing debate of the interest, but there's no indication that Cat's statements that he has been having a discussion with CSW about it. To attempt to frame it as an exchange of words is false. Case law says they need to exchange.

But the cat was adamant that he could just say what he wanted except when he was applying for a job.

No reasonable person would act this way while trying to be a normal person. This lingo isn't acceptable, and even all of his witnesses agreed.

BTC fans have skepticism based on searching the internet. And that's all. What about CSW's own statements?

He is a private person with very particular interests in computers, math, etc...He has an intense distaste for being outed. But these are different outings.

CSW has been part of public debate. They go back through time of rigorous debate, but cat has no history. He was unknown to CSW. So for the cat to do this was predatory.

CSW works for police and gov agencies. It is a real problem for him to be labeled a fraud or mentally ill.

Cat was trying to harm CSW's real business from behind an anon account. This was internet harassment in its most primitive form.

To sum up CSW's witnesses, Stefan is a chairman of nChain group. CSW's job. Cat tried to call him unreliable. We can't see any basis for this

Except that Stefan's testimony undermines the cat's entire case to harass CSW. There's nothing unique about the way that he remembers details. You can't just say he's unreliable. He is a man of great respect in international business with many years in his career building

up things with CSW and before. Why would he invest so much in building up bitcoin IP if he wasn't sure CSW was SN?

The claim that the SN story was created as a way to get out of ATO is absurd. CSW was in discussion with ATO from 2009 and forward.

even so, was the cat referring to the ATO case in stating that CSW was a fraud? We also had David Bridges, CIO of one of the biggest banks in Aus. He remembers the pitches about the establishment of bitcoin bank and that his home contained necessary computers for such R&D.

There's no reason to discredit Bridges. Same with Jenkins. After CSW solved stuff for Aus exchange, he helped build Vodaphone. Cat wants to act like all this didn't happen, but Jenkins also remembers CSW's opinions about digital cash and problems of fiat currency.

He even remembered CSW offering him bitcoin, and Yousef corroborates these stories and establishment of businesses to focus on bitcoin R&D in this era too. Then Max Lynam explained his lifetime of computers and coding.

They received computers that ran bitcoin from the earliest days. And in 2013, CSW explained to them that they were miners.

There's no reason not to believe Lynam's statements.

Then there's Nevilla Sinclair, auditor, who backs up deeper claims as well.

The cat doesn't live in reality. The court has seen these witnesses and heard them. Not some fragmented items from google such as cat submitted.

Item 2.3 in run up to tweets. Cat clearly had a method to behave shockingly in order to spread his message by primitively generating traffic. He, in many areas, steps over the boundaries for acceptable ways to express himself.

Comparing the 9/11 conspiracy to CSW, for example. Then comparing Russian, Syrian and Western political leaders. "Hard to verify how many people Hitler killed since questioning the sanctioned version of history is illegal in most of Europe..." This is EXTREME

He calls everything but BTC a "shitcoin." He's in deep, and heavily invested in his coin, so this is also economically motivated.

He blocks people who just have different opinions about coins.

Then on LN Torch, he started to get well-known. He is followed by @jack, @CoinDesk and other high-profile, influential people on twitter at this time, and his clear financial motive is obvious.

Funny that he can't remember all the coordination that he started.

It's odd that a person so active to have tweeted 37k tweets that he can't remember being part of "bitcoin plebs" group. But he thanks the "rabid and toxic maxis out there. Without them, bitcoin would have gone to shit long ago."

He means what he says.

We know Bitcoin Plebs was created the week of "CSW is a fraud week" And the group was dedicated to the lead that cat established.

"Pleb attack on shitcoin scammers. Who is up for some toxicity?"

So they wanted to attack CSW but also BSV.

Judge: Does this have to do with cat?
Helle: They reference him and his words for why they need to be toxic and rabid.

Here is cat asking them to help him compile list of people who also say CSW is a fraud. This is the first sign we have of cat building a case for himself

Here's where he calls him a sad and pathetic scammer, scum of humanity, mentally ill, etc... he confirmed to the court that he was careful to get his referenced out clearly, and even used the hashtag while criticizing Chinese people.

SIDE NOTE: Cat has been a lot less emotive every day this week

[Referencing old case law now about journalists and harm...]

If the purpose is harm of a person's good name and reputation, this is libel. CSW and Cat agree that the statement are defamatory, but cat attny's seem to want us to lower our standards of the law.

[more case law]

You can't just take things out of context like a tumor from the body, but indeed embrace the whole of the law and of the incidents at hand.

The way a regular reader would perceive this, they need to be able to perceive if it is factual or opinion, etc

Value judgements still must be based on fact, or else this is a punishable offense. And that's what we have in this case. This particular, condescending value judgement from cat are not related to facts, but instead he is labeled "trash" with "vegetable-like brain power."

This is relevant to case law also in regards to hate crimes where their religion, background are relevant that makes statements punishable ones. He's trying to deal finishing blows to CSW which makes these statements extra offensive.

They can't just say this is ok because CSW is a public person. This is an attack against someone with a known disability and calling it "pathetic" that he is "mentally ill."

This is an enticement to exploit CSW's disorder to react in accordance with his perceived illness. Exploitation!

Again, this wasn't a debate. This was hateful exploitation from someone who never engaged with CSW.

[cat leaning to Ms Cat Attny to say something]

They say he got his own media platform to retaliate? There's no basis that it's fair for CSW to have been removed from the public of twitter but can respond privately in his own channels.

[case law of libel guilt sending someone to prison] Skalka vs Poland.

There is a difference between criticism and insult. They have different punishments.

The notion that he has to endure criticisms AND insults because he's a public person is absurd.

The consequences of this degrades the culture to participate in the same with comments, retweets, etc...

Bringing CSW's health into the debate is reckless.

If you ignore Wrights autism or didn't know about it, the statements were still made to attack him and accuse him criminal activity due. The severe degrading of his feeling of self hurts him as a person. They're directed at him as a person, and this is wrong.

Back to Mansaus

On SN, what has CSW done wrong? These criticisms are based on false premise. Consensus among the community doesn't indicate truth. There's no basis to criticize because what is known is that the facts may not be known.

In 2015-16, CSW explains he was happy to go to nChain because he could focus on his work. The cat has noted largely about retaining O'Hagen, but he hadn't even started working on his book when CSW was outed, so the accusation of planned outing doesn't make sense.

We don't know if Wired and Gizmodo cooperated, but they did publish the same day. Wright didn't think they had enough material to out him, so he didn't prep for the outing.

He chose not to talk to them, and that's allowed to maintain his privacy, but the pressure...

...came from McGregor to go out and be a show for the media, etc... With Matonis, Jon thought he had met SN and ultimately brought in Andresen.

Gavin didn't want to waste his time and fly out unless there was a high degree of possibility. This was done with great rigor

two computers, etc... Gavin was convinced by the words, the experience and signatures. Then, BBC and Sartre post... Sartre rejected the Nobel prize... Cat's witness didn't even read the text file. He didn't even know who Sartre was. He chose not to treat this with respect.

CSW never claimed the article was proof. The article itself says that it wouldn't be, but the "expert" witness never even read it.

Then the GQ conversation of CSW arguing with Courtois. This had NOTHING to do with signing but rather over Courteois' own claims about other things.

CSW was asked for more and more. Everything he does just leads to more demands, and it doesn't even prove that he's SN.

Other clip was Craig saying "bitcoin has no king." what is cat alleging from this? They think his outing was planned, but what clearly this video adds nothing, and clealry CSW wanted to build his portfolio more before coming out as SN.

As for the proof sessions themselves, I want to anticipate the fact there's a ton of documentation of this, but we do have attestations from Matonis and Gavin after a very long process.

LUNCH BREAK!!

We're BACK!

Mans: Matonis explains 3 things: signature, social and inside knowledge.

Andresen was closest with SN. And CSW was able to convince him with a conversation despite the fact that Gavin was extremely skeptical and made strict demands for evidence.

He wanted to discuss things only SN would know, but also see crypto proofs in 2 different ways.

Gavin chose which keys to prove from. Stefan described Gavin's view of it as "like a hawk" both for rigor but also his intrigue.

After a celebration, they had fish&chips, etc...

But critics say there could have been all kinds of vectors of fraud, but Andresen downloaded Electrum himself. No chance to modify Electrum in front of him.

The critics just don't like it, so they criticize.

Gavin: "he had the same prickly personality that I remember... plus..

"he signed for me, etc..."

Gavin was in despair a bit because he wanted a public signing, but he is still convinced that CSW is SN.

The word "bamboozled" sounds fun, but he writes "he really does have the keys from the signing sessions."

Note:"Gobbledygook" in Norwegian lol

Cat hasn't pinpointed where these facts haven't been clarified. [tech support for sound]

We hear attestations that CSW "isn't 'our' Satoshi," but that isn't up to them to determine. Should we trust anyone above Gavin as to what Satoshi was like?

It was explained to us that Andresen set up the computer himself, there was contact with the external server and that Electrum from downloaded from Electrum's website.

Cat witness said he could fake to me that he's Satoshi, but not with things like knowing private conversations

It is interesting how much time Electrum put into saying that they didn't get a download of the signature, but there wouldn't be because just the exe was downloaded.

Don Lynam wanted to testify, but was unwell, so we got Max. He explained CSW's history and early draft...

...of the white paper. We heard about 80 page draft and specific sections, etc... The plaintiff had 3 witnesses. They had no relation to the case, but they are active investors in Bitcoin Core, and they all follow hodlonaut.

Our side didn't litigate BSV cuz it's not the point.

Gavin wasn't tricked. There's no indication that he was "bamboozled."

Judge: Would you explain that BSV being a fork or not, isn't the case?
Mans: Well, BSV follows the original white paper, and airdropping coins to holders of keys makes it debatable.
Judge: Ok

Mans: In the opening speech, we could read from ATO case or Kleiman, but that's also mostly irrelevant.

[CSW looking very upbeat right now. Cat showing his laptop to attorneys]

KPMG report is indeed extensive, but instead of looking at one doc deeply, they organized it confusingly and used different methods across the doc. I'd guess they had 2-3 different people working on it, but clearly no system or method. Says something about the quality overall.

Several times, it has been repeated that the docs haven't been invoked. Why did Cat submit evidence to the case from Kleiman that CSW was using to prove that Ira was a fraud. Did they even check how these documents were used before?

There's an incredible amount of documents in this case. As such, they should be handled systematically, but they were used as a hodgepodge of mixed methods, even after years of prep time.

[Cat looking morose]

BDO and CYFOR note this carefully, that findings cannot be reproduced, and while there are holes in chain of custody, etc... It is impossible to explain with certainty or draw conclusions without rigorous disproof of other possible explanations.

We also discovered that hashes didn't match from KPMG, so it's important to note that even they made inexplicable mistakes with data on things like this which don't indicate malice either, right?

So, they aren't handling docs with sterility either, so it's strange to...

...act like CSW's docs would be either with all the hands that could have handled the docs. There is no evidence that lack of sterility of docs is because of CSW's malice.

[Checking case law]

CSW has never been convicted of anything, and never wanted to be public. According to this case law, the press has protection for free speech, but also responsibilities to act in good faith and provide reliable, precise info within the ethics of journalism.

Encouraging people "attack" isn't journalistic. It's harassment.

And use of the hashtag helped give it such a long reach.

[continuing from German case law]

The court consistently holds that free speech is great unless it is used specifically for abuse which leads toward hate speech.

Hodlonaut used his success with LN Torch and new status to appear widely on twitter, and he used this to harass.

Let's talk about why we have free speech.

For the truth and protection of Democracy and free formation of opinions. None of these things was helped by these tweets.

There is punishment for people who encourage violence or hate, for example. Facebook posts have been...

...used to invoke this showing that attacks are not free speech.

It doesn't matter if the tone is rough or that they're hooligans. The law is the law. And targeting people and encouraging people to use these uncontrolled words are outside of norms.

The more serious the accusation, the more proof you must present.

In our case, scammer, fraud and mentally ill are value judgments. If we have a gliding scale, the more serious the statement, the better the evidence needs to be, so there's an interconnection to the law.

The bar is lowered when a newspaper publishes commentary or something, but Cat made clear statements as facts which were accusations from behind the Hodlonaut name.

If a journalist doesn't check for accuracy, newspapers have been punished for failure to stay factual.

Popular users of social media acting as public watch dogs can be valuable, but it still presupposes that you have a legitimate purpose.

Cat isn't a public watchdog. No assignment. No responsibility. No trace that he takes anything seriously.

Judge: So he's not a public watchdog? So he doesn't benefit from freedom of expression of that role?
Mans: Cat does this for himself, not for the public.
Judge: He says he's doing it to protect investors.
Mans: He doesn't provide balance. He's just offensive, so not protected.

Then there's the question of public interest. The question of Satoshi Nakamoto. His identity isn't of the public interest.

[case law] People don't need to tolerate being accused widely of things without evidence. There need to be specific assessments.

Even in the public interest, that doesn't make it open for every single thing to be ok. Also, there's a big difference between attacking an idea vs attack Craig Wright the person.

He didn't criticize his public info, but high private mental health and other private matters.

RECESS

BACK!

[Going into other case law]

Let's talk about the cat's anonymity. It's not a problem if they stay within the rules and regs or for something pertaining to justice, but when used as a tool of harassment, it is a problem.

The law says anon should be the exception!

It's easy to see why... [Steel and Morris vs UK]

They weren't journalists, so they don't get protections of the press. Even small and informal groups should have protections in the general interest like health/environment.

Nothing else stated.

The press also must not overstep their role. But individuals are NOT journalists. The court shows that bloggers have protection, but not to be vile.

Campaigns can have some hyperbole, but still must be rooted in fact. They believed the pamphlets were true.

But they were held liable.

Hodlonaut made himself a famous person with his account, and so he has a huge responsibility to be honest with the attention that he's created for himself.

The plaintiffs must agree that if they are going to be harsh, they must have established the truth ahead of time.

Accusations must be made, research done, etc...

It's not sufficient to have suspicion and then speak to it as if it is fact.

When we look at CSW's own activity on twitter, it's important that they didn't submit anything until late in the prep. When CSW has made strong statements, they have been in debate with people.

His statements from Slack are from a closed channel, for example, and his tweets were in debate.

Peter Todd, for example, was a debate about a topic. This doesn't invite harassment. They wanted to hurt him and lure him in to retaliate.

And then he was ultimately censored from the platform of Twitter. This was the goal of Bitcoin Plebs and Hodlonaut himself.

Let's look at cases where restitution was awarded after similar cases. [listing]

The goal was to impact CSW. It was not a mitigating circumstances that there's consensus about bullying CSW. Hodlonaut was a well-known figure and should have been extra careful with his words.

[Deep legal talk about Norwegian law and requirements]

[back and forth with the judge rapidly]
Mans: It hasn't been specified what kind of liability there should be in regards to finances vs non-financial liability.

There's defamation but also privacy to consider.
[this translator... 😡]

Mans: Shouldn't Cat have responsibility toward the truth in re to CSW? The law demands diligence! The court must judge based on this, but we never we get to this on the formal level.

I'm happy to comment about costs. This is a special case going on for such a long time.

Things that could have been avoided were deliberately pursued, the KPMG report dragged things out, changing of pleas dragged things out, now the case is so much bigger than it needed to be, and it's been rearranged by the cat substantially.

Cat Attny resumes. [just realized who he sounds like]

These things became true after they were stated. This is a different thing than what was talked about here. In general, freedom of expression, even if foul isn't necessary illegal or defamatory.

This is a different kind of provision here. It's an offense to harass a state authority, but not necessarily a public figure.

I just have to say that even hateful statements have a lot of leeway in the law because of interpretation.

Freedom of expression also has to do with receiving information. This was used to argue that the form matters, but I think the content is what matters.

In regards to restitution, this is about something that comes from the state, not a person.

There's NO evidence that these tweets caused harm to CSW. Jack Dorsey retweeting doesn't cause deliberate harm. CSW is just trying to make an example out of Granath.

There's no evidence of leading an attack or that Bitcoin Plebs was established because of Granath.

They conclude cat must be their leader, but they are merely speculating. There were many who tweeted about CSW at the time. If he was in the group, they wouldn't have sent pics

It was a screenshot of cat asking for help. It shows he wasn't part of the group.

A lot of people followed Hodlonaut after the bounty was announced. Plebs may not be objective, but that doesn't make them defamatory.

Calling this bullying falls under other types of rules.

Calling someone "sick in the head" is something we just have to deal with. Not in court.

It's been said that cat wants to provoke, but it's in 3 tweets out of nearly 40k.

Discussion about the Sartre blog and how the witness didn't understand it... Why can't ANYONE explain the meaning of the blog then?

When talking about Matonis and Andresen, we don't care if Matonis saw a fraudulent white paper draft, and we don't know if the Electrum software was real.

Electrum didn't have evidence of a download of the wallet that day.

SSRN File is irrelevant for various reasons.
Witnesses attesting to IT skills implies that the only requirement for being SN is that one is good at IT. Sinclair didn't confirm anything concrete. There was also CSW's criminal offenses not existing.

But, CSW has been accused of being a fraud. The Narcissism blog was that many symptoms are the same. Klin disagrees, but it's strange that CSW can criticize people with internet sources when his only sources about SN come from the internet itself.

CSW is worried they will always want more evidence. The problem is that they have NO evidence. There is no counterbalance of facts, and nothing speaks in favor of CSW being SN.

There's just a giant bag of puzzle pieces. That's why we didn't know what the purpose was of docs.

CSW refused to help clarify, so we had to go to Miami docs and do our best. He had disconnected himself.

But Tulip stuff is all nonsense. Tulip then blind trust, then Uyen has the keys, then she doesn't, etc...

I needed to spend time on figuring out if anything was real.

None of these problems applied to CSW. It's easy for him to piece together his own puzzle. He can't claim that cat should pay for the complexity of all of this.

Also, asymmetry of power applies. He says tweets harmed reputation. But there's no evidence for that.

Judge told him to hurry up like 20 minutes ago...

[cat attny debating with judge about case law and how compensation should be worked out]

Ms Cat Attny up again

"briefly..."

Judge: Gotta hurry
attny: 2 min pls. Tweeting content in this way isn't just about pressing social need. Instead, it's about information.

When CSW says "screw you toddler" it's hard to understand how that is valuable debate.

The tweets in and of themselves are other. CSW didn't reply to Hodlonaut in this opportunity he could have. Instead just commented on wikileaks being rapists.

Mans: [makes a joke about "the first 35 minutes of my rebuttal...] [laughs] "No, I'll be brief."

When applying international and Norwegian law together, we do this to fill gaps, but these judgements are directly applicable.

There were sanctioned statements of racism, but they agreed broadcast was more powerful than written, so form absolutely matters.

Also, how does any of this have a pressing social need?

What was said during case prep was that Norwegian court was needed. We didn't consent to the that.

[lots of legal mumbo jumbo]

Judge saying: what's left? You mentioned why you shouldn't cover the other party's costs. Neither side's costs are unreasonable, but

the BDO and Cyfor costs aren't included here yet. 7.6 million mentioned {Kroner?]

Cat Attny: Their costs are almost double our costs including KPMG's report. They had to work harder to try to make a point, maybe, but we object to their costs.
Judge: Comments?
Mans: Conditions

...led to higher costs. We had tons of requests for evidence. We were very generous with our time and answer their questions. We had great strain to try to help them understand documents.

In scope, they should have focused on good evidence instead of so much evidence.

Judge: Objections noted. Both of you, complete your costs. 1 week. Judgement won't come in 1, is that ok?
Mans: Can I have 2 weeks?
Judge: Yes. October 7. Anything else? Proceedings concluded. I will make a decision. 14 days is standard, but I can't

I will aim for November 8. But may not get it done then. I can let you know a little bit ahead of time so you can prepare press upon announcement. Adjourned.