February 8, 2024 Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr Craig Steven Wright "The Satoshi Trial" Master Thread.
DAY 4
NOTE: I have a surgical post-op appointment that will coincide with lunch at court. I expect to miss an hour or so of the afternoon session.
DAY 4
NOTE: I have a surgical post-op appointment that will coincide with lunch at court. I expect to miss an hour or so of the afternoon session.
STREAM A LITTLE CHOPPY
Over 650 people in the remote access view. Someone posted a screen-grab. This is breech and remote links could be cut entirely. NO SHARED SCREEN SHOTS!
BACK TO ACTION
COPA: You recall MYOB Screenshots. You said they were taken by Ontier
CSW: Yes, this is exlained in the detailed COC.
COPA: You said this wasn't impacted by the your input. Madden discovered changes though. I asked if you made an entry. You said you had not and said the screenshot was produced before dates where you would have had access. In the metadata, it shows March 2020. Other page shows March 2020 as well.
CSW: Well, these aren't screenshots. These are PDFs. They look like screenshots from a previous time turned into PDFs perhaps on March 2020. But the content of the screenshot would have been late 2019 some time.
For me to modify, I'd havd to break into Ontier and do it on their system.
COPA: I'm saying you gave Ontier files later.
CSW: No, this is FROM Ontier. I would have had to be AT Ontier.
COPA: Document system not pulling up docs. Do you recall a photo of the bitcoin white paper with your name at the top. Name crossed out and letters on the side with yellow stains and some staples. This is a primary reliance doc. It's a pleaded forgery. Madden found that it was sent by WhatsApp in September 2019. This other version has further annotations. In the core list of 20 pleaded forgeries. If it was genuine, it would show you're Satoshi?
CSW: It would help.
COPA: Mr Ayre tweeted in the McCormack trial that he has seen documents with rusty staples. He's your supporter?
CSW: Not my financial supporter. He is an investor in my companies and a colleague.
COPA: You have admitted that he was a funder.
CSW: I took out a loan against assets from Ayre.
COPA: You verified this with a statement of truth previously.
CSW: It says here there was a bitcoin denominated loan which would be paid back. He is paid back, and he is not a funder. I took out a commercial loan.
COPA: I suggest to you that your denial conflicts with your statement of truth.
CSW: If the words in the statement aren't clear, it says the loan exists, and it has been repaid.
COPA: Is this loan in a formal document?
CSW: Yes.
Over 650 people in the remote access view. Someone posted a screen-grab. This is breech and remote links could be cut entirely. NO SHARED SCREEN SHOTS!
BACK TO ACTION
COPA: You recall MYOB Screenshots. You said they were taken by Ontier
CSW: Yes, this is exlained in the detailed COC.
COPA: You said this wasn't impacted by the your input. Madden discovered changes though. I asked if you made an entry. You said you had not and said the screenshot was produced before dates where you would have had access. In the metadata, it shows March 2020. Other page shows March 2020 as well.
CSW: Well, these aren't screenshots. These are PDFs. They look like screenshots from a previous time turned into PDFs perhaps on March 2020. But the content of the screenshot would have been late 2019 some time.
For me to modify, I'd havd to break into Ontier and do it on their system.
COPA: I'm saying you gave Ontier files later.
CSW: No, this is FROM Ontier. I would have had to be AT Ontier.
COPA: Document system not pulling up docs. Do you recall a photo of the bitcoin white paper with your name at the top. Name crossed out and letters on the side with yellow stains and some staples. This is a primary reliance doc. It's a pleaded forgery. Madden found that it was sent by WhatsApp in September 2019. This other version has further annotations. In the core list of 20 pleaded forgeries. If it was genuine, it would show you're Satoshi?
CSW: It would help.
COPA: Mr Ayre tweeted in the McCormack trial that he has seen documents with rusty staples. He's your supporter?
CSW: Not my financial supporter. He is an investor in my companies and a colleague.
COPA: You have admitted that he was a funder.
CSW: I took out a loan against assets from Ayre.
COPA: You verified this with a statement of truth previously.
CSW: It says here there was a bitcoin denominated loan which would be paid back. He is paid back, and he is not a funder. I took out a commercial loan.
COPA: I suggest to you that your denial conflicts with your statement of truth.
CSW: If the words in the statement aren't clear, it says the loan exists, and it has been repaid.
COPA: Is this loan in a formal document?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: A new document. An article which includes excerpt of IRC chat showing rusty staple document discussed. Is this you?
CSW: I haven't used IRC since 2013.
COPA: Madden found comparative differences. One of which is the alignment of the table. These differences would disappear if it was opened in Word.
CSW: It is pure opinion. Instead of science, he is putting in pure opinion. He isn't demonstrating anything that it can be replicated. Your expert has failed to do the most basic science here.
Mellor: So you dispute his result? Have you done this?
CSW: I have in some cases, and I'm disputing that if he doesn't tell us how to replicate, it isn't science. That's what I've been saying since this first came up.
COPA: Back on track!
CSW KC: He's answering the judges question!
Mellor: We will hear from Madden in due course anyways. Let's move in.
CSW: I've noted that from LaTex this outputs right every time. Removing the footer to show different format spacing is a bizarre move.
COPA: In fact, this is a forgery
CSW: There isn't even science here. Pure opinion from someone who is modifying a file in ways which aren't explained in order to back into making his opinion look like what you want it to look like.
The definition of "finding" in a scientific paper means that the methodology is shown so it can be replicated. So, there are no findings.
COPA: Is Dr. Placks' conclusions admissable?
CSW: No.
Mellor: The advantage of an expert is that we can rely on their opinions. It is likely I will rely on them. Instead of relying on the process, I suggest you rely on their findings.
COPA: You say this document came from your desk, and pen notes came from 2008-09 and some later in 2020. Yes?
CSW: Yes, I noted on my document.
COPA: Here's a note to Stefan about the token system. You were hoping Centrebet would use this auditable token system. It reads like you're asking him prospectively to use the system.
CSW: Not exactly. During Kleiman, I put notes on docs for the sake of attorney to help find references to the other things necessary. My work with Centrebet wasn't involved in Kleiman.
COPA: It reads like a note to Stefan
CSW: No, it does not.
COPA: Note about binomial walk. Is this a note to yourself?
CSW: No, this is a negative binomial. In Kleiman, we were talking about mining from 2009-2011, I had written papers about negative binomials, and I was explaining that I wasn't doing that work with D Kleiman at the time.
COPA: Another note that reads like it's to Stefan
CSW: Stefan was a witness in the trial, so I was noting to attorneys that this was a thing to go over with Stefan.
CSW: I haven't used IRC since 2013.
COPA: Madden found comparative differences. One of which is the alignment of the table. These differences would disappear if it was opened in Word.
CSW: It is pure opinion. Instead of science, he is putting in pure opinion. He isn't demonstrating anything that it can be replicated. Your expert has failed to do the most basic science here.
Mellor: So you dispute his result? Have you done this?
CSW: I have in some cases, and I'm disputing that if he doesn't tell us how to replicate, it isn't science. That's what I've been saying since this first came up.
COPA: Back on track!
CSW KC: He's answering the judges question!
Mellor: We will hear from Madden in due course anyways. Let's move in.
CSW: I've noted that from LaTex this outputs right every time. Removing the footer to show different format spacing is a bizarre move.
COPA: In fact, this is a forgery
CSW: There isn't even science here. Pure opinion from someone who is modifying a file in ways which aren't explained in order to back into making his opinion look like what you want it to look like.
The definition of "finding" in a scientific paper means that the methodology is shown so it can be replicated. So, there are no findings.
COPA: Is Dr. Placks' conclusions admissable?
CSW: No.
Mellor: The advantage of an expert is that we can rely on their opinions. It is likely I will rely on them. Instead of relying on the process, I suggest you rely on their findings.
COPA: You say this document came from your desk, and pen notes came from 2008-09 and some later in 2020. Yes?
CSW: Yes, I noted on my document.
COPA: Here's a note to Stefan about the token system. You were hoping Centrebet would use this auditable token system. It reads like you're asking him prospectively to use the system.
CSW: Not exactly. During Kleiman, I put notes on docs for the sake of attorney to help find references to the other things necessary. My work with Centrebet wasn't involved in Kleiman.
COPA: It reads like a note to Stefan
CSW: No, it does not.
COPA: Note about binomial walk. Is this a note to yourself?
CSW: No, this is a negative binomial. In Kleiman, we were talking about mining from 2009-2011, I had written papers about negative binomials, and I was explaining that I wasn't doing that work with D Kleiman at the time.
COPA: Another note that reads like it's to Stefan
CSW: Stefan was a witness in the trial, so I was noting to attorneys that this was a thing to go over with Stefan.
COPA: Do recall using Back as a reference because you couldn't get referrences from Dr. Aura(sp?)
CSW: I took pics before noting. I had hoped Aura would respond back to show tha he received a copy of the paper.
COPA: At face value, this looks like a forgery to back up your story.
CSW: This is a document with notes to my attorney.
COPA: To the SSRN upload. Here's an August 2008 white paper with author Craig Wright. You know that shortly after this date, Satoshi spoke with Wei Dai based on public materials.
CSW: Yes, because I sent those.
COPA: It doesn't match [I missed it]
CSW: I use multiple versions of docs when I'm working in LaTex
COPA: Do you accept this doc has language from the 2009 version and not the 2008?
CSW: I'm denying the way you're versioning them.
COPA: The version on SSRN is the MArch 2009 version, not the October 2008. You agree they're different versions?
CSW: As I've noted, versions are about production. The 2009 copy is based on my earlier versions of drafts.
COPA: You said you uploaded it to SSRN.
CSW: I instruct my secretary to.
COPA: You uploaded a version to SourceForge in March 2009
CSW: The version on the site, I know I'm pedantic, is from the earlier version.
COPA: You assert your authorship?
CSW: Correct.
COPA: You stated the doc is yours from August 2008.
CSW: Well, it's whatever was input to LaTex at the time.
COPA: It's my turn to be precise now. The version you uploaded here is different than the version from Satoshi
CSW: It was written earlier, and sent to people.
COPA: You are trying to show this as the first version of the white paper.
CSW: I was under oath and was forced to admit under oath that I was Satoshi, so I asserted my rights of authorship and copyright at that time.
CSW: I took pics before noting. I had hoped Aura would respond back to show tha he received a copy of the paper.
COPA: At face value, this looks like a forgery to back up your story.
CSW: This is a document with notes to my attorney.
COPA: To the SSRN upload. Here's an August 2008 white paper with author Craig Wright. You know that shortly after this date, Satoshi spoke with Wei Dai based on public materials.
CSW: Yes, because I sent those.
COPA: It doesn't match [I missed it]
CSW: I use multiple versions of docs when I'm working in LaTex
COPA: Do you accept this doc has language from the 2009 version and not the 2008?
CSW: I'm denying the way you're versioning them.
COPA: The version on SSRN is the MArch 2009 version, not the October 2008. You agree they're different versions?
CSW: As I've noted, versions are about production. The 2009 copy is based on my earlier versions of drafts.
COPA: You said you uploaded it to SSRN.
CSW: I instruct my secretary to.
COPA: You uploaded a version to SourceForge in March 2009
CSW: The version on the site, I know I'm pedantic, is from the earlier version.
COPA: You assert your authorship?
CSW: Correct.
COPA: You stated the doc is yours from August 2008.
CSW: Well, it's whatever was input to LaTex at the time.
COPA: It's my turn to be precise now. The version you uploaded here is different than the version from Satoshi
CSW: It was written earlier, and sent to people.
COPA: You are trying to show this as the first version of the white paper.
CSW: I was under oath and was forced to admit under oath that I was Satoshi, so I asserted my rights of authorship and copyright at that time.
COPA: Do you recall this 78 doc? A hardcopy scan with hand written notes. Is it right, broadly, that the document contains some notes about bitcoin and your philosophy?
CSW: Yes, but my philosophy is part of bitcoin.
COPA: "will Alan fund systems?" You mean Grainger funding bitcoin?
CSW: The running of nodes, yes.
COPA: "would Centrebet use a token?" This was about pitching bitcoin to Centrebet?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: We dispute the authenticity of this document.
CSW: Multiple people saw it
COPA: Is this new doc one of your reliance docs?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You see the footer date of 9/06/2008? With external metadata in December 2008. It's a TIFF file with a level of pixelation that isn't legible. You once accepted that the doc was from June 2008.
CSW: The original yes, I don't know about the TIFF. Started with Panopicrypt, then Hotwire, then DeMorgan. We were building iDaemon which has now become Teranode. We were building the original IP base so that it could scale.
COPA: It presents as a map of source code about bitcoin.
CSW: It IS a map of source code for bitcoin.
COPA: Madden says it doesn't look scanned from hard copy.
CSW: That's fine.
COPA: Madden found another doc that was a close match. Do you accept that they're similar?
CSW: Yes, looks like Atlassian file management.
COPA: If you zoom in on the other doc, you see matching?
CSW: Yes
COPA: The copyright should postdate the file completion date.
CSW: Now, they're held as source code analysis so they can be compiled when necessary though the copyright would remain the same. Staff has the original code base so they can build from original instead of from the BTC-based branch.
COPA: So, with the same title and footer, but different versions?
CSW: Slight differences in the code. Some OP Codes were turned off, for example. Versions of the alpha code have fully working op codes, but later versions have a few less. Op Code Separator was taken out, for example, but the team had to run everything from 2009 to test which worked best.
COPA: This is a complete fiction, isn't it?
CSW: Of course not
COPA: No employees can confirm this for you?
CSW: Stefan, Shoab and others can confirm.
COPA: People who you said did this coding won't be given evidence?
CSW: No.
COPA: do you agree this is forged.
CSW: This is from an employee machine. We broke AWS the other day with this [teranode] software.
COPA: The missing characters are indicitive of editing.
CSW: If I change the code, it doesn't change the fonts around it.
COPA: Raw metadata of the PDF shows embedded fonts from 2015. Confirming it's from later than you say.
CSW: It confirms that it has been opened. Adobe distiller will do this. Madden actually noted this in other places.
COPA: I put it to you that the doc wouldn't behave this way.
CSW: Madden has noted that it does, just not here.
COPA: Madden also IDs doc property streams which have differences than the info recorded in the fields.
CSW: We use Atlassian. Documents imported into nChain retain old markers. You can see Craig vs Craig Wright.
COPA: Madden found code to flow editor online. He saw that it produced code flows similar to this one.
CSW: There are lots of software that do this. This completely different.
COPA: Code flow shows this is from 2012.
CSW: As we change programs, things change.
COPA: Metadata shows Adobe from 2016 which didn't exist in 2008.
CSW: Adobe Distiller does that.
COPA: This is a document created after 2016 to produce reliance docs which are forged.
CSW: IT's the dev process to create a distributed system. Version control is crucial in these environments and this is a dev file.
BREAK TIME 5 MINUTES
CSW: Yes, but my philosophy is part of bitcoin.
COPA: "will Alan fund systems?" You mean Grainger funding bitcoin?
CSW: The running of nodes, yes.
COPA: "would Centrebet use a token?" This was about pitching bitcoin to Centrebet?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: We dispute the authenticity of this document.
CSW: Multiple people saw it
COPA: Is this new doc one of your reliance docs?
CSW: Yes
COPA: You see the footer date of 9/06/2008? With external metadata in December 2008. It's a TIFF file with a level of pixelation that isn't legible. You once accepted that the doc was from June 2008.
CSW: The original yes, I don't know about the TIFF. Started with Panopicrypt, then Hotwire, then DeMorgan. We were building iDaemon which has now become Teranode. We were building the original IP base so that it could scale.
COPA: It presents as a map of source code about bitcoin.
CSW: It IS a map of source code for bitcoin.
COPA: Madden says it doesn't look scanned from hard copy.
CSW: That's fine.
COPA: Madden found another doc that was a close match. Do you accept that they're similar?
CSW: Yes, looks like Atlassian file management.
COPA: If you zoom in on the other doc, you see matching?
CSW: Yes
COPA: The copyright should postdate the file completion date.
CSW: Now, they're held as source code analysis so they can be compiled when necessary though the copyright would remain the same. Staff has the original code base so they can build from original instead of from the BTC-based branch.
COPA: So, with the same title and footer, but different versions?
CSW: Slight differences in the code. Some OP Codes were turned off, for example. Versions of the alpha code have fully working op codes, but later versions have a few less. Op Code Separator was taken out, for example, but the team had to run everything from 2009 to test which worked best.
COPA: This is a complete fiction, isn't it?
CSW: Of course not
COPA: No employees can confirm this for you?
CSW: Stefan, Shoab and others can confirm.
COPA: People who you said did this coding won't be given evidence?
CSW: No.
COPA: do you agree this is forged.
CSW: This is from an employee machine. We broke AWS the other day with this [teranode] software.
COPA: The missing characters are indicitive of editing.
CSW: If I change the code, it doesn't change the fonts around it.
COPA: Raw metadata of the PDF shows embedded fonts from 2015. Confirming it's from later than you say.
CSW: It confirms that it has been opened. Adobe distiller will do this. Madden actually noted this in other places.
COPA: I put it to you that the doc wouldn't behave this way.
CSW: Madden has noted that it does, just not here.
COPA: Madden also IDs doc property streams which have differences than the info recorded in the fields.
CSW: We use Atlassian. Documents imported into nChain retain old markers. You can see Craig vs Craig Wright.
COPA: Madden found code to flow editor online. He saw that it produced code flows similar to this one.
CSW: There are lots of software that do this. This completely different.
COPA: Code flow shows this is from 2012.
CSW: As we change programs, things change.
COPA: Metadata shows Adobe from 2016 which didn't exist in 2008.
CSW: Adobe Distiller does that.
COPA: This is a document created after 2016 to produce reliance docs which are forged.
CSW: IT's the dev process to create a distributed system. Version control is crucial in these environments and this is a dev file.
BREAK TIME 5 MINUTES
Tips appreciated in BSV to kurt@handcash.io.
For fiat tips, please grab something from my Amazon wish list. There's something for all budgets!
amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls…
For fiat tips, please grab something from my Amazon wish list. There's something for all budgets!
amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls…
BACK AT IT
COPA: Here's Bitcoin.exe. Executable file. Do you recall from Madden that this doc had be HEX edited?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You agree?
CSW: I do
COPA: Noting a difference between your name and Satoshi. Also the IP addresses.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Despite the differences in text, there's the same number of character spaces. This is to stop it from crashing.
CSW: Sure, or you could use a HEX editor.
COPA: Your name is written in such a way as to match the character length of Satoshi's
CSW: It is
COPA: Satoshi's original code has a reference doc that is identical.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: HEX edit has your name in the copyright
CSW: And Alpha version change
COPA: Madden says a checksum test showed the file with your name was corrupt.
CSW: That's correct.
COPA: Created by HEX edit, but you didn't do it?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Done by an employee?
CSW: Yes
COPA: From Kleiman side to fabricate a business relationship?
CSW: YEs
COPA: You couldn't have done this?
CSW: The IP address is a VPN from Dave so he could get into the company. By adding that address to the doc, it makes it look like Dave helped code bitcoin.
COPA: When did the employee do this?
CSW: People from Hotwire and Ira started in 2014. There were two agendas. EMployees wanted to sell Hotwire IP to PMB Barabbas (SP?) for $100mm before it was patented. Then, there was a deal with Ira. The only reason I know this is because we have that old laptop.
COPA: So an employee made it look like you created the file to advance a case for Kleiman?
CSW: And Kleiman did advance that case, yes.
COPA: Why always ex-employees? You disclosed this doc in this litigation. You didn't suggest it was treated with care because it was fake.
CSW: The chain of custody info was clear. American litigation is extensive. The laptop was the current director of the company, and I was a former, but the judge in the US demanded it be handed over.
COPA: But you gave the file in these proceedings.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You didn't draw attention to the fact that this doc was pure poison and faked.
CSW: It explains that the ex employees who were fired were the source of that file.
COPA: If you had been aware, you would have made sure it was ID'd.
CSW: It was brought up multiple times. I would expected YOU to look at it.
Mellor: Were you cross examined on this in Kleiman?
CSW: Yes, and I assumed Hough would have done his due diligence.
COPA: I put that this was a forgery.
CSW: If I had the source code, I could have made a perfect copy. This is all public already.
COPA: Let's see what the experts say.
CSW: [drinks water with a grin]
COPA: Moving on...
COPA: Here's Bitcoin.exe. Executable file. Do you recall from Madden that this doc had be HEX edited?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You agree?
CSW: I do
COPA: Noting a difference between your name and Satoshi. Also the IP addresses.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Despite the differences in text, there's the same number of character spaces. This is to stop it from crashing.
CSW: Sure, or you could use a HEX editor.
COPA: Your name is written in such a way as to match the character length of Satoshi's
CSW: It is
COPA: Satoshi's original code has a reference doc that is identical.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: HEX edit has your name in the copyright
CSW: And Alpha version change
COPA: Madden says a checksum test showed the file with your name was corrupt.
CSW: That's correct.
COPA: Created by HEX edit, but you didn't do it?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Done by an employee?
CSW: Yes
COPA: From Kleiman side to fabricate a business relationship?
CSW: YEs
COPA: You couldn't have done this?
CSW: The IP address is a VPN from Dave so he could get into the company. By adding that address to the doc, it makes it look like Dave helped code bitcoin.
COPA: When did the employee do this?
CSW: People from Hotwire and Ira started in 2014. There were two agendas. EMployees wanted to sell Hotwire IP to PMB Barabbas (SP?) for $100mm before it was patented. Then, there was a deal with Ira. The only reason I know this is because we have that old laptop.
COPA: So an employee made it look like you created the file to advance a case for Kleiman?
CSW: And Kleiman did advance that case, yes.
COPA: Why always ex-employees? You disclosed this doc in this litigation. You didn't suggest it was treated with care because it was fake.
CSW: The chain of custody info was clear. American litigation is extensive. The laptop was the current director of the company, and I was a former, but the judge in the US demanded it be handed over.
COPA: But you gave the file in these proceedings.
CSW: Yes
COPA: You didn't draw attention to the fact that this doc was pure poison and faked.
CSW: It explains that the ex employees who were fired were the source of that file.
COPA: If you had been aware, you would have made sure it was ID'd.
CSW: It was brought up multiple times. I would expected YOU to look at it.
Mellor: Were you cross examined on this in Kleiman?
CSW: Yes, and I assumed Hough would have done his due diligence.
COPA: I put that this was a forgery.
CSW: If I had the source code, I could have made a perfect copy. This is all public already.
COPA: Let's see what the experts say.
CSW: [drinks water with a grin]
COPA: Moving on...
COPA: Is this a debug log for bitcoin software?
CSW: Yes
COPA: These were almost identical, but a few changes. Your name instead of admin. Server changed from Hitchcock to Ausmail. and IP address change.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Was the original IP address yours?
CSW: My company, not mine. the second one was mine
COPA: Is this your's too? A speedtest.
CSW: Looks too slow. I had gigabit
COPA: This one?
CSW: Looks like a BT IP address.
COPA: That's your address.
CSW: I said THIS one was mine.
COPA: Which is you?
CSW: This one. I misunderstood your first example.
COPA: Moving on.
Mellor: What does it say Craig in the top right?
CSW: I don't know. It also has an Apple icon.
COPA: Looks like an amendment to change the IP address to your address.
CSW: This is an English IP address. I didn't have that until 2017.
COPA: The creation date is 6 years later than the last edit.
CSW: I don't know where the file came from, but you could make that happen with Xcopy
COPA: You see this failed connection with an IP address. Tracked here. Active up until 2011. So doc would have a creation time of a later date than the metadata.
CSW: Could be when it changed from IRC to AussieMail server. When I worked at AussieMail in the 90's, it would have been closed before bitcoin was created.
COPA: Chain of Custody won't show anything because it's not reliance.
CSW: Ok, then I don't know. It looks tampered with.
COPA: Why?
CSW: I could guess it's from an ex-employee, but I don't know the source.
CSW: Yes
COPA: These were almost identical, but a few changes. Your name instead of admin. Server changed from Hitchcock to Ausmail. and IP address change.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Was the original IP address yours?
CSW: My company, not mine. the second one was mine
COPA: Is this your's too? A speedtest.
CSW: Looks too slow. I had gigabit
COPA: This one?
CSW: Looks like a BT IP address.
COPA: That's your address.
CSW: I said THIS one was mine.
COPA: Which is you?
CSW: This one. I misunderstood your first example.
COPA: Moving on.
Mellor: What does it say Craig in the top right?
CSW: I don't know. It also has an Apple icon.
COPA: Looks like an amendment to change the IP address to your address.
CSW: This is an English IP address. I didn't have that until 2017.
COPA: The creation date is 6 years later than the last edit.
CSW: I don't know where the file came from, but you could make that happen with Xcopy
COPA: You see this failed connection with an IP address. Tracked here. Active up until 2011. So doc would have a creation time of a later date than the metadata.
CSW: Could be when it changed from IRC to AussieMail server. When I worked at AussieMail in the 90's, it would have been closed before bitcoin was created.
COPA: Chain of Custody won't show anything because it's not reliance.
CSW: Ok, then I don't know. It looks tampered with.
COPA: Why?
CSW: I could guess it's from an ex-employee, but I don't know the source.
COPA: Moving on to email from Satoshi UNG. Is that Uyen Nguyen?
CSW: It would seem so.
COPA: If this email was genuinely from Satoshi to Uyen, it would support your claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: Uyen was an intern in California. This was in 2014, so Vistomail had been sold. If it was 2008-09, it might have been supportive, but this year has no value.
COPA: A genuine email from Satoshi would support you.
CSW: Identity doesn't come from possession. If I get someone's password and send emails spoofing them, am I proving I am them? Rather, ID is a construct through time including proof of work.
COPA: Madden finds the Satoshi address and Craig address at Hotwire are in the Reply field.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Authored on a computer on the network titled "CWRIGHT"
CSW: In "Hello" anyone can type a value, so that doesn't guarantee that's me.
COPA: Also Craig at RCBJ. Is that your address?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Is this spoofed?
CSW: Yes
COPA: It's in your disclosure.
CSW: We turned over everything. I even included communications between husband and wife, so I'm not happy about it. CWRIGHT wasn't my computer. I don't name my machines that way.
COPA: Did Uyen do this?
CSW: Probabilistically, yes.
COPA: But it's spoofed?
CSW: Yes, of a compromised system.
COPA: Who compromised it?
CSW: I'd have to check the COC docs. I could look it up, but don't have it memorized.
COPA: You didn't suggest in disclosure that it had been fake.
CSW: We indicated that it was from one of the ex-staff laptops which we explained were compromised.
COPA: Then why give it?
CSW: We argued that we shouldn't, but were told to put everything in.
COPA: Pause. I'm asking, were these unreliable to harm you?
CSW: I provided info to my solicitors and didn't want to send these things, but it was given.
COPA: Why wasn't it clear?
CSW: If this is from Kleiman, I was already questioned under oath, it's public information already. There's a reason I'm not using Ontier anymore, but we won't go there.
CSW: It would seem so.
COPA: If this email was genuinely from Satoshi to Uyen, it would support your claim to be Satoshi.
CSW: Uyen was an intern in California. This was in 2014, so Vistomail had been sold. If it was 2008-09, it might have been supportive, but this year has no value.
COPA: A genuine email from Satoshi would support you.
CSW: Identity doesn't come from possession. If I get someone's password and send emails spoofing them, am I proving I am them? Rather, ID is a construct through time including proof of work.
COPA: Madden finds the Satoshi address and Craig address at Hotwire are in the Reply field.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Authored on a computer on the network titled "CWRIGHT"
CSW: In "Hello" anyone can type a value, so that doesn't guarantee that's me.
COPA: Also Craig at RCBJ. Is that your address?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Is this spoofed?
CSW: Yes
COPA: It's in your disclosure.
CSW: We turned over everything. I even included communications between husband and wife, so I'm not happy about it. CWRIGHT wasn't my computer. I don't name my machines that way.
COPA: Did Uyen do this?
CSW: Probabilistically, yes.
COPA: But it's spoofed?
CSW: Yes, of a compromised system.
COPA: Who compromised it?
CSW: I'd have to check the COC docs. I could look it up, but don't have it memorized.
COPA: You didn't suggest in disclosure that it had been fake.
CSW: We indicated that it was from one of the ex-staff laptops which we explained were compromised.
COPA: Then why give it?
CSW: We argued that we shouldn't, but were told to put everything in.
COPA: Pause. I'm asking, were these unreliable to harm you?
CSW: I provided info to my solicitors and didn't want to send these things, but it was given.
COPA: Why wasn't it clear?
CSW: If this is from Kleiman, I was already questioned under oath, it's public information already. There's a reason I'm not using Ontier anymore, but we won't go there.
COPA: Email to Michelle Seven. [Craig smirking as it's read] Is this spoofed?
CSW: Definitely
COPA: Didn't ID this as fake?
CSW: Yes we did.
COPA: Email between you and Ira Kleiman 2014 from Craig at Information Defense forwarded an email from Dave the "bitcoin, bitcash better version of me" email. This was considered in the Kleiman litigation.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: An excerpt shows you claiming to have created bitcoin here.
CSW: Yes
COPA: The body of the email is the same. Header is different. You assert it's from moving exchange servers. You didn't say the content had changed or that it was a forgery, but was real and changed because of server.
CSW: I noted there was a real email, but that the email was doctored by Ira. I asked Dave to be part of what I was working on. He was my best friend before he died, and I spend 2.5 years trying to get him involved. Ira used a modified version of my email to build the case around his brother.
COPA: So you said it was the same?
CSW: Materially the same.
COPA: When you signed the statement of truth, did you believe the text of the email was the same.
CSW: Materially
COPA: Were there differences?
CSW: I believe there were changes. I noted in Florida, it was based on original email, but I no longer have the original. I did send the email and commented that I wanted him to be part of this, but I don't have the original anymore.
COPA: You said "I sent out the email in 2008..." You didn't suggest that it was a bit like the original.
CSW: You asked me about the header. I didn't explain anything else because it wasn't part of the question.
COPA: Do you see this other version?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Are any of these emails original?
CSW: No
COPA: Did you forward this to Stefan?
CSW: No
COPA: Why does it appear that way in disclosure?
CSW: A number of email addresses were compromised. SysAdmin was trusted, but was a wolf in the hen house. My email and my wife's and children's personal information were compromised, and Ira started sending out info to Wired, Gizmodo and others with my emails.
COPA: You're aware this new document is forged?
CSW: Well, I purged and re-set up my stuff in late 2015 because of the compromise, so I shut down the RCJBR account for my family - losing all emails - because I feared for compromised code.
COPA: This email to Stefan isn't genuine?
CSW: the account was compromised, so it could be a genuine email, but not necessarily from me.
COPA: OK, did YOU send this email to Stefan with this content?
CSW: No, I accept that my address was used.
COPA: It wasn't YOU?
CSW: No.
COPA: Your witness statement says otherwise. Was that false?
CSW: It says it's an email to Stefan. The email from me to Dave was real, but the email to Stefan is not. "I'm sorry you missed the comma."
COPA: It's a contradiction.
CSW: No. This is an email to Stefan, but not one that I sent.
COPA: So you're saying now that the email to Stefan is not from you?
CSW: Not from me. It contains a message from me to Dave which is genuine.
COPA: Is WHOIS a valid way to find domain info?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Is the RCJBR email from 2011?
CSW: Yes, Ira saying this email was from 2009 and of Dave helping with bitcoin was bad evidence because I didn't meet Ramona until 2011.
COPA: Transmission timestamp was from 2015 according to Madden. Do you accept that it wasn't authentic?
CSW: Sure, the IP address is in the US. I was in AUS. I never had a US IP address either. Also, PDT is a timezone that I don't use. This was likely Ira.
COPA: Other issues?
CSW: Ira didn't realize I had moved to Information Defense, he didn't know the history, so his frauds were poorly made.
COPA: So this one is not genuine?
CSW: I am not denying it's fake. My belief is that because I showed a screenshot to Ira, there was no domain info, so I believe he used the screenshot to fabricate an email.
COPA: So the domain name wasn't about migration of server, but rather by editing an email.
CSW: I went from Ridges Estate domain to Information Defense domain, but keeping the same structure. This email isn't that.
COPA: So part of the difference is an actual migration, and the other part is altering the actual document?
CSW: Without knowledge, Ira didn't understand how to forge this better, but it's likely something like that, yes.
COPA: What an excuse!
CSW: I never forwarded this to Ira. After the doxxing, I deleted active directory and everything else to purge anything malicious.
COPA: What is this one?
CSW: It's Brisbane, so that's Jamie Wilson, former CFO. He was dismissed for embezzlement. He lives in Queensland, and that's his IP address.
COPA: You said it was Ira, but the IP address is Aus?
CSW: Jamie and Ira were working together. Jamie tried to sell my IP to google, and other things, and then worked with Ira.
COPA: So what happened?
CSW: X500 structure makes it look that way. The email isn't from my exchange server. It's from Queensland, not Sydney. I was in Sydney.
COPA: You said the domain changed due to server migration.
CSW: Yes, I had sent an email. If the correct email was there, it was there, but I didn't analyze how it was created or deeper details. I don't have the original now, but I didn't say anything about TOR and other. Jamie was doctoring my signature. My first patent was assigned to him, which I never did, for example.
COPA: There are lies here. Directly at odds with your testimony that the content was the same.
CSW: Materially the same.
COPA: Also your email to Stefan
CSW: I apologize for not being clear, but it's an email to Stefan. In that email was a genuine email, but the one to Stefan was not.
COPA: Nothing made his case better for him in Florida!
CSW: The financiers of Kleiman wanted Ira to the heir of a dead Satoshi. Paid by people who are now your clients, they wanted to weaken my position and make dead Dave the real Satoshi for their purposes.
BREAKING FOR LUNCH.
REMINDER, I WILL MISS THE FIRST HOUR BACK FROM LUNCH DUE TO DR APPOINTMENT.
CSW: Definitely
COPA: Didn't ID this as fake?
CSW: Yes we did.
COPA: Email between you and Ira Kleiman 2014 from Craig at Information Defense forwarded an email from Dave the "bitcoin, bitcash better version of me" email. This was considered in the Kleiman litigation.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: An excerpt shows you claiming to have created bitcoin here.
CSW: Yes
COPA: The body of the email is the same. Header is different. You assert it's from moving exchange servers. You didn't say the content had changed or that it was a forgery, but was real and changed because of server.
CSW: I noted there was a real email, but that the email was doctored by Ira. I asked Dave to be part of what I was working on. He was my best friend before he died, and I spend 2.5 years trying to get him involved. Ira used a modified version of my email to build the case around his brother.
COPA: So you said it was the same?
CSW: Materially the same.
COPA: When you signed the statement of truth, did you believe the text of the email was the same.
CSW: Materially
COPA: Were there differences?
CSW: I believe there were changes. I noted in Florida, it was based on original email, but I no longer have the original. I did send the email and commented that I wanted him to be part of this, but I don't have the original anymore.
COPA: You said "I sent out the email in 2008..." You didn't suggest that it was a bit like the original.
CSW: You asked me about the header. I didn't explain anything else because it wasn't part of the question.
COPA: Do you see this other version?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Are any of these emails original?
CSW: No
COPA: Did you forward this to Stefan?
CSW: No
COPA: Why does it appear that way in disclosure?
CSW: A number of email addresses were compromised. SysAdmin was trusted, but was a wolf in the hen house. My email and my wife's and children's personal information were compromised, and Ira started sending out info to Wired, Gizmodo and others with my emails.
COPA: You're aware this new document is forged?
CSW: Well, I purged and re-set up my stuff in late 2015 because of the compromise, so I shut down the RCJBR account for my family - losing all emails - because I feared for compromised code.
COPA: This email to Stefan isn't genuine?
CSW: the account was compromised, so it could be a genuine email, but not necessarily from me.
COPA: OK, did YOU send this email to Stefan with this content?
CSW: No, I accept that my address was used.
COPA: It wasn't YOU?
CSW: No.
COPA: Your witness statement says otherwise. Was that false?
CSW: It says it's an email to Stefan. The email from me to Dave was real, but the email to Stefan is not. "I'm sorry you missed the comma."
COPA: It's a contradiction.
CSW: No. This is an email to Stefan, but not one that I sent.
COPA: So you're saying now that the email to Stefan is not from you?
CSW: Not from me. It contains a message from me to Dave which is genuine.
COPA: Is WHOIS a valid way to find domain info?
CSW: Yes
COPA: Is the RCJBR email from 2011?
CSW: Yes, Ira saying this email was from 2009 and of Dave helping with bitcoin was bad evidence because I didn't meet Ramona until 2011.
COPA: Transmission timestamp was from 2015 according to Madden. Do you accept that it wasn't authentic?
CSW: Sure, the IP address is in the US. I was in AUS. I never had a US IP address either. Also, PDT is a timezone that I don't use. This was likely Ira.
COPA: Other issues?
CSW: Ira didn't realize I had moved to Information Defense, he didn't know the history, so his frauds were poorly made.
COPA: So this one is not genuine?
CSW: I am not denying it's fake. My belief is that because I showed a screenshot to Ira, there was no domain info, so I believe he used the screenshot to fabricate an email.
COPA: So the domain name wasn't about migration of server, but rather by editing an email.
CSW: I went from Ridges Estate domain to Information Defense domain, but keeping the same structure. This email isn't that.
COPA: So part of the difference is an actual migration, and the other part is altering the actual document?
CSW: Without knowledge, Ira didn't understand how to forge this better, but it's likely something like that, yes.
COPA: What an excuse!
CSW: I never forwarded this to Ira. After the doxxing, I deleted active directory and everything else to purge anything malicious.
COPA: What is this one?
CSW: It's Brisbane, so that's Jamie Wilson, former CFO. He was dismissed for embezzlement. He lives in Queensland, and that's his IP address.
COPA: You said it was Ira, but the IP address is Aus?
CSW: Jamie and Ira were working together. Jamie tried to sell my IP to google, and other things, and then worked with Ira.
COPA: So what happened?
CSW: X500 structure makes it look that way. The email isn't from my exchange server. It's from Queensland, not Sydney. I was in Sydney.
COPA: You said the domain changed due to server migration.
CSW: Yes, I had sent an email. If the correct email was there, it was there, but I didn't analyze how it was created or deeper details. I don't have the original now, but I didn't say anything about TOR and other. Jamie was doctoring my signature. My first patent was assigned to him, which I never did, for example.
COPA: There are lies here. Directly at odds with your testimony that the content was the same.
CSW: Materially the same.
COPA: Also your email to Stefan
CSW: I apologize for not being clear, but it's an email to Stefan. In that email was a genuine email, but the one to Stefan was not.
COPA: Nothing made his case better for him in Florida!
CSW: The financiers of Kleiman wanted Ira to the heir of a dead Satoshi. Paid by people who are now your clients, they wanted to weaken my position and make dead Dave the real Satoshi for their purposes.
BREAKING FOR LUNCH.
REMINDER, I WILL MISS THE FIRST HOUR BACK FROM LUNCH DUE TO DR APPOINTMENT.
OK I'M BACK!
COPA: 2011 Email from Dave to Craig. Deed of trust between Craig Wright International and Tulip Trading. Copy from Kleiman litigation. Includes bitcoin transferred by Kleiman in 2011 (1.1 million bitcoin) between entities. Including Abacus Seychelles among Uyen, Dave and unknown holders of 3 PGP keys. You see this?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You swore this was an authentic deed of trust.
CSW: I did. Go to the next page to see.
CSW: Like I said, it purports to be a deed of trust.
COPA: You said it was executed on your birthday.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You swore it was authentic and signed by you
CSW: Yes
COPA: This was found by Kleiman's lawyer to be a forgery.
CSW: I said it was my understanding that it was real, so I don't know.
COPA: You said it was in 2012 ATO case?
CSW: Yes, I denied it was a forgery.
COPA: You still say this is a genuine document?
CSW: No. It is not.
COPA: Why?
CSW: As I said in the original, I set it up so I had no involvement. When I was given it in 2012, I saw signatures that I recognized, but couldn't even ask about it until 2020. At that point, I found out it was invalid, so I don't know what was. I was ordered to hand off everything to the US court, but I told them I can't vouch for anything to be real, but I can state what looks real. What I know now is that this didn't happen.
COPA: What didn't?
CSW: This document isn't real.
COPA: It's a real document, but isn't part of the trust. there wasnt an agreement between Wright Intl and Tulip. I was nearly put into contempt in the US case. I spent years doing anger management at that point, [Mellor smiles].
COPA: How did you discover it wasn't real agreement?
CSW: In 2021, there was a Trust meeting held, and I was then allowed to get access to the real deed. The meeting required 70% or more voters to be present, and it was accepted.
COPA: So the doc you swore was authentic, was wrong. Did you discover anything else?
CSW: It was from a cache of docs, but I was out from 2011-2020. If I won at the AAT, the restrictions would go away, but it's been hairy.
COPA: Going to Granath transcript. You were asked if the trust doc from Kleiman was the one here.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You swore they were real.
CSW: Some docs were merged. I didn't know what was what specifically here.
COPA: There's a stark inconsistency here.
CSW: I'd argue that taking merging docs make a single doc, but maybe not coherent. It was purported to be a valid trust doc, but I don't know what was what necessarily.
COPA: So it was fake and used by Ira?
CSW: That's what I've been saying. I couldn't know because I wasn't involved from 2011-2020, so I had no knowledge. It appeared to be real at the time, and I was clear on that.
COPA: You said here Dave and Uyen were not trustees and that PGP keys can't be trustees either.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You could have seen by looking at the doc before though!
CSW: I hadn't yet studied Seychelles law at the time. I learned later that ID is needed for keys.
COPA: You swore it was genuine.
CSW: I swore that it was in a file of Tulip Trust docs, but that I couldn't confirm. the person was the person I appointed, and the Savanna company was one that I started.
COPA: You didn't say you weren't sure.
CSW: I went to the Magistrate and threw the doc on the ground and I was cited for it, but I knew it was a document in the trust pile that I couldn't invalidate due to the law within the trust. I explained that as far as I knew it was valid, but that I couldn't confirm at that time.
COPA: The "I think youre mad and this is risky" email, we know this can't be genuine because Dave had died.
CSW: Correct
COPA: Madden examined and found that paragraph 5 has a modified FROM field to include Dave. The Metadata shows sender and receiver as Craig@Panopticrypt. the full XMP metadata shows the same.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: There is also contradiction on timestamps.
CSW: Yes
COPA: This was from your C01N company?
CSW: Should have been CoinEx, which Ira had some shareholder stake in, actually.
COPA: You see the ATO document here for C01N Proprietary Limited, yes?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Your company?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: What is all this?
CSW: DeMorgan was the parent company that paid taxes for the sub-entities.
COPA: So Kleiman submitted this doc to the tax office?
CSW: With people from my company. We were being pushed into administration and liquidation. When MTGOX collapsed, I couldn't sell bitcoin, and we got pinched hard. Some staff made a deal with Ira with the belief that in liquidation the IP could be taken. they didn't realize it's still property of the company. They tried to push that to the ATO.
Panopticrypt was the top of the pyramid that was owned by my whole family.
COPA: ATO is clear that the tax payer is C01N.
CSW: No, it's part of a group. The group files together.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You swore this was an authentic deed of trust.
CSW: I did. Go to the next page to see.
CSW: Like I said, it purports to be a deed of trust.
COPA: You said it was executed on your birthday.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You swore it was authentic and signed by you
CSW: Yes
COPA: This was found by Kleiman's lawyer to be a forgery.
CSW: I said it was my understanding that it was real, so I don't know.
COPA: You said it was in 2012 ATO case?
CSW: Yes, I denied it was a forgery.
COPA: You still say this is a genuine document?
CSW: No. It is not.
COPA: Why?
CSW: As I said in the original, I set it up so I had no involvement. When I was given it in 2012, I saw signatures that I recognized, but couldn't even ask about it until 2020. At that point, I found out it was invalid, so I don't know what was. I was ordered to hand off everything to the US court, but I told them I can't vouch for anything to be real, but I can state what looks real. What I know now is that this didn't happen.
COPA: What didn't?
CSW: This document isn't real.
COPA: It's a real document, but isn't part of the trust. there wasnt an agreement between Wright Intl and Tulip. I was nearly put into contempt in the US case. I spent years doing anger management at that point, [Mellor smiles].
COPA: How did you discover it wasn't real agreement?
CSW: In 2021, there was a Trust meeting held, and I was then allowed to get access to the real deed. The meeting required 70% or more voters to be present, and it was accepted.
COPA: So the doc you swore was authentic, was wrong. Did you discover anything else?
CSW: It was from a cache of docs, but I was out from 2011-2020. If I won at the AAT, the restrictions would go away, but it's been hairy.
COPA: Going to Granath transcript. You were asked if the trust doc from Kleiman was the one here.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You swore they were real.
CSW: Some docs were merged. I didn't know what was what specifically here.
COPA: There's a stark inconsistency here.
CSW: I'd argue that taking merging docs make a single doc, but maybe not coherent. It was purported to be a valid trust doc, but I don't know what was what necessarily.
COPA: So it was fake and used by Ira?
CSW: That's what I've been saying. I couldn't know because I wasn't involved from 2011-2020, so I had no knowledge. It appeared to be real at the time, and I was clear on that.
COPA: You said here Dave and Uyen were not trustees and that PGP keys can't be trustees either.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: You could have seen by looking at the doc before though!
CSW: I hadn't yet studied Seychelles law at the time. I learned later that ID is needed for keys.
COPA: You swore it was genuine.
CSW: I swore that it was in a file of Tulip Trust docs, but that I couldn't confirm. the person was the person I appointed, and the Savanna company was one that I started.
COPA: You didn't say you weren't sure.
CSW: I went to the Magistrate and threw the doc on the ground and I was cited for it, but I knew it was a document in the trust pile that I couldn't invalidate due to the law within the trust. I explained that as far as I knew it was valid, but that I couldn't confirm at that time.
COPA: The "I think youre mad and this is risky" email, we know this can't be genuine because Dave had died.
CSW: Correct
COPA: Madden examined and found that paragraph 5 has a modified FROM field to include Dave. The Metadata shows sender and receiver as Craig@Panopticrypt. the full XMP metadata shows the same.
CSW: I see that.
COPA: There is also contradiction on timestamps.
CSW: Yes
COPA: This was from your C01N company?
CSW: Should have been CoinEx, which Ira had some shareholder stake in, actually.
COPA: You see the ATO document here for C01N Proprietary Limited, yes?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Your company?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: What is all this?
CSW: DeMorgan was the parent company that paid taxes for the sub-entities.
COPA: So Kleiman submitted this doc to the tax office?
CSW: With people from my company. We were being pushed into administration and liquidation. When MTGOX collapsed, I couldn't sell bitcoin, and we got pinched hard. Some staff made a deal with Ira with the belief that in liquidation the IP could be taken. they didn't realize it's still property of the company. They tried to push that to the ATO.
Panopticrypt was the top of the pyramid that was owned by my whole family.
COPA: ATO is clear that the tax payer is C01N.
CSW: No, it's part of a group. The group files together.
COPA: Document showing Savanna holds shares of Tulip. Do you say this is genuine?
CSW: I do
COPA: Madden's report found a creation date of October 2014 and modification in 2015. The signature block had been added as a graphic image and added later.
CSW: Yes
COPA: It looks like assets going into Tulip in 2011, but it's from 2014.
CSW: Tulip Trading is a company, not the Trust. The nominee shareholder meeting decided that Hotwire would hold the lease on the property where other companies were HQ'd. When Hotwire was placed into liquidation, all companies were locked out of the property, records and computers. The owners of the building believed we wouldn't pay, and they sold some of our equipment and sold them. We had to get new versions of documents.
COPA: the reality is that setting up the trust and Tulip Trading LTD tell a story of you in 2014 trying to create a fake record.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: Madden finds that there is editing of some of these words. there's also a doc from which this was created where he finds the original authentic doc that includes the purchase of "shelf company." So, it wasn't an existing company. You purchased it in 2014.
CSW: That's incorrect. W&K would have been used if Dave hadn't gotten ill, but Tulip Trust or Trading were presumed to not exist, and Ira created documents to make it look like only W&K could have existed to own this IP.
COPA: Looking at abacus entity in 2011.
CSW: I see a cut and paste. That isn't my signature. In Kleiman, this was analyzed and shown not to be my signature.
COPA: You're aware that Madden has found there are 2 docs in disclosure. He found there is metadata from editing the 2011 doc.
CSW: Yes, it's obviously wrong. It's all edited poorly.
COPA: Here's the Dennis Mayaka message. This you?
CSW: It says my name
COPA: There are changes to your address as beneficial owner.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: It all looks doctored to look like 2011.
CSW: Yes, these look clearly doctored.
COPA: Another indication of you creating docs to suggest that Tulip was created in 2011.
CSW: the trust was set up in the late 90's. , before I even set up DeMorgan. The furst trust was in Belize. I also had many overseas corporations. I had Demorgan in Singapore, others in Antigua, Panama, Hong Kong, Canada... Ira was trying to make this up. He turned down a 3.4 billion dollar settlement offer.
COPA: Stop there.
5 MINUTE BREAKWDI.org
CSW: I do
COPA: Madden's report found a creation date of October 2014 and modification in 2015. The signature block had been added as a graphic image and added later.
CSW: Yes
COPA: It looks like assets going into Tulip in 2011, but it's from 2014.
CSW: Tulip Trading is a company, not the Trust. The nominee shareholder meeting decided that Hotwire would hold the lease on the property where other companies were HQ'd. When Hotwire was placed into liquidation, all companies were locked out of the property, records and computers. The owners of the building believed we wouldn't pay, and they sold some of our equipment and sold them. We had to get new versions of documents.
COPA: the reality is that setting up the trust and Tulip Trading LTD tell a story of you in 2014 trying to create a fake record.
CSW: Nope.
COPA: Madden finds that there is editing of some of these words. there's also a doc from which this was created where he finds the original authentic doc that includes the purchase of "shelf company." So, it wasn't an existing company. You purchased it in 2014.
CSW: That's incorrect. W&K would have been used if Dave hadn't gotten ill, but Tulip Trust or Trading were presumed to not exist, and Ira created documents to make it look like only W&K could have existed to own this IP.
COPA: Looking at abacus entity in 2011.
CSW: I see a cut and paste. That isn't my signature. In Kleiman, this was analyzed and shown not to be my signature.
COPA: You're aware that Madden has found there are 2 docs in disclosure. He found there is metadata from editing the 2011 doc.
CSW: Yes, it's obviously wrong. It's all edited poorly.
COPA: Here's the Dennis Mayaka message. This you?
CSW: It says my name
COPA: There are changes to your address as beneficial owner.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: It all looks doctored to look like 2011.
CSW: Yes, these look clearly doctored.
COPA: Another indication of you creating docs to suggest that Tulip was created in 2011.
CSW: the trust was set up in the late 90's. , before I even set up DeMorgan. The furst trust was in Belize. I also had many overseas corporations. I had Demorgan in Singapore, others in Antigua, Panama, Hong Kong, Canada... Ira was trying to make this up. He turned down a 3.4 billion dollar settlement offer.
COPA: Stop there.
5 MINUTE BREAKWDI.org
COPA: Message from Mayaka about a shelf company. You see this?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Email from you at Hotwire IDing Tulip Trading in 2011 thanking you for your business.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: These emails would all be consistent with buying an aged shelf company.
CSW: I purchased the company in 2011. I had companies doing blockchain work back to Jan 2009. This was a fabrication to throw mud at everything by Mr Kleiman.
COPA: This is evidence of you making this up.
CSW: It shows DeMorgan transferring ownership. I wouldn't be using Hotwire, a company in administration, to buy something from Abacus which would have cost $6000 or more, and there's an indemnity issue that would have made it more expensive. The invoice here is far too cheap too.
COPA: I'm disputing that this is fake.
CSW: I had to pay for shareholder services from DeMorgan. There was a transfer and emails from the compromised email server.
COPA: The end of this chain is Abacus forwarding you the incorporation. A substantial doc record of you in 2014 reserving Tulip as an aged Shelf co.
CSW: No. Every year, Panopticrypt, as director of the overseas companies, would sign for things yearly. We were locked out of office, but you can see we had the administration event, and due to the audit, we were required to get all documentation constructed. They were docs that we requested at that time in 2014.
COPA: Madden found editing in those docs of 2014 to 2011.
CSW: We had an American case with planted evidence. You will see the ex-employee laptops that shows both versions. An employee was working with Ira.
COPA: These wouldn't be in COC.
CSW: These should all be in Relativity.
COPA: That could be privileged info.
CSW: What I've done is fill out a complete COC, so I don't know what you do and don't have. I have seen the DNS and other things, and they're clearly wrong. You can read my textbook on how to do this for Homeland Security. I produced the Judge Prosecutor training manual for this, and I taught on this very topic.
COPA: Documents show you bought a shelf co in 2014.
CSW: It shows I'm close to my chest about things. I had lots of things people didn't know about, and Ira thought he could get my IP by forcing liquidation of my companies.
COPA: This isn't a conspiracy from Ira.
CSW: No, but appeal JUST finished in my favor a few weeks ago, and we are fighting him for the last 1/3rd of the company, and we are fighting over it due to $140mm settlement. We won't liquidate. We want to build a non-profit hospital in Kenya, but Ira wants cash.
COPA: Since you have gone into that, you were judged to the tune of $140mm.
CSW: Well, it was conversion to the value of a company owned by my wife and ex wife. The conversion judgment was procedural, but it was based on things that were not malicious. I wish I handled it differently, but it was largely because of a default judgment in Aus.
COPA: Pretty extraordinary for someone to celebrate a 9 figure judgment.
CSW: Well, I was sued for 600 billion. That's not even 0.1% of the value. Not bad.
COPA: Ira controls some of it?
CSW: Shares and rights, but not control. We will make a non-profit and build hospital in Kenya.
COPA: You told CAH you would request invoices from Mayaka at Abacus to show registration of companies in 2009. CAH called Mayaka telling him to expect an email from Maze Cyber and then Mayaka emailed Stefan from Papa.neema Gmail with a zip file that was copied to you. And you emailed asking for original invoices. and the invoices in the screenshot are real? Do you understand the screenshots were taken by Mayaka?
CSW: He got them from CAH.
COPA: CAH sent screenshots to Mayaka?
CSW: I don't know what's real there. He had been talking to Mayaka. Mayaka trusted CAH as CEO of nChain. I asked Dennis why he was sending screenshots because I wanted invoices.
COPA: Can we please go to report from Sherrell. Is this a photograph you received?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Is it genuine?
CSW: Perhaps. I can't say.
COPA: We can see a number of tabs on the bottom including Spyder, Chain of C..."
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Here's more tabs and a logo for Dragon Bar, and other tabs.
CSW: Yes, in a Windows 10 computer.
COPA: Are these not your computer?
CSW: They are what CAH assumed my laptop looks like. I run a custom built system. I run Windows 11. This is Windows 10 per corporate policy. Ager-Hanssen put malware onto my computer in September, and he was fired from nChain and will be facing criminal action.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Email from you at Hotwire IDing Tulip Trading in 2011 thanking you for your business.
CSW: Yes.
COPA: These emails would all be consistent with buying an aged shelf company.
CSW: I purchased the company in 2011. I had companies doing blockchain work back to Jan 2009. This was a fabrication to throw mud at everything by Mr Kleiman.
COPA: This is evidence of you making this up.
CSW: It shows DeMorgan transferring ownership. I wouldn't be using Hotwire, a company in administration, to buy something from Abacus which would have cost $6000 or more, and there's an indemnity issue that would have made it more expensive. The invoice here is far too cheap too.
COPA: I'm disputing that this is fake.
CSW: I had to pay for shareholder services from DeMorgan. There was a transfer and emails from the compromised email server.
COPA: The end of this chain is Abacus forwarding you the incorporation. A substantial doc record of you in 2014 reserving Tulip as an aged Shelf co.
CSW: No. Every year, Panopticrypt, as director of the overseas companies, would sign for things yearly. We were locked out of office, but you can see we had the administration event, and due to the audit, we were required to get all documentation constructed. They were docs that we requested at that time in 2014.
COPA: Madden found editing in those docs of 2014 to 2011.
CSW: We had an American case with planted evidence. You will see the ex-employee laptops that shows both versions. An employee was working with Ira.
COPA: These wouldn't be in COC.
CSW: These should all be in Relativity.
COPA: That could be privileged info.
CSW: What I've done is fill out a complete COC, so I don't know what you do and don't have. I have seen the DNS and other things, and they're clearly wrong. You can read my textbook on how to do this for Homeland Security. I produced the Judge Prosecutor training manual for this, and I taught on this very topic.
COPA: Documents show you bought a shelf co in 2014.
CSW: It shows I'm close to my chest about things. I had lots of things people didn't know about, and Ira thought he could get my IP by forcing liquidation of my companies.
COPA: This isn't a conspiracy from Ira.
CSW: No, but appeal JUST finished in my favor a few weeks ago, and we are fighting him for the last 1/3rd of the company, and we are fighting over it due to $140mm settlement. We won't liquidate. We want to build a non-profit hospital in Kenya, but Ira wants cash.
COPA: Since you have gone into that, you were judged to the tune of $140mm.
CSW: Well, it was conversion to the value of a company owned by my wife and ex wife. The conversion judgment was procedural, but it was based on things that were not malicious. I wish I handled it differently, but it was largely because of a default judgment in Aus.
COPA: Pretty extraordinary for someone to celebrate a 9 figure judgment.
CSW: Well, I was sued for 600 billion. That's not even 0.1% of the value. Not bad.
COPA: Ira controls some of it?
CSW: Shares and rights, but not control. We will make a non-profit and build hospital in Kenya.
COPA: You told CAH you would request invoices from Mayaka at Abacus to show registration of companies in 2009. CAH called Mayaka telling him to expect an email from Maze Cyber and then Mayaka emailed Stefan from Papa.neema Gmail with a zip file that was copied to you. And you emailed asking for original invoices. and the invoices in the screenshot are real? Do you understand the screenshots were taken by Mayaka?
CSW: He got them from CAH.
COPA: CAH sent screenshots to Mayaka?
CSW: I don't know what's real there. He had been talking to Mayaka. Mayaka trusted CAH as CEO of nChain. I asked Dennis why he was sending screenshots because I wanted invoices.
COPA: Can we please go to report from Sherrell. Is this a photograph you received?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Is it genuine?
CSW: Perhaps. I can't say.
COPA: We can see a number of tabs on the bottom including Spyder, Chain of C..."
CSW: Yes.
COPA: Here's more tabs and a logo for Dragon Bar, and other tabs.
CSW: Yes, in a Windows 10 computer.
COPA: Are these not your computer?
CSW: They are what CAH assumed my laptop looks like. I run a custom built system. I run Windows 11. This is Windows 10 per corporate policy. Ager-Hanssen put malware onto my computer in September, and he was fired from nChain and will be facing criminal action.
COPA: Chain of C assumes COC and Spyder.rtf is the name of a deleted file from the Samsung drive which Madden recovered which had been backdated from 2017.
CSW: I know what spyder rtf is.
COPA: It's a doc associated with you?
CSW: I created the real doc. I don't know if it's that version.
COPA: Tab for University
CSW: Yes
COPA: Tab for Dragon bar, which you use.
CSW: Yes, but I use a different version. You'll notice the difference in cable bars. Christen should have done better homework.
COPA: It looks perfectly consistent.
CSW: Pull it up, and I'll demonstrate. Look at each. Different conduits.
COPA: It's no coincidence that these look like your computer?
CSW: Nope. You saw that CAH arranged to meet me at a gala. We know that he spikes drinks. He admitted this in an interview. When we met, I got weirdly drunk ust like Roche. CAH also tweeted that he had compromised my system. Maze Cyber is a hacker group that he has admitted he uses. I trusted him, and I found my files all over the place.
COPA: Another elaborate set up?
CSW: Yes, and no. Links to Algorand and BTC Core.
COPA: You're just making this up.
CSW: No, your guy Sherrell showed this in his report. He was showing my live browsing history remotely on a screen. that demonstrates complete control of my system.
COPA: He set up a computer just like your's to take a photograph to send to Mayaka to send to you?!
CSW: Yes, I told Stefan this was getting crazy, so I went to Zafar and realized they went to Dennis Mayaka already. We realized CAH had added himself to my case somehow... I liked Travers Smith, but they had to go after the CAH thing. CAH panicked when. Isaid I can talk to Dennis. Zafar told me I couldn't use the docs. And it's been crazy.
COPA: This is a fiction. These are photos taken by you of your monitor.
CSW: Cristen did an interview where he explained he set everything up to infiltrate nChain to own it or destroy it. Then he started engaging COPA members and giving files that he shouldn't have had.
COPA: You didn't say this in witness statements.
CSW: I think I linked it, but I dont know what has been withdrawn.
COPA: No such interview was disclosed in these proceedings.
CSW: Well, it's public.
CSW: I know what spyder rtf is.
COPA: It's a doc associated with you?
CSW: I created the real doc. I don't know if it's that version.
COPA: Tab for University
CSW: Yes
COPA: Tab for Dragon bar, which you use.
CSW: Yes, but I use a different version. You'll notice the difference in cable bars. Christen should have done better homework.
COPA: It looks perfectly consistent.
CSW: Pull it up, and I'll demonstrate. Look at each. Different conduits.
COPA: It's no coincidence that these look like your computer?
CSW: Nope. You saw that CAH arranged to meet me at a gala. We know that he spikes drinks. He admitted this in an interview. When we met, I got weirdly drunk ust like Roche. CAH also tweeted that he had compromised my system. Maze Cyber is a hacker group that he has admitted he uses. I trusted him, and I found my files all over the place.
COPA: Another elaborate set up?
CSW: Yes, and no. Links to Algorand and BTC Core.
COPA: You're just making this up.
CSW: No, your guy Sherrell showed this in his report. He was showing my live browsing history remotely on a screen. that demonstrates complete control of my system.
COPA: He set up a computer just like your's to take a photograph to send to Mayaka to send to you?!
CSW: Yes, I told Stefan this was getting crazy, so I went to Zafar and realized they went to Dennis Mayaka already. We realized CAH had added himself to my case somehow... I liked Travers Smith, but they had to go after the CAH thing. CAH panicked when. Isaid I can talk to Dennis. Zafar told me I couldn't use the docs. And it's been crazy.
COPA: This is a fiction. These are photos taken by you of your monitor.
CSW: Cristen did an interview where he explained he set everything up to infiltrate nChain to own it or destroy it. Then he started engaging COPA members and giving files that he shouldn't have had.
COPA: You didn't say this in witness statements.
CSW: I think I linked it, but I dont know what has been withdrawn.
COPA: No such interview was disclosed in these proceedings.
CSW: Well, it's public.
COPA: Moving on. This is a DeMorgan company pad written as if bitcoin development notes?
CSW: Early version of Blacknet.
COPA: Back to ECDSA, EDDA, Schnorr notes. After disclosed in this litigation. Daniel Bernstein who developed EDDCSA stated that it was from 2011. In your COC information, you gave info about this document where different parts were written at different times.
CSW: See RRD4 which was the 2011 filing for R&D grant. The red part was from 2011.
COPA: The rest from 2002?
CSW: That's when it started. The second part is newer.
COPA: But it was from 2002 but further notes in red are 2011?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: RSA, ESA, ECDSA are all cryptography algos?
CSW: More than that. Encryption or digital signature algos.
COPA: ECDSA was chosen by Satoshi?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: the writer is explaining that ECDSA should be tried, yes?
CSW: RD4 was a ZK Proof concept, now filed for patent, but it allows linking files with timelock allowing an encrypted book, for example, that allows a file to be decrypted only when paid. Allowing me to send you choice to buy items and you keep what you pay for.
COPA: It was public knowledge that Satoshi and Mike Hearn chose ECDSA because RSA keys were huge.
CSW: And others, including Hal Finney. It's well known in the industry and my own teachings that ECDSA is more secure.
COPA: This note looks like Satoshi trying to choose signature algorithms.
CSW: No, it looks like RD4
COPA: Your notes are from 9 years of handwriting and in your COC docs.
CSW: Yes
CSW: Early version of Blacknet.
COPA: Back to ECDSA, EDDA, Schnorr notes. After disclosed in this litigation. Daniel Bernstein who developed EDDCSA stated that it was from 2011. In your COC information, you gave info about this document where different parts were written at different times.
CSW: See RRD4 which was the 2011 filing for R&D grant. The red part was from 2011.
COPA: The rest from 2002?
CSW: That's when it started. The second part is newer.
COPA: But it was from 2002 but further notes in red are 2011?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: RSA, ESA, ECDSA are all cryptography algos?
CSW: More than that. Encryption or digital signature algos.
COPA: ECDSA was chosen by Satoshi?
CSW: Yes.
COPA: the writer is explaining that ECDSA should be tried, yes?
CSW: RD4 was a ZK Proof concept, now filed for patent, but it allows linking files with timelock allowing an encrypted book, for example, that allows a file to be decrypted only when paid. Allowing me to send you choice to buy items and you keep what you pay for.
COPA: It was public knowledge that Satoshi and Mike Hearn chose ECDSA because RSA keys were huge.
CSW: And others, including Hal Finney. It's well known in the industry and my own teachings that ECDSA is more secure.
COPA: This note looks like Satoshi trying to choose signature algorithms.
CSW: No, it looks like RD4
COPA: Your notes are from 9 years of handwriting and in your COC docs.
CSW: Yes
COPA: Next document. Madden compared the memo template in this to Word templates from 2009 that Dr Placks found. It's more consistent with the current template.
CSW: What he didn't look at was Microsoft bought other companies. Lynn, as my secretary, used one of the templates that Microsoft later purchased.
COPA: MAdden finds this to be manipulated and Placks says it can't be authenticated.
CSW: He says he can't attribute it to ANY template.
COPA: This doc is not authentic to 2009.
CSW: I received it in 2012. Lynn wrote it. CloudCroft took over Information Defense including all records.
COPA: You don't think it's inauthentic?
CSW: The text is what I would have told her to note, but I didn't interact with those notes until I got them back in 2012.
COPA: Next document. Bitcoin notes scanned to PDF Copyright 2008. When does this date from?
CSW: Hard to say if it isn't dated, but it looks like I wrote out. It's a printout form my files since Australia. Pre-Panopticrypt, and that company was 2011.
COPA: Are you aware your solicitors answered questions concerning docs from your witness statement.
CSW: I suppose.
COPA: This is asking for docs referring to your work. A preliminary version of the code.
CSW: Yes, but it would have been updated from then. If I updated my company logo and then get a request to turn over documents, I would, but the logo would be different if I printed them, right?
COPA: So, it's code you started in 2008, but builds further from the 2008 era?
CSW: I can't be sure exactly what version or content would be in there. My proof isn't about what's in the code. It's in the fact that my company can produce 79 bitcoin patents per year.
COPA: Your solicitors were asked for early version of the code though!
CSW: No. Not every line of code would have changed, either way. The majority of it is probably from 2008. But at the time, I wasn't dating all changes.
COPA: You recall this submission on screen? A post by someone from Bitcoin Forum from 2008. The main CPP file divided into 2 halves.
CSW: That's the code I sent Ray in 2008, yes.
COPA: You can see the code breaks at the same spot your code breaks.
CSW: Show me them side by side.
COPA: Same content, yes?
CSW: Doesn't look like it.
COPA: It does to me
CSW: the indent is different.
COPA: You took your code from this Bitcoin Forum version.
CSW: No, this was code from Ray Dillinger. He was sent this code along with Hal Finney.
COPA: But you could have taken it here, right?
CSW: SourceForge is still available. Gavin also had the code. The code could be grabbed from anywhere.
END OF DAY!
CSW: What he didn't look at was Microsoft bought other companies. Lynn, as my secretary, used one of the templates that Microsoft later purchased.
COPA: MAdden finds this to be manipulated and Placks says it can't be authenticated.
CSW: He says he can't attribute it to ANY template.
COPA: This doc is not authentic to 2009.
CSW: I received it in 2012. Lynn wrote it. CloudCroft took over Information Defense including all records.
COPA: You don't think it's inauthentic?
CSW: The text is what I would have told her to note, but I didn't interact with those notes until I got them back in 2012.
COPA: Next document. Bitcoin notes scanned to PDF Copyright 2008. When does this date from?
CSW: Hard to say if it isn't dated, but it looks like I wrote out. It's a printout form my files since Australia. Pre-Panopticrypt, and that company was 2011.
COPA: Are you aware your solicitors answered questions concerning docs from your witness statement.
CSW: I suppose.
COPA: This is asking for docs referring to your work. A preliminary version of the code.
CSW: Yes, but it would have been updated from then. If I updated my company logo and then get a request to turn over documents, I would, but the logo would be different if I printed them, right?
COPA: So, it's code you started in 2008, but builds further from the 2008 era?
CSW: I can't be sure exactly what version or content would be in there. My proof isn't about what's in the code. It's in the fact that my company can produce 79 bitcoin patents per year.
COPA: Your solicitors were asked for early version of the code though!
CSW: No. Not every line of code would have changed, either way. The majority of it is probably from 2008. But at the time, I wasn't dating all changes.
COPA: You recall this submission on screen? A post by someone from Bitcoin Forum from 2008. The main CPP file divided into 2 halves.
CSW: That's the code I sent Ray in 2008, yes.
COPA: You can see the code breaks at the same spot your code breaks.
CSW: Show me them side by side.
COPA: Same content, yes?
CSW: Doesn't look like it.
COPA: It does to me
CSW: the indent is different.
COPA: You took your code from this Bitcoin Forum version.
CSW: No, this was code from Ray Dillinger. He was sent this code along with Hal Finney.
COPA: But you could have taken it here, right?
CSW: SourceForge is still available. Gavin also had the code. The code could be grabbed from anywhere.
END OF DAY!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
