Thread by @tuftythecat

I am here today at the Rolls Building in London to attend the directions hearing regarding COPA's contempt application regarding Mr Wright's ongoing threats and proceedings. Due to start at 10:30. @longandy is here with me at the back of the courtroom.

Jonathans Hough and Moss are here, along with Tristan Sherlicker, Philip Sherrell and others from Bird & Bird, to present COPA's case. There are four people on the video screen, one of which I presume will be Mr Wright.

Today we will be hearing arguments from both sides about whether Wright should attend the contempt hearing in December in person or if he could be allowed to attend remotely. Both sides have already submitted evidence and submissions, the latest of which were filed last week.

Brief glimpse of Mr Wright on the screen, so he is here ready to go. Starting shortly.

Good morning Mr Justice Mellor. We have Wright on the video screen. I notice he is not in a closet.
Mellor: I have read all the materials and submissions, including Dr Klin (?) materials - is this Wright's autism expert?

JH starting: this is to deal with procedural matters ahead of the contempt hearing in December. Principle issue is whether he should attempt in person. Issue of real practical importance because his presence would be essential if the outcome was to go to prison.

JH: Our submission is that Wright should attend in person and his reasons for not wanting to attend are not remotely convincing.

JH: Strong presumption in favour of Wright attending in person, based on case law (Business Mortgage Finance). Also Mex Group case cited in skeleton. Other than in exceptional cases, person alleged to be in contempt needs to be present in court.

JH: Contempt is always a serious matter, but in this case a claim for >£900 billion suggests there would have to be very strong grounds against attendance in person. Wanting to spend Christmas in Indonesia is not a reason that should carry any weight.

JH: Wright also failed to mention any commitments in advance regarding proposed hearing on 18-19 December.

JH: Second submission is that alleged ASD condition does not begin to displace presumption of attendance. Expert evidence is admissible if from a suitably experienced expert. Question is whether it will be of any real assistance to the court.

JH: If Wright is admitted to rely on Dr Klin's letters, COPA should be allowed to rely on their own evidence from Dr Craig.

JH: Wright argues that Dr Craig had only a limited assessment and that Dr Klin had more social contact with him (although Klin does not rely on this in his report).

JH: It's telling that Wright engaged in "expert shopping" before selecting his expert. Wright alleges Dr Craig shows lack of rigor and bias, but this was never challenged in the earlier proceedings. Dr Craig also addresses the question of whether attendance should be remote.

JH: Court should take appropriate measures to accommodate vulnerable witnesses in proceedings, as already established in previous proceedings, but this should be on the basis of evidence. There is no "one size fits all" solution with neurodivergence.

JH: Wright's condition does not justify remote participation. Experts previously agreed on conditions for the trial. Parties followed an agreed order, which includes taking evidence remotely, but this is an option as part of a package of options. None ever suggested this option.

JH: Dr Craig analysed Wright's speaking performances and found him to be above average. At trial, adjustments worked well and Wright gave evidence without any difficulty, even in a particularly hot courtroom with no signs of dysregulation.

JH: His wife never intervened during Wright's evidence. Mellor J commented that he had no trouble giving evidence. COPA's large number of allegations were dealt with in detail, with crisp answers on each point, indicating he had already considered them.

JH: Wright's own comment was that it had been his least stressful court appearance. No complaint or concern was raised by Wright, his wife or his small army of lawyers. Wright only raises now that he wasn't allowed to make notes before answering.

JH: On Gunning's unsigned integer point, there were multiple pauses between Wright's answers. Although there were references to writing it down, Wright was aware he could write notes. There was no suggestion he was not given an opportunity to answer without interruption.

JH: It would require very strong evidence to suggest that something had since changed. Further evidence from Dr Klin claims Wright's performance at trial was harmed by his condition. These were recognised by other experts too, but do not in themselves justify remote attendance.

JH: No reason to suggest "sensory sensitivities" justify remote attendance. Not an unusual aspect of ASD. Nothing in Klin's report says that Wright cannot attend in person, even though that was known to be the issue to be decided. Inference is that he couldn't go that far.

JH: If Klin had expressed that view, the question is why he didn't express it before in the COPA case or earlier in the Kleiman case.

JH: Dr Craig's view in his most recent report is that features of Wright's condition shouldn't prevent him from fairly and competently participate in an in-person hearing. No evidence from previous attendances here and in Oslo, along with e.g. Oxford Union, suggest otherwise.

JH: Dr Craig concludes that remote attendance is not justified. Klin never suggested in earlier trials that evidence needed to be given remotely. Baron-Cohen also never suggested remote attendance would be necessary.

JH: In relation to alleged online abuse, Wright claims to have received abuse over social media, which suggests his personal safety may be at risk if he appeared in person. The material we see, however, does not begin to suggest that he would be at risk.

JH: It is impossible to consider any of the alleged online abuse amounting to actual threats. Almost all the posts in any case predate the trial earlier this year, yet Wright willingly turned up at court each day with no apparent security issues.

JH: We are a million miles from a case in which actual threats justify remote attendance. Some comments mentioning free markets in assassination appear to be rather silly comments from individuals rather than actually serious.

JH: There are also jurisdictional issues, where attendance by remote link would need to be approved locally. Wright's actual location is unknown, so COPA cannot be confident where he will be.

JH: Unsatisfactory to take remote evidence from someone who has been found to be fundamentally dishonest, as set out in the case law. Courts generally require evidence from abroad to be from a court or consular centre.

JH: Wright has already been found to have engineered prompts from witnesses (Jenkins).

JH: Insistence on remote attendance have actually nothing to do with his alleged ASD. Why is he suddenly claiming this when it would have also applied to previous trial appearances? Obvious inference is that he is trying to avoid being present in court to avoid the consequences.

Mellor: Assume I accede to your application, what happens if he doesn't?
JH: Established principles on a court proceeding in absence, unless pretty good evidence has been received about his being incapable of attending. Position may not prejudice him greatly.

JH: Wright would already have had an opportunity to submit in writing, which he has said he is best at. The court can then be confident that justice is then done.
Mellor: One allegation requires cross-ex.
JH: To rebut his defence. Would be possible to hold over.

Mellor: What if Wright said he would definitely be present in particular offices?
JH: Would need to be a proper jurisdiction, would not address all issues including hearing evidence from someone found to be dishonest or point of principle that he can travel so should appear.

Mellor: You raised a possible reason of Wright not appearing being possible prison committal. One possibility is that he is seeking to avoid arrest. I can give him some comfort on that ground. The CPS is not going to do anything until this issue has been disposed of.

Mellor (to Wright): What is your objection to Dr Craig's evidence:
CW: Christen Ager-Hansen ruined a relationship with Travers-Smith. I had no time to prepare. Involved a change to Dr Fazel, chosen by CAH. T-S had to drop out.

CW: I wanted B-C and Klin. Lawyers don't listen to me. I argue that Dr Craig is not impartial, has not seen me speaking, all those videos on the internet have been rehearsed. Taking a rehearsed scene I have prepared isn't valid evidence.

CW: I contest expert shopping. The threats are real. Luckily nobody noticed but I had 2 bodyguard observing me, ex secret service.
Mellor: Why couldn't you utilise those services again?
CW: Not in a position to do that, not with nChain anymore.

CW: I sold shares in nChain to pay for the case. I did not have backers. COPA has billionaires. I am doing this with my own money and have done the whole time. The threats in the past were managed, I don't have that anymore. It cost over £50k per day some days, not feasible.

CW: Whenever I move somewhere I am usually followed. I am doing casino design at the moment, in Singapore and Malaysia. I could be in either place for work. I won't have time to be ready for the case.

CW: Expert evidence from Dr Craig does not go into my interactions in how I do my work, Klin has experience of this. I always wanted Dr Klin, I got on very well with him. He got fired by someone who was supposed to be representing me, aligned with COPA.

CW: Assassination markets have been promoted multiple times by COPA members, including against me. This is what they are trying to do using Taproot in BTC. I can be in a location where I can show my passport but I'm not going to give my location in advance.

CW: There are people following me all the time, tracking my IP address and location. My wife has gone black because of this and doesn't post anything.

CW: I do much better in writing. In conferences where I am supposedly interacting, I am not standing around with other people.
Zooko lied in front of you about not using Windows.

CW: On top of that, I believe remote hearing is necessitate. The room I am in now is dark. I have noise-cancelling headphones. I wear earplugs most of the time.

CW: I was interrupted in the unsigned integer questioning. There was an interruption and then there was a gap. I believe adjustments should apply and are necessary for me. I am not avoiding the UK because the CPS are out to get me.

Mellor: I am going to interrupt you because I don't understand what you were just talking about.
CW: That's part of the problem My Lord.
Mellor: I may have interrupted your train of thought. Please take a moment to collect your thoughts.

CW: My own lawyers have said I am my own worst enemy. In writing I am much clearer. Drs Klin and B-C know this well, the other experts don't.

Mellor: Anything else?
CW: I have been travelling back and forth because people have been trying to find out where I am. I can be in UAE, Singapore or Indonesia.

CW: Casino design is still ongoing.
Mellor: Anything else?
CW: Only other thing is that I don't believe I am in contempt. I believe what I am doing is not a breach of your orders. I would change it if ordered. Promissory estoppel has no bearing on it.

Mellor: The issues are not for today but for the hearing in December. We'll hear replies.
JH: May I be clear that there has been no restriction on Wright submitting written evidence and there will not be.

JH: On expert evidence, Wright goes into matters covered by privilege and cannot be investigated. Expertise and independence were well established. Claims otherwise are unsubstantiated.

JH: Videos of cross-ex were not staged or rehearsed, included CoinGeek events and Oxford Union, which were not staged or rehearsed. Report of Dr Craig shows a careful assessment with conclusions.

JH: No suggestion that Wright's lawyers were witness shopping for him. We draw attention to what B-C wrote, which says that Wright has the ability to participate effectively in a trial, no need for remote attendance.

JH: There was no evidence that Wright had any bodyguards, or of actual threats or Wright's inability to pay bodyguards for 2 days if he would feel more secure. No indication that Wright had inability to pay.

JH: Wright's indications of where he would be are inconsistent, compounding evidence that we don't know where he will be. Allegations about Zooko are disputed but those are matters before the court of appeal. Unsigned integer questioning was fair.

Mellor: If you were to attend contempt hearing remotely, are you prepared to reveal the location on a confidential basis and allow a law firm instructed by COPA to attend that location?
CW: Yes, my lord, as long as it's on a confidential basis.

JH: Second issue is about COPA's request to file a further affidavit to update the court on developments since the contempt application was filed, e.g. posting on Metanet page compounding contempt. No unfair prejudice on Wright, as we can serve it in good time.

Mellor: Evidence will be part of Sherrel 23?
JH: Yes.
Mellor: Any objection?
CW: Only if I can respond. Metanet is not my site. I want person who runs it (Joel?) to say something.

CW: I didn't do that. Anyone can put up a webpage with my email address.
JH: No problem. Plenty of time to respond.
Mellor: Sensible timetable?
CW: Yes.

JH: Directions on oral evidence needed for Wright, identifying subjects on what should be heard. Include whether Wright knew he was in breach or was reckless, and whether he was responsible for removing the legal notice before time.

JH: Issue on liability is whether the new claim falls within scope of anti-suit injunctions. We say it does, Wright disagrees. We need to examine Wright on this, which has a bearing on sentence rather than liability.

JH: Wright removed the legal notice, Wright claims he wasn't responsible, we dispute. We need to put our case, which requires oral evidence.

Mellor: COPA's skeleton sets out limited topics for cross-ex. Do you see the topics?
CW: I do. I also ask permission to seek the other person who controls the account.
Mellow: You must file an affidavit from that person.

JH: If Wright does submit anything, we need the chance to respond.
Mellor: If you want to file anything, it has to be within 7 days and COPA can then respond within 7 days. COPA can then apply for further directions, e.g. to cross-ex your witness.

Mellor: One point I should address: material at the end of Wright's threats document. Section headed "Mellor affiliation with David Pearce and COPA".
CW: Some people put it together for me - the Metanet people.

Mellor: Is there anything you want to say about these allegations?
CW: David Pearce and you know each other.
Mellor: I have only met him twice, once at a Union-IP event in Feb 2023. I have no recollection of him telling me anything about Bitcoin. By the time the trial came along I can nothing in mind about that.

Mellor: I met him at the COPA event. He did ask about when the judgment was coming out. I did say I was aiming for May 9. Draft judgment was sent out on May 10. I reject in no uncertain terms any allegations of bias.

JH: You were quite open about when the parties would be expected to hear about when the WFOs would be issued.
Mellor: Yes, I forget.

Mellor: I will issue a written judgment, but will let you know now. I am going to admit Dr Craig's evidence. I am going to order the contempt hearing to be in person. You will be required to attend the Rolls Building on 18-19 December.

Mellor: The hearing may take place in the Royal Courts of Justice building, but you will be informed.

Mellor: I look forward to seeing everyone on the 18 December.
ENDS.