3 ms·

The legal presumptions is that adult persons are able to stand in court and tell the truth. Declaring someone insane (is this even possible in civil cases?) is

The legal presumptions is that adult persons are able to stand in court and tell the truth. Declaring someone insane (is this even possible in civil cases?) is intentionally hard and must not be used to protect notorious liars. It's not the plaintiffs fault that Wright sticks to these highly unlikely and susceptible claims. If he is unwilling (because he fears possible sanctions) to come straight, it is own doing. Maybe he got caught in his own web of lies (an investigation by the Australian tax is mentioned in the order) and sees no way to step back. Maybe he fears the shame of being exposed. Who knows. I'm sure there is ample legal precedence to establish partnerships and shares in common property in situations without a formal agreement.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Able to tell the truth, but not will. Courts still need to exercise judgement in evaluating claims.
- Vespasian 7y ago
  The comment I replied to complained that the court did not consider that Wright is a "pathological liar" who constantly seeks attention. The order makes it clear that the court did consider this... against Wright. The Judge writes "During his testimony, Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth. When it was favorable to him, Dr. Wright appeared to have an excellent memory and a scrupulous attention to detail. Otherwise, Dr. Wright was belligerent and evasive." That does not sound like someone unable to understand what he is saying.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Courts still need to exercise judgement in evaluating claims. Courts in the US don't examine fact claims that are not in genuine controversy between the parties, so they can't exercise judgement when doing so.
commandersaki 7y ago
Wright is not insane, just a conman. He sued W&K for 20-40 odd million for bitcoin he lent to the partnership, but in lieu of that asked instead for "Bitcoin" IP. This was all done in Australian jurisdiction. He then used the IP as leverage to acquire Australian R&D grants and was almost awarded a significant amount but instead raised alarm bells. ATO/police cracked down, and somehow Wright got involved with other conmen that paid off the remaining ATO debts - and is still trying to prove to the courts he's Satoshi so he can get a bunch of patents through to start suing virtually everyone in the cryptocurrency space (I'm guessing anyway). That's why he's adamant about claiming to be Satoshi rather than give up in court. Anyway, that's my take.
bobre 7y ago
> I'm sure there is ample legal precedence to establish partnerships and shares in common property in situations without a formal agreement. Like?

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Able to tell the truth, but not will. Courts still need to exercise judgement in evaluating claims.

Vespasian 7y ago
The comment I replied to complained that the court did not consider that Wright is a "pathological liar" who constantly seeks attention. The order makes it clear that the court did consider this... against Wright. The Judge writes "During his testimony, Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth. When it was favorable to him, Dr. Wright appeared to have an excellent memory and a scrupulous attention to detail. Otherwise, Dr. Wright was belligerent and evasive." That does not sound like someone unable to understand what he is saying.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Courts still need to exercise judgement in evaluating claims. Courts in the US don't examine fact claims that are not in genuine controversy between the parties, so they can't exercise judgement when doing so.

commandersaki 7y ago

Wright is not insane, just a conman. He sued W&K for 20-40 odd million for bitcoin he lent to the partnership, but in lieu of that asked instead for "Bitcoin" IP. This was all done in Australian jurisdiction. He then used the IP as leverage to acquire Australian R&D grants and was almost awarded a significant amount but instead raised alarm bells. ATO/police cracked down, and somehow Wright got involved with other conmen that paid off the remaining ATO debts - and is still trying to prove to the courts he's Satoshi so he can get a bunch of patents through to start suing virtually everyone in the cryptocurrency space (I'm guessing anyway). That's why he's adamant about claiming to be Satoshi rather than give up in court. Anyway, that's my take.

bobre 7y ago

> I'm sure there is ample legal precedence to establish partnerships and shares in common property in situations without a formal agreement. Like?