Craig Wright is as mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore, OK?
In a series of tweets today, he once again claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto and said that he will be “taking action aggressively to remove any site that is in error or makes false claims (e.g. fraud etc). You wanted to know who made Bitcoin. You get to learn in a manner that is going to completely eradicate the scams in this industry and start holding people to account.”
He added: “You do not have a right to lies under “free speech” nor harassment, nor libel and slander. If an error is reported in a malicious context concerning me, expect to be living in barrel when we finish with you.”
He also threatened to destroy Wikileaks, labelling it “a criminal organisation” which has been spreading “false and misleading publications”.
“The result will be them inadvertently having me proven to be linked to Bitcoin going to a decade prior to it working and a clear demonstration of malicious falsehood”.
Crypto Twitter’s response to Wright’s bizarre outburst was somewhat predictable.
Craig Wright says he will sue anyone who calls him a fraud.
Is Craig Wright a fraud?
Craig Wright is a fraud.
Craig Wright is not a fraud.
— dark pill (@DanDarkPill) March 17, 2019
Yesterday, we reported that Jeff Garzik, a software engineer often credited with helping in the creation of Bitcoin, had been subpoenaed by a US District Court in connection with a lawsuit against Wright.
He is being asked to shed some light on claims that the late David Kleiman was Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s anonymous creator. This revolves around the family of Kleiman accusing Wright of stealing more than one million Bitcoins after the former died.
Late last year, a dismissal request submitted by Wright was rejected in part by the court. Kleiman died on 26th April 2013, and it was at this time that Wright contacted his estate offering his help to dispose of the aforementioned Bitcoin fortune. He did so in part, but did not return the funds, the family says.
The news of Wright’s appeal for dismissal being denied came after a court document was published online on 27th December. The document read: “The Court has considered the Motion, the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
It went on to detail how, “Craig used the private keys that Dave and Craig shared to move the Bitcoins out of their wallets and then claimed to own the Bitcoins really owned by W&K and/or Dave by creating a series of fraudulent contracts and documents. Craig then moved the stolen Bitcoin into trusts only known and controlled by him for use in making large trades for his Australian business.”
(Note: W&K is David Kleiman’s Info and Defence Research LLC business).
The details of the case are extensive; however, in the end, Judge Bloom ruled that “Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF No. , are dismissed with prejudice,” but Wright still must answer to “Counts, I, II, V-IX.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author should not be considered as financial advice. We do not give advice on financial products.