[ad_1]
Ira Kleiman has filed a six-page complaint with the US District Court responsible for her failed case against Dr. Craig Wright, complained that he “feels justice has not been served because the inheritance does not receive adequate representation.”
Kleiman has been fishing for something since his multibillion-dollar litigation against Dr. Wright came up with almost nothing: Kleiman was unable to convince a Florida jury that his late brother had something to do with Dr. Wright’s invention of Bitcoin only managed to secure a $100 million valuation for W&K—a company owned by Dr. Wright and his family. He has appealed (although Kleiman’s lawyers took a victory lap on Twitter after the trial).
You’d think Ira’s claims of insufficient representation would center on the explosive Crypto Leaks scandal from last year, in which Kyle Roche (the attorney in charge of Ira’s lawsuit) was caught on camera bragging about abusing the legal system to attack competitors of key clients’ crypto’ company, Ava Labs.
Not so: Ira accuses her attorney (Roche Freedman, now known as Freeman Normand Friedland) of sabotaging their own case by withholding evidence that she believes will win them hundreds of billions of dollars at stake at trial:
“At this point, I honestly can’t believe they want to reinstate W&K’s judgment,” he wrote.
The evidence consists mostly of alleged correspondence between Kleiman and Dr. Wright in the years leading up to the trial, emails that Ira said proved Dr. Wright owes Dave Kleiman a share of Bitcoin, software, and the intellectual property that emerged from Dr. Invention of Bitcoin by Wright.
But as Dr. During Wright’s trial, the records were full of forgeries. Indeed, in Ira’s own letter she quotes the pre-trial deposition of Dr. Wright where attorney Roche Freedman asked about one of these emails. Dr.’s response Wright is clear:
“This is my testimony that these are forged documents involving Ira and others I was not involved in sending.”
That’s probably why Ira’s lawyers never circulated this particular email at trial: they must have been well aware that many of the documents and emails were fake (and perhaps even forged by Kleiman’s star witness, Jamie Wilson) because they spent so much money. trial on the testimony of Dr. Matthew Edman, who appeared for plaintiffs and told jurors that some 40 of the emails he reviewed were fake. This is so-What at the time remembering that Dr. Wright was the one to insist that much of the evidence in the note was forgery, and even more so after it was pointed out that the forged emails Edman had analyzed were carried out from an Australian suburb far from where Dr Wright was living at the time.
Of course, the emails reviewed by plaintiff Edman were the options chosen to paint Dr Wright as a forger, but this charade collapsed at trial when one of the main emails in the Kleiman case (which Edman conspicuously failed to check for by plaintiffs). proven to have been forged. It was an email showing Dr. Wright invited Ira’s brother to participate in the Bitcoin project in 2008: the problem was that the email was from Dr.’s @rcjbr.org address. Wright, which are the initials of his wife’s name. and children. Dr. Wright didn’t meet his wife until 2010, two years after the email was supposed to be sent, so this is not only an obvious forgery, it must have been forged by someone other than Dr. Wright.
Ira’s latest move is doomed to fail given that Ira, like any good client, entrusted the finer points of trial strategy to Roche Freedman, and given what we now know about counterfeiting, they would not have done her case very well in the first place. the place.
But at the same time, it’s easy to sympathize with Ira’s frustration: after all, the strategy has done Ira nothing but years of wasted time and a $100 million valuation in favor of Dr. Wright.
It’s also easy to see why he believes his lawyers weren’t interested in Ira’s claims in the first place. How else should Ira see the Crypto Leaks scandal, where Ira will see the person in charge of her case boasting about using straw plaintiffs to go after ‘crypto’ competitors on behalf of one of their own. other client? Why again, like before disclose after the trial, would they advise Ira to reject the $3 billion settlement and insist on dragging the parties through an extended trial?
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.
New to Bitcoins? Check out CoinGeek Bitcoins for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide for learning more about Bitcoin—as Satoshi Nakamoto originally envisioned it—and the blockchain.
[ad_2]
Source link