6 ms·

> He lost Sadly this is not true. Wright was ruled to have won the case but had the damage award reduced to only 1 pound.[1] (Wright is being bankrolled by bil

> He lost Sadly this is not true. Wright was ruled to have won the case but had the damage award reduced to only 1 pound.[1] (Wright is being bankrolled by billionaire Calvin Ayre. They are not worried about the money here.) How someone can win a case while found to have "advanced a deliberately false case and put forward deliberately false evidence until days before trial" just goes to show how utterly deranged the British legal system is. As long as it is such, scammers like Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre will continue to torment innocent people. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/01/craig-wright-wins-only-nominal-damages-of-1-in-bitcoin-libel-case https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/01/craig-wri...

nullc 3y ago
It's more complicated than that, as the judgement wrote: > looking at the “big picture”, Dr Wright was awarded only nominal damages, so Mr McCormack is the successful party, as were the defendants in Joseph v Spiller and FlyMeNow, ...and the court awarded McCormack his costs for the trial on an indemnity basis-- which still doesn't cover his time lost and stress due to this, but it's about as good as you can get as a defendant. EXCEPT, in the interest in finality the court declined to reverse a ruling from an earlier stage of the trial that awarded Wright his costs, and Wright has now delivered his bill of £3.379m, still attempting to deliver on his public promise[*] of ruining McCormack. So the fact that Wright "won" £1 isn't preventing a somewhat just outcome this case... because the court still rightfully regarded that as a loss for the purpose of awarding costs. The bigger issue is that the UK awards costs incrementally and so has left McCormack potentially paying Wright's inflated costs for his earlier efforts to get the deliberately false case discharged. And, of course, Wright is appealing is his "win" too. Since Wright himself isn't funding his litigation, this suit was well worth his time in chilling his critics. And it has worked too: it's been difficult to get outlets cover what he's doing, except in the form of repeating both-sideism rendition's of Wright's press releases. I had previously been told outright by a least one journalist at a big publication that they didn't want to print on his claims being falsified because they didn't want to get mired in litigation. [*] The most recent of which was also breach of a court embargo in the ruling on the case, which Wright was sent up for contempt for ... which had no effect "Faced with a 17,000-word skeleton argument advanced by Wright’s new attorneys, buttressed by 1,600 pages of legal authorities, [The court] concluded that the cost of continuing outweighed the benefits." in other words, he simply DOSed the court and the court dropped it.
Bran_son 3y ago
Could the deranged British legal system then be turned against those two, with equally vexatious retaliatory lawsuits? Fight fire with fire, as it were.
- nullc 3y ago
  "never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it". It would probably be just about as effective as piling cash and a wheelbarrow and lighting it on fire. For whatever their motivations they already seem to be intentionally racking up their legal bills as high as they possibly can. Some have suggested that since in the UK it's possible for non-attorneys to own firms that this could be used to launder money (Wright's known sponsor spent a decade on a DHS most wanted list for money laundering), though I've seen nothing but speculation. ... whatever the reason they clearly don't mind spending on litigation. If you win anything they won't pay-- they already have an unpaid judgement against them for ~$140 million dollars in Florida-- their latest gambit in that case has been to announce Wright's wives are actually the plaintiff, that they've fired the plaintiff's attorney and appointed their own. ( Probably a good place to read was the real plaintiff's ultimately unsuccessful motion to strike the fake one's appearance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.931.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.52... the entire docket there is confusing now because you have to scroll to the bottom of each brief to find out if its the real plaintiff or the fake plaintiff). Wright himself almost certainly couldn't pay-- he has no known source of funding except from extracting money from sponsors via his creator of Bitcoin fiction. Losing cases in and of itself hasn't made him stop or even really slowed him down. Engaging with him in civil court at all is necessary to prevent the personal ruination of his targets, but doesn't seem like a likely path to make him quit.
  - pipes 3y ago
    What do you mean by in UK non attorneys can own firms? Of course anyone can own a firm here. I think I'm missing something.
    - nullc 3y ago

nullc 3y ago

It's more complicated than that, as the judgement wrote: > looking at the “big picture”, Dr Wright was awarded only nominal damages, so Mr McCormack is the successful party, as were the defendants in Joseph v Spiller and FlyMeNow, ...and the court awarded McCormack his costs for the trial on an indemnity basis-- which still doesn't cover his time lost and stress due to this, but it's about as good as you can get as a defendant. EXCEPT, in the interest in finality the court declined to reverse a ruling from an earlier stage of the trial that awarded Wright his costs, and Wright has now delivered his bill of £3.379m, still attempting to deliver on his public promise[*] of ruining McCormack. So the fact that Wright "won" £1 isn't preventing a somewhat just outcome this case... because the court still rightfully regarded that as a loss for the purpose of awarding costs. The bigger issue is that the UK awards costs incrementally and so has left McCormack potentially paying Wright's inflated costs for his earlier efforts to get the deliberately false case discharged. And, of course, Wright is appealing is his "win" too. Since Wright himself isn't funding his litigation, this suit was well worth his time in chilling his critics. And it has worked too: it's been difficult to get outlets cover what he's doing, except in the form of repeating both-sideism rendition's of Wright's press releases. I had previously been told outright by a least one journalist at a big publication that they didn't want to print on his claims being falsified because they didn't want to get mired in litigation. [*] The most recent of which was also breach of a court embargo in the ruling on the case, which Wright was sent up for contempt for ... which had no effect "Faced with a 17,000-word skeleton argument advanced by Wright’s new attorneys, buttressed by 1,600 pages of legal authorities, [The court] concluded that the cost of continuing outweighed the benefits." in other words, he simply DOSed the court and the court dropped it.

Bran_son 3y ago

Could the deranged British legal system then be turned against those two, with equally vexatious retaliatory lawsuits? Fight fire with fire, as it were.

nullc 3y ago
"never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it". It would probably be just about as effective as piling cash and a wheelbarrow and lighting it on fire. For whatever their motivations they already seem to be intentionally racking up their legal bills as high as they possibly can. Some have suggested that since in the UK it's possible for non-attorneys to own firms that this could be used to launder money (Wright's known sponsor spent a decade on a DHS most wanted list for money laundering), though I've seen nothing but speculation. ... whatever the reason they clearly don't mind spending on litigation. If you win anything they won't pay-- they already have an unpaid judgement against them for ~$140 million dollars in Florida-- their latest gambit in that case has been to announce Wright's wives are actually the plaintiff, that they've fired the plaintiff's attorney and appointed their own. ( Probably a good place to read was the real plaintiff's ultimately unsuccessful motion to strike the fake one's appearance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.931.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.52... the entire docket there is confusing now because you have to scroll to the bottom of each brief to find out if its the real plaintiff or the fake plaintiff). Wright himself almost certainly couldn't pay-- he has no known source of funding except from extracting money from sponsors via his creator of Bitcoin fiction. Losing cases in and of itself hasn't made him stop or even really slowed him down. Engaging with him in civil court at all is necessary to prevent the personal ruination of his targets, but doesn't seem like a likely path to make him quit.
- pipes 3y ago
  What do you mean by in UK non attorneys can own firms? Of course anyone can own a firm here. I think I'm missing something.
  - nullc 3y ago