The judge ordered Peter McCormack to pay Craig Wright £1 in damages.Yes, £1

Did the British judge determine that Craig Wright’s reputation was worth £1? You are… a judge. This”Judgment approved by the High Court“Reads like a novel. It contains a lot of content, a lot of content and a lot of what you have. It conveniently summarizes everything that happened and what brought us here with Peter McCormack. The story is engaging, it clearly depicts who Craig Wright is and who he is not. But let’s let the judge’s words do the drawing.

For example, Wright’s financier Calvin Ayre set the bait, and McCormack fell for it. According to the document, Al tweeted:

“Craig and I are polishing our rifles today at a troll hunting conference in London. #CraigisSatoshi.”

12 Mr McCormack responded on 10 April 2019 at 1:47pm (Publication 2): “Craig Wright is not Satohis! [sic] When will I be charged? “

It then continued to fight Al until he got his wish and was charged. The narrative is long and convoluted, and this is not the place to delve into it.Bitcoinist has published a story McCormack’s team responds to lawsuit,one left when the trial begins months ago.Of course, you can also read new file.

However, just to give you a taste…

A quick snapshot of the judge’s findings

At first, the judge seemed sympathetic to McCormack.

“There are other passages in which Mr McCormack makes the same further statement as what was complained about. There is no need to put them all here. It seems to me that the publication as a whole has McCormack The meaning of Mr. Mark’s assertion – there are reasonable grounds to question or ask whether the claimant is fraudulently claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto.”

However, things changed as the story progressed. That doesn’t mean he sympathizes with Craig Wright. For example, regarding one of several meetings where Wright was deemed unsolicited because of McCormack’s tweets, the judge found:

“Professor. Darwazeh is a highly regarded scholar. His written and documented evidence shows: The first Hanoi conference did indeed employ a strict system of blind peer review; Dr. Wright submitted a paper; It was reviewed and rejected; the rejection was communicated to Dr. Wright.”

This leads us to…

Did McCormack cause ‘serious injury’ to Craig Wright?

First, the judge makes the rules:

“I have considered three bases on which Dr Wright believes these publications have caused or may cause serious damage to his reputation in England and Wales: the inherent seriousness of the presumption conveyed by each tweet; the significance of the publication; and Evidence of actual harm.”

He then made it clear how McCormack might have damaged Craig Wright’s reputation:

“The fact that he was willing to express his views so brazenly in response to the threat of defamation lawsuits may make those who read them believe them more, not less.”

In the end, he sided with Wright. “I found that each publication was more likely to cause serious damage to Dr Wright’s reputation,” the judge said. “However, I make it clear that my findings on serious harm are not based in any way on Wright’s reputation. Oral evidence about his reputational influence in academia or other circles,” he clarified.

BSVUSD Price Chart - TradingView

BSV price chart on Bitfinex | Source: BSV/USD on

Is there any damage?

This is very important. The judge declared himself, but the case is not over yet.

“In my judgment, the appropriate way for me to proceed is to first address the issue of damages and then invite further submissions as to whether any injunctive or other relief should be granted based on my findings.”

That’s where the judge started attacking Craig Wright. “However, it is also well established that ‘one should only be compensated for the damage to the reputation he actually has’. He lets the reader know that the plaintiff may not get what he wants. “In my judgment, Lai Dr T’s willful false case for serious injury, brought days before trial, asked for more than just a reduction in damages. ” The judge detailed:

“Had it not been for Dr Wright’s willful false case for grievous harm, the amount of damages would have been more than the minimum, although the amount would have been reduced to reflect the fact that Mr McCormack was instigated to make the statements he made and, upon discovery of Dr Wright After not being a witness to the truth, I will completely reject his case about the suffering he claims to have suffered.”

So Wright’s antics are the reason for “minimum reparations.” For example, “Dr. Wright presents a case of willful falsehood regarding non-invitation to academic conferences in his revised claim details and in his first witness statement.” And, “Dr. Wright’s response to this evidence is changing his case and withdrawing an important part of his earlier evidence, while trying to explain the errors was unintentional. I reject that explanation on the grounds that it is untrue.”

Verdict, Craig Wright gets £1

In the end, the judge ruled that McCormack had indeed damaged Wright’s reputation:

“I found that these publications did cause serious harm without reference to previous cases of willful falsehood regarding academic conferences. However, I am entitled to take into account my findings of previous falsehood cases in assessing damages.”

But the damages award was not what he expected:

“Therefore, I will judge Dr Wright’s £1 claim.”

To this, McCormack responds Via Twitter:

“As some of you will see by now, my trial against Dr Craig Wright has now been ordered. I would like to thank my lawyers for their hard work in this case. I would also like to thank Mr Justice Chamberlain We are very pleased with his findings. Please note that the process is not yet complete, so I will not comment further on this. I will thank others once the entire process is complete.”

That’s it now. Still, something tells us that there is more to do. Much more. Stay tuned to Bitcoin to find out.If you want to help Peter McCormack “pay for these losses,” and A GoFundMe.

Featured Image: Peter McCormack screenshot from this video | Charts by TradingView

Screenshot from Bukele, McCormack Documentary

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.