Blockchain for charity

Blockchain for charity ‘Satoshi” Responds to a Billion-Dollar Lawsuit for Bitcoin

 

 

 

Craig Wright, the man who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, is being sued by Florida for approximately $1.1 billion, or 300,000. BTC. Wright’s motion to dismiss his billion-dollar lawsuit was denied by Beth Bloom, a Florida district judge. Wright has now responded to the complaints. Most of his responses claim that he doesn’t have sufficient information or knowledge to answer the allegations.

 

Wright Denies the Complaints, and Does Not Have Sufficient Knowledge to Respond

 

Ira Kleiman is the brother of David Kleiman and some believe that Satoshi Nakamoto may have been his brother. Wright is suing Wright because Wright believes his brother was deceived and manipulated. Wright’s motion to dismiss his billion-dollar lawsuit against him in late 2018 was denied on all counts. Wright was granted the motion to dismiss allegations III and IV by Judge Beth Bloom of Florida. The self-proclaimed inventor and holder of Bitcoin was nevertheless forced to answer the complaints I, II, V-IX. Judge Bloom also explained that the lawsuit involved Florida residents, businesses, and assets, and that the court had a strong interest to adjudicate a case involving fraud. Wright was denied dismissal and had to respond. Wright’s lawyers responded on January 28, 2019.

 

Self-proclaimed ‘Satoshi’ Responds to a Billion-Dollar Lawsuit for Bitcoin

 

Craig Wright is being sued for approximately 300,000 BTC by Ira Kleiman (brother of David Kleiman).

 

Wright denied every allegation in his amended complaint, except for those that are explicitly admitted in the document. Wright’s Rivero Mestre LLP attorneys stated that Wright denied every allegation in the amended complaint.

 

Barred and Estopped

 

Wright’s defense claims that Ira Kleiman is barred from claiming damages because he has denied many of the allegations. Wright’s lawyers claim that the Kleimans received shares in Wright’s Blockchain for charity corporation, which released Wright from his obligations to David Kleiman. Eight affirmative defense responses explained that Wright’s fraud claims are barred from the plaintiffs. This basically means that the Kleimans knew about the Australian Taxation Office investigation. The Estoppel also shows that they are asserting something other than what is implied. Wright’s lawyer also claims that the alleged oral partnership agreement was barred by the statute against frauds. According to the court document, which is 36 pages long, Wright’s attorney stated that there was no written partnership agreement between Wright and David Kleiman or W&K Info Defence Research LLC.