Tags in this story
On Monday evening, November 16, popular bitcoin evangelist Andreas Antonopoulos tweeted about his upcoming role in the high-profile billion dollar bitcoin lawsuit, Kleiman v. Wright. Antonopoulos said he “will testify at trial” in April 2021, even though Craig Wright’s defense team tried to expel him.
It appears that the ongoing high-profile Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit will continue through 2021, and maybe even longer, depending on the situation with Covid-19. However, new information has been published by the courts showing much deliberation and arguments about expert testimony. On November 16, one of the individuals who intended to testify was the bitcoin evangelist and technical author Andreas Antonopoulos tweeted about his upcoming performance in the billion dollar lawsuit.
“The federal court in Kleiman v. Wright upheld my status as an expert witness in the case and rejected the defense ‘Daubert’ motions that sought to exclude me and other experts,” Antonopoulos explained. “I will testify at trial (sch. Before April 2021), as an expert witness,” added the bitcoin evangelist.
The court shows that the defendant, Craig Wright, also sought to exclude the experts’ opinions from the plaintiffs; Gordon Klein, Dr. Matthew Edman, Stefan Boedeker and also Dr. Robert Leonard.
Speaking about Antonopoulos’ expert testimony scheduled for April, the judge explained that certain testimonials will be excluded from the trial. For example, Antonopoulos would discuss some of the messages allegedly sent by Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.
The court agrees that “[c]communications sent by Satoshi Nakamoto are clearly relevant to this lawsuit. However, the court was in favor of the defendant’s recent motion and while Antonopoulos can discuss historical public communications and the emails sent by Satoshi, “an actual opinion must be linked to such testimony.”
“Simply reading a message or emails in a public forum is not an ‘opinion’, nor would the jury require expert assistance in performing such a task,” the judge ruled.
In addition, Wright’s legal team contested another part of the Antonopoulos report entitled “Directory Analysis”. Wright’s attorney argued that they are “anonymous documents that cannot be verified and contain hearsay reports that reflect the nature of the suspected attacks.” One message, in particular, that was sent on May 4, 2019, the court agrees that it may be a ‘back door’ attempt to attack [the] character of the accused for veracity. “
“While it is one thing for an expert to generally claim that a message was sent by a person who does not claim to be [the] defendant using a bitcoin address that defendant claimed was his own, ”wrote Florida Judge Beth Bloom. “It is very different to have an expert testify that, as part of forming his opinion, the message ‘Craig is a liar and a fraud’ was handled,” she added. Therefore, the court decided to back Wright’s argument and Antonopoulos “may not disclose the content of the May 4, 2019 message”.
The billion dollar bitcoin lawsuit is still uncertain today and looks like it will go on for quite some time. So far, the lawsuit has lasted 1007 days, and when the Kleiman Wright estate first sued, they claimed that the value of the assets was “well above $ 5.1.” [billion] USD before punitive or triple damages. “
Due to the mysterious nature of the Kleiman v. Wright case involving Satoshi Nakamoto and billions of dollars in assets, the court is one of the most popular debit cards in the US and a top ten lawsuit in the state of Florida.
What do you think of the ongoing Kleiman v. Wright case and the upcoming testimony of popular bitcoin evangelist Andreas Antonopoulos? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comments below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or invitation to an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is directly or indirectly responsible for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.