COPA vs CSW – Injunctive Relief Hearing
Please see below our commentary from the courtroom in London, for the hearing which took place on 7 June 2024. This hearing related to the COPA vs CSW identity trial, which CSW lost. The main topic of the hearing focused on what injuctions, if any, to impose on CSW following on from his loss. We have not edited the content since we produced it in the courtroom.
Justice Mellor has arrived and the hearing has started
Hough KC: This hearing is to deal with orders in at least 4 cases:
* COPA claim
* BTC Core claim
* Coinbase claim
* Tulip Trading claim.
This is why the room is packed full of lawyers
Hough KC: We propose the following structure:
1. Injunctive relief in COPA claim
2. Submissions on other consequential orders on costs and submissions in the @CobraBitcoin claim
3. Submissions on the Coinbase claim
4. Submissions in the Tulip Trading claim @CobraBitcoin
Gunning KC: We have already agreed costs in most of the cases
Hough KC: It costs more than ten million pounds to unravel CSW’s lies
Hough KC: CSW’s actions had real personal consequences for @PeterMcCormack and @hodlonaut
1. Was put under surveillance
2. Had to leave his job as a primary school teacher
3. His 6 year old daughter was impacted
@PeterMcCormack
1. Had to tell him children they McCormack was hospitalised twice due to a cardiac condition resulting from stress of the case.
@hodlonaut was hunted down, with a bounty for his identification and physically followed and received threats from a private investigator
As Ayre said in a message: “judge only needs one troll to pass judgment… just waiting for a volunteer to bankrupt themselves trying to prove a negative”
Hough KC mentioned the below case, to make a point about CSW’s potential rights, under article 10 of the human rights act
Hough KC: Please see our draft order:
The COPA draft order says “CSW shall not pursue proceedings”, CSW wants to change the word “pursue” to “commence”, because he says this would allow him to defend himself. However, this leaves a gap, the risk here is that a friendly party sues CSW, to get the issue back in court
Hough KC is arguing that CSW should be prevented from taking the position that he is Satoshi, in any legal case, anywhere in the world
Hough KC: CSW’s KC argues that CSW believes he is Satoshi, and under article 10 of the human rights act, he should be able to claim he is Satoshi. But this court has found that CSW knowingly lied when he claims to be Satoshi
Hough KC: The draft order does not prevent CSW telling a friend in a private setting that he is Satoshi, but it does prevent him doing so in a public forum
Now time for a break
Hough KC: CSW’s council claims that there are so many statements published saying that CSW is Satoshi, that it would be too burdensome to remove them all
Judge: Well more than that, they say its impossible
Hough KC: We are happy to give CSW more time to conduct this exercise
Judge: Let me propose an alternative idea, that if you access these publications, you are presented with a notice
Hough KC: I will take instructions on that over lunch
Hough KC now mentions a copyright claims related to the below advert.
Hough KC: We have the below book, published around the same time as the judgement in this case, continuing the claim that CSW is Satoshi
Hough KC: CSW claims he no longer controls his Twitter account. However, this is contradicted by the following:
1. CSW announced on Twitter that he intends to appeal and his lawyers confirmed this
2. On 4th June 2024, CSW removed a post to comply with an order
Therefore we doubt this
Hough KC: If CSW claims he cannot post on Twitter/Slack the notice the court requires, he should submit evidence. He has not done so
Hough KC: CSW should be required to make a notice in the Times Newspaper, because he made a notice there before trial. This newspaper was presumably chosen as the real Satoshi referenced this paper in Bitcoin. Therefore, we argue that CSW should be required to make notice in The Times
Orr KC, talking about various examples of free speech, for instance “£350m per week to the NHS” and holocaust denial. Orr is talking about article 17
Orr KC: The court judgement speaks for itself, gagging CSW will not convince anyone
Orr KC: Under COPA’s proposed order, CSW will not be able to say he is Satoshi, to friends, family or medical professionals. What if CSW sends an email to a medical professional saying he is Satoshi, that could be seen as a publication and put CSW in contempt of this proposed order
Orr KC: The order which says CSW must remove all claims he made to be Satoshi, is not reasonable. CSW has made the claim many thousands of times over years. It might not be possible. How far does CSW have to go to push a news company to remove a quote from an interview with him?
Orr KC: CSW’s Twitter account has made 18,500 posts. Deleting all these posts would not be practical
Orr KC: Coingeek has already taken down 300 articles in good faith, articles which stated that CSW was Satoshi. We thought COPA would welcome this, yet COPA are being oppressive.
Orr KC: It cannot be fair that CSW cannot tell law enforcement (if questioned) that he authored the Bitcoin whitepaper if that is what he believes
Judge: CSW cannot believe that
Orr KC: I brink you back to criminal cases, the court cannot order criminals to believe their guilt
Orr KC: COPAs order is a juvenile attempt of eye for an eye
Orr KC is finished, now a response from Hough KC
Hough KC: I want to start by saying that CSW posted a video today, after I finished speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22mcamZHEvQ
Hough KC: In the video, CSW seems to perhaps indicate that he may have written the Bitcoin whitepaper
Gunning: Orr KC listed cases that CSW dropped. He did not mentioned @CobraBitcoin Why has that case not been dropped? @CobraBitcoin has received a death threat
Gunning showed a Tweet from Calvin Ayre in response to this threat to @CobraBitcoin
Ayre said: “This will stop when you stop attacking CSW/Satoshi, the father of this industry”
Gunning: I do not represent @CobraBitcoin, I am just a concerned lawyer
Gunning: We cannot just wait for @CobraBitcoin to come forward, whoever he, she or they are. Instead, this court can take action to redress the fraud by CSW Gunning is now arguing the order on @CobraBitcoin should be lifted as it was based on fraud,
Gunning says this court should act to right this wrong, even though Cobra cannot speak. Gunning is giving examples of other cases, which Gunning says means the judge can act
Gunning: CSW is a common party in both cases and he has the power to get you to act and lift the orders on Cobra. He should do so
CSW’s KC is now talking, a new speaker. He is saying the judge does not have the power to overturn the Cobra orders
Judge: But the case should not have happened as it was based on fraud
Philip Ahlquist is now up for the developers, he is asking to get the identity of who is funding the litigation CSW has not paid enough to the court, to cover all the costs of all the parties, if payments are not made, Philip argues that the identity of the funder should be disclosed. CSW submitted a trivial response, saying the order to reveal the funder would mean he would need to publish details of “anyone who gave CSW an Amazon gift card for his birthday”
Hough KC back Asking for entire trial bundle to be made public
Another lawyer speaking for CSW, arguing against disclosure of who is funding CSWs case
Judge: in trial, CSW said Ayre wasn’t funding the case, but only loaned money, so COPA may seek clarity over that claim
The post COPA vs CSW – Injunctive Relief Hearing appeared first on BitMEX Blog.
BitMEX Blog