PAYWALL NOW REMOVED. ENJOY.

Above: The infamous Honeybadger - he don't care!

This is an original drama based on a real-life legal trial before it has actually started! Everything works faster than real life in cryptocurrency, including legal trials. A brief overview of the situation for those unaware of who Craig Wright or Peter McCormack are can be found here at The LA Times. (I picked this source for no other reason than it being a big paper and latest article).

The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are totally real but from the future. Full identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended and should be fully inferred. No Honeybadgers were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

Day 1

We find ourselves in the courtroom on Day 1 in the mid-morning, after the Barristers for the plaintiff and defendant have already made their opening statements.

It's a juryless civil trial with Judge The Right Honourable Brian Sadler-Vale conducting the proceedings. We have Mr Oliver Kaffee, Barrister for the plaintiff Dr. Craig Steven Wright, and finally Mr Aubrey Milton, Barrister for the defendant Peter McCoreon.

Judge: Mr Kaffee, on behalf of the plaintiff Dr. Craig Steven Wright, you may call your first witness.

Kaffee: Thank you Your Honour, I call the defendant Mr Peter McCormack.

Judge: Mr McCormack, may you take the witness stand please.

McCoreon takes stand.

Judge: Clerk, please show Mr McCormack the oath, and Mr McCormack please read.

McCoreon: I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Judge: Thank you Mr McCormack, Mr Kaffee you may now proceed.

Kaffee: Thank you Your Honour. Mr McCormack when did you first become involved in Bitcoin?

McCoreon: In the year 2013.

Kaffee: Is it true that you used the darkweb to buy illegal drugs?

Milton: Objection.

Judge: Objection overruled. Mr McCormack you are directed to answer the question.

McCoreon: I bought some anti-cancer drugs that are illegal in the UK.

Kaffee: Have you ever taken drugs yourself Mr McCormack?

Milton: Objection.

Judge: Overruled.

McCoreon: Yes. Recreational.

Kaffee: Would this include cocaine, cannabis, heroin, LSD, amphetamines?

Milton: Objection.

Judge: Overruled.

Kaffee: I repeat. Would this include cocaine, cannabis, heroin, LSD, amphetamines?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: Did you ever take drugs whilst using Twitter?

Milton: Objection.

Judge: Overruled.

McCoreon: Ummm. Yes.

Kaffee: Did you ever drink alcohol, I hear you have a taste for bourbon - whilst using Twitter?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: Were you ever drunk whilst posting on Twitter?

Milton: Objection.

Judge: Overruled. Please Mr Milton.

McCoreon: Sometimes.

Kaffee: So it would be fair to state that you are someone who buys illegal drugs, takes illegal drugs, gets drunk and uses Twitter?

Milton: Objection Your Honour, he's clearly trying to make the witness incriminate himself!

Judge: Overruled. This is a civil trial Mr Milton, I am sure if the authorities wanted to investigate Mr McCormack's personal life choices they can do so in due course, and if he uses Twitter then that's his choice. I direct you to answer the question Mr McCormack.

McCoreon: Sorry what was the question?

Kaffee: Would it be fair to state that you are someone who buys illegal drugs, takes illegal drugs, gets drunk and uses Twitter?

McCoreon: No.

Kaffee: No? Please explain.

McCoreon: No. I mean. I've only been high or drunk on Twitter a few times.

Kaffee: Ah OK Mr McCormack. So it would be fair to say most of your Twitter usage is sober and drug-free?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: Interesting. When you have posted on Twitter about the plaintiff Dr Wright, were these drug-free moments with no alcohol?

McCoreon: Ummmm.... uhhhhh.... ummmmm......

Kaffee: May I remind you that you are under oath Mr McCormack.

McCoreon: Urrrrr.... yes.

Kaffee: Whats a block re-org Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Sorry?

Kaffee: I'm done with your personal problems. I'm asking you about Bitcoin technology. Whats a block re-org?

McCoreon: Ummmmmm... it's when miners are competing and two blocks appear around the same urrr time urrr urrrrr so the chain splits until one chain gets further ahead and then it joins back again.... umm I mean converges.

Kaffee: Very good Mr McCormack. When did you acquire this knowledge?

McCoreon: Ummmmm..... uhhhhhhh.... I don't remember.

Kaffee: You don't remember?

McCoreon: No.

Kaffee: Your Honour I point to evidence file #24452. An audio recording of Mr McCormack's What Bitcoin Did podcast. Published on May 15, 2019 and entitled "Adam Back and Bryan Bishop on Why Block Reorgs are Bad for Bitcoin"

Judge: Yes Mr Kaffee.

Kaffee: Well I put it to the defendant does he remember admitting in that podcast that he had no idea what a blockchain re-org was until it was explained to him in that podcast?

McCoreon: Ah OK. Yes. I learned it from Adam Back in that podcast.

Kaffee: And this was after my client Dr Wright started legal proceedings was it not?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: As I understand it from a technical perspective a block re-org is an elementary part of the protocol. So it would be fair to say your knowledge of Bitcoin is very limited?

McCoreon: Uhhhhh.... ummmmm.

Kaffee: Have you ever read the Bitcoin white-paper Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: Does it not mention block re-orgs?

McCoreon: Ummmmm....ummmmmmm.

Kaffee: Your Honour, may I point to evidence file #1 Bitcoin A Peer To Peer Electronic Cash System, by pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

Judge: Yes Mr Kaffee. I've read the white-paper several times, and I suggest we accept it does mention re-orgs to save ourselves time.

Kaffee: Did you understand the white-paper Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Yes. I thought it was amazing.

Kaffee: You understood the white-paper but you didn't know what a re-org is?

Milton: Objection Your Honour.

Judge: Mr Kaffee, where are you trying to lead with this line of questioning?

Kaffee: Well I am trying to suggest Your Honour, if the defendant does not understand basic principles in the white-paper that he doesn't understand Bitcoin.

McCoreon: OK OK. My knowledge of Bitcoin is very limited.

Kaffee: Who won the Olympic men's figure skating gold medal in 1988 Calgary Mr McCormack?

Milton: Objection Your Honour.

Judge: Overruled. However I must warn you Mr Kaffee, I see no relevance in the question so it better be leading somewhere. I direct you to answer Mr McCormack.

McCoreon: I have no idea!

Kaffee: Brian Boitano, United States. Why didn't you know Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Ummmm. I don't watch ice skating, I don't know anything about ice skating.

Kaffee: Ah. So in other words your knowledge of ice skating like your knowledge of Bitcoin is how did you put it - "very limited"

McCoreon: Ummmm. uhhhhh. Yes.

Kaffee: As someone who has just admitted they have very limited knowledge of Bitcoin, wouldn't it be rather reckless for you to make libellous statements regarding who is or who isn't the creator of Bitcoin?

Milton: Objection Your Honour.

Kaffee: Your Honour this is the foundation of my case.

Judge: Objection overruled. The defendant is required to answer the question.

McCoreon: Ummmm. Your Honour could I have permission first to use the bathroom please?

Judge: Yes. I want to go check coinmarketcap too. The court will recess for 15 minutes.

After a 15 minute bathroom break as requested by McCoreon, the defendant in the Dr. Craig Steven Wright vs Mr. Peter McCormack libel trial, the proceedings resume. We continue with Dr. Wright's barrister Mr Kaffee questioning McCoreon and can only hope for fewer shouts of "Objection" from McCoreon's barrister Mr Milton.

Clerk of Court : All rise.

The Judge enters the courtroom and sits down, prompting all but McCoreon who is already at the witness stand to sit down.

Judge: Mr McCormack please read again the oath the Clerk is presenting you.

McCoreon: I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Judge: Thank you. Mr Kaffee, you may resume your questioning of the defendant.

Kaffee: Thank you Your Honour. Mr McCormack before the recess I asked you a question. Allow me to repeat it. As someone who has admitted under oath that they have very limited knowledge of Bitcoin, wouldn't it be rather reckless for you to make libellous statements regarding who is or who isn't the creator of Bitcoin?

McCoreon: No.

Kaffee: Do you understand what the term reckless means Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Yes. I have used the Lightning Network hehe.

Judge: Unless prompted otherwise Mr McCormack, can you please answer with affirmative - that mean's Yes, or negative as in No to the questions. There is no need for further dialog and what you may believe to be comedy. Show some respect in your answers, this is my courtroom, not reddit.

McCoreon: My sincerest apologies Your Honour.

Kaffee: The defendant mentioned the Lightning Network, I am sure we will acquaint you with this Your Honour as we call expert witnesses to define Bitcoin.

Judge: Yes Mr Kaffee. It is important not to get sidetracked at this stage, so please proceed.

Kaffee: Do you understand what the term libellous means Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: OK. So just to confirm you have just answered under oath that you understand the terms "reckless" and "libellous".

McCoreon: Correct.

Kaffee: Thank you. Your Honour, may I bring your attention to evidence file #36212 entitled "Peter McCormack Twitter tweet on 19th June 2019 at 9:38AM".

The Clerk of the court passes a paper from Mr Kaffee to The Judge.

Kaffee: I'd like to remind you Your Honour that this Twitter tweet was published by Mr McCormack well after legal proceedings started.

Judge: Yes. I find this most peculiar that your legal counsel did not instruct you to refrain from making any comments regarding this trial or the plaintiff. Could I request you all clear the court please, I would like to call Mr Kaffee and Mr Milton to the bar.

The Clerk instructs everyone except for the barristers of McCoreon and Wright to clear the court.

Judge: Now Mr Milton, I've worked with many of your colleagues from RPC, in fact I play golf with some associates. I find it most unprofessional that you did not advise your client not to talk or publish things that may prejudice his own trial. This is not the RPC I have always known and respected.

Milton: Your Honour, we did notify him many times that it was probably not in his best interest to continue to Tweet about the trial, and especially compound the charges or potential for future charges if in your respected conclusion at the end of this trial that he is indeed guilty of libel.

Judge: I am tempted just for these indiscretions and total idiocy of your client to halt this trial, and award by default in your client's favour Mr Kaffee.

Kaffee: With respect Your Honour, I would suggest my client Dr. Wright is interested in clearing his name, so any default judgement at this stage would still result in his name and life's work still being prejudiced and slandered by many anonymous characters on social networks. I have no interest in filing any motion of prejudice or otherwise against McCormack at this stage.

Judge: So you are happy to proceed?

Kaffee: Yes Your Honour.

Judge: Clerk, can you please recall the court.

The Clerk opens the door to the court and shortly all spectators file in, and McCoreon enters the witness stand again.

Judge: You may resume your questioning of the defendant Mr Kaffee. I'd like to remind you that you are still under oath Mr McCormack.

Kaffee: Thank you Your Honour. Mr McCormack we have here a Twitter tweet from you and I would like to analyse it piece-by-piece with you and this courtroom, OK?

McCoreon: OK.

Kaffee: "On advice of my lawyers, I can only say limited things about my lawsuit, as such". So your lawyers advised you regarding what you can or cannot say regarding this trial or about my client Dr Wright?

Milton: Objection Your Honour. My communication with my client is my attorney-client privilege.

Judge: Sustained. Quite correct Mr Milton. Mr McCormack you do not need to answer that question. Proceed please Mr Kaffee.

Kaffee: Apologies Your Honour. OK we will continue. You state "1. Craig Wright is not Satoshi". This would be Satoshi Nakamoto, pseudonym of the anonymous author of the Bitcoin White-paper, correct?

McCoreon: Correct.

Kaffee: You then state "2. Craig Wright is a fraud". Can I ask why in simple terms you have stated my client to be a "fraud"?

McCoreon: Because he's not Satoshi Nakamoto and he is telling everyone he is.

Kaffee: OK, I understand. "3. Craig Wright is a moron". Now I am sure you are aware Mr McCormack that calling somebody a "moron" is in itself not grounds for libel. If that were to be the case these courts would be full and dare I say everybody from The Right Honourable Judge Sadler-Vale, myself, your barrister Mr Milton and everybody in this courtroom would be facing libel trials.

The courtroom erupts in laughter.

Judge: Hehe. Order please.

Kaffee: Can I ask why you think my client is a moron?

McCoreon: Because he must be stupid to think that we will fall for his scams.

Kaffee: Do you have a PHD or any university education Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: No

Kaffee: Does my client Dr Wright?

McCoreon: Ummmmm. I'm not sure. Uh uh. I don't think so cause he's a fraud.

Kaffee: Have you investigated if he does or does not have any such qualifications yourself?

McCoreon: Before or after legal action started?

Kaffee: Well it does not really make a difference. However as you made this Tweet well after legal actions started against you I would assume you'd of checked before you made them?

Milton: Objection Your Honour. My client did not state in this Tweet that Dr. Wright did not have qualifications. Please the line of questioning is concerning the character attack of "moron".

Judge: Sustained. Mr McCormack you do not need to answer that question. Proceed please Mr Kaffee.

Kaffee: With all due respect Your Honour, isn't the fact that Mr Milton is addressing my client as Dr. Wright proof indeed that he has some sort of qualifications to indeed have the title of "Doctor"?

Judge: May I remind you that I am the Judge Mr Kaffee, and not the witness. However your point has been noted.

Kaffee: Mr McCormack. Please note I am calling you Mister McCormack. Is it not true that throughout May of 2019 on your Twitter account you used the prefix "Doctor McCormack" and you described yourself as "Mommy Blogger", "Nobel Winner", "Grammy Nominee", "Dolphin Trainer" I could go on... and "Bedford AF"

(courtroom laughter)

McCoreon: Yes but it's just Twitter. It's just a joke.

Kaffee: May I remind you Mr McCormack that "just Twitter, just a joke" is the reason you are standing here today in this witness box. Joke or not things one says or publishes can have serious legal consequences can they not?

McCoreon: Yes.

Kaffee: So having read your Twitter biography could I not claim myself that you are a fraud Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Why?

Kaffee: Well you clearly state that you are a Nobel Prize winner yet I see no mention of your name on official records.

McCoreon: Ummmm.

Kaffee: If I bought a dolphin to you, could you train it?

McCoreon: No.

Kaffee: Is that not fraudulent advertising? Once again could I not claim myself that you are a fraud Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Ummmm.

Kaffee: Can I take that as a "Yes" then Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Yes. I suppose so.

Kaffee: Do you think anybody, not just me could make that conclusion Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: I guess so.

Kaffee: So to use your argument I could indeed call you a moron because you are a fraud stating you are a Nobel Prize winner and that people would believe it?

(court once again erupts into laughter)

Milton: Objection Your Honour. This is an attack on my client!

(court continues with laughter)

Judge: Order!

(the laughter doesn't stop)

Judge: Order!

(The Judge bangs his hammer on the table several times)

Judge: ORDER!

(the court finally succumbs to silence)

Judge: I would like to remind you all that this is my court and I am as angry - how does McCormack say it "Bedford AF". I am as angry AF. We will take an early recess for lunch and convene here again at 2:15.

(courtroom clears)

----------------

Clerk of Court: All rise. The Judge, The Right Honourable Brian Sadler-Vale once again enters the courtroom and sits down, prompting all but McCoreon who is already at the witness stand to sit down.

Judge: Mr McCormack please read the oath.

McCoreon: I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Judge: Thank you. Mr Kaffee, I understand you want to make a brief statement first?

Kaffee: Yes Your Honour, Mr McCoreon... ahem... sorry Mr McCormack I would first like to apologise for calling you a moron.

McCoreon: Apology accepted. Thank you.

Kaffee: OK. Having said that can you understand why I insinuated that somebody could make this conclusion?

McCoreon: No not really. It's obvious my Twitter account, especially my Doctor prefix and my biography are satire, or to use a more modern phrase "I am trolling".

Kaffee: Interesting you should bring the topic of trolling up. Have you ever thought that my client Dr Wright might enjoy satire or the odd pursuit of trolling?

McCoreon: Ummmmm.

Kaffee: Is that a "no" Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: No. I guess I didn't.

Kaffee: Would you agree Mr McCormack that unless you are actually libelling someone, then perhaps the occasional spot of trolling on the internet can be quite entertaining?

McCoreon: Yes of course. It's fun.

Kaffee: It seems Mr McCormack that maybe you and Dr Wright can agree on something. Your Honour I would like to draw your attention to evidence file #27232 entitled "Hello World copy & paste"

Judge: Shouldn't you wait to present this evidence Mr Kaffee until we have the technical expertise of a computer programmer in the witness box?

Kaffee: Well Your Honour, it's really pretty simple where I want to take this. It's called a "Hello World program" and is basically a simple computer program to display the message "Hello World" on the screen. Consider it the equivalent to stating "Objection" when somebody is training to be a trial lawyer, it's very basic.

Milton: Objection Your Honour. I think this is far too technical without an expert witness.

Judge: Well I'll let you all into a secret. When I was younger at university I did shall we say dabble a little bit with a Commodore Vic-20. Providng your use of this evidence is basic, and I mean basic as in easily understandable and not that complicated programming language misleadingly called Basic, then I will permit you to present it at this time.

Kaffee: Thank you Your Honour. Yes it's rather simple. Apparently Dr Wright was being attacked and questioned on social media that he could not code, that's to say he could not program a computer, and he responded by pasting an image to his Twitter. Is that correct Mr McCormack?

McCoreon: Yes. He copied and pasted someone elses program pretending he knew how to code. Smart people spotted it and this was more evidence that he is a fraud.

Kaffee: A fraud? Or a troll perhaps Mr McCormack. Your Honour I would like to present to you evidence file #51312 entitled "Satoshi University Subreddit" .

Judge: Mr Kaffee do we really need to watch over 15 hours of video?

Kaffee: I don't think so Your Honour. A user using social network reddit, known in reddit handle slang as "slash U slash Jim hyphen B.T.C." has compiled a list of videos of Dr Wright teaching Supercomputer Programming courses at a subreddit he calls Satoshi University. May I in addition draw your attention to evidence file #51313 which is sworn testimony from IT Masters CEO Mr Martin Hale, from Charles Sturt University in Australia as well as over 20 students swearing under oath that they partcipated in these classes. In addition there are hours of Computer Security classes Your Honour.

Judge: Mr Milton is your client willing to accept that Dr Wright does indeed know how to program a computer, given the evidence we have presented or would you like us to sit through over 15 hours of video and call expert witnesses to debate this?

Milton: Can I approach my client for instruction Your Honour?

Judge: Of course. Milton and McCoreon whisper to each other for a few seconds.

Milton: My client accepts Your Honour.

Judge: Can we hear this personally from Mr McCormack just for the record.

McCoreon: I reluctantly accept that Craig can program.

Judge: Now hold on please Mr McCormack. You either accept or don't accept. If you want to do something reluctantly then we can watch these 15 hours of video. And please address the plaintiff as Doctor Wright.

McCoreon: Apologies Your Honour. I accept that Dr Wright can program. He can code.

Kaffee: Do you accept that Dr Wright is indeed Satoshi Nakamoto?

McCoreon: No of course not, he's a liar and a fraud.

Kaffee: And a troll maybe?

McCoreon: At best.

Kaffee: Well in my opinion he certainly programmed the conscioussness of many so-called intelligent cryptocurrency enthusiasts on Twitter who all pushed a "Craig can't code" narrative. He pushed their buttons!

Judge: Are you suggesting he wanted people to think he couldn't program Mr Kaffee? To what end?

Kaffee: I am sure Mr Milton will be able to ask my client this when it's his time to be questioned Your Honour, and I can of course object as it does seem rather irrelevant and out of scope what a gentleman partakes in whilst drinking a fine whisky and using Twitter, providing he is not libelling anybody or committing any crime.

Judge: I suppose so.

Kaffee: Yes, with the greatest respect I do believe it's a higher power than this court, only God who can truly judge wether the actions of my client in deceiving those who attack him with a simple troll and cunning use of copy and paste will at the end of the day be inside or outside the scope of God's divine justice.

Judge: Indeed Mr Kaffee, indeed. I always remember that I am not the most senior Judge in this court and indeed I am being judged as I judge. Judge make cross sign gesture with his hand across his body, which seems to make Mr Milton uncomfortable.

Judge: Shall we continue.

Kaffee: Yes I would like to return to McCormack's Twitter tweet I mentioned this morning, evidence file #36212 entitled "Peter McCormack Twitter tweet on 19th June 2019 at 9:38AM".

Judge: Go on.

Kaffee: OK so we move onto point 4 of your Tweet Mr McCormack, "Craig Wright is a liar." Can you explain?

McCoreon: If he's a fraud then it stands to reason he's a liar.

Kaffee: If he's a liar does it stand to reason that he's a fraud?

McCoreon: Isn't it the same?

Kaffee: I'm asking you Mr McCormack.

McCoreon: Ummmmm. I don't know!

Kaffee: You don't know? Your Honour can I make a supposition to the defendant to perhaps help him answer?

Milton: Objection! He's my client.

Judge: Allow me Mr Kaffee and Mr Milton. Now Mr McCormack I think Mr Kaffee is trying to imply that there are many more liars than there are fraudsters. In fact everybody in this courtoom right now - except you because you are under oath - we can lie legally. Perhaps some of us myself included would be guilty of the professional offence of malpractice for lying and disbarred. However everybody else can lie with no legal consequence except for you, where it would have serious criminal consequences even though you are in a civil court. Not all liars are fraudsters, but all fraudsters are liars. Fraud is criminal, normally lying isn't.

Kaffee: Thank you Your Honour, truthfully a most concise, reasoned and intellectual explanation befitting of your stature and experience. So once again Mr McCormack I ask you if Dr Wright is a liar does it stand to reason that he's automatically a fraud?

McCormack: No.

Kaffee: To confirm for the record you called Dr Wright a liar and a fraud on Twitter. Whilst under oath in these last few minutes you once again called Dr Wright a liar and a fraud. Now you've just stated that he wouldn't necessarily be a fraud if he was just a liar. So I ask you now whilst still under oath is Dr. Craig Steven Wright a liar and a fraud?

Milton: Could I call for a recess please Your Honour.

Judge: Yes Mr Milton. I really do believe you need some time with your client. The court will adjourn for 20 minutes.

Clerk: All rise.

The Judge exits through the back of the court, and slowly the audience starts filing out of the exit.

What happens next? Does the trial end quickly? Does McCoreon go to jail? What witnesses and experts are called? Are there any classic quotes quoted or Tweets presented as evidence? Please contribute to the continued ideas and inspiration for this cryptodrama with comments below.

And McCoreon - please keep Tweeting about CSW against the orders that your lawyers RPC gave you. Disklamer: Anything you Tweet probably will be used against you just for LOLz!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JimmyNLose

Follow me on Yours.org: https://www.yours.org/@j-a-m-e-s

Follow me on Twetch: https://twetch.app/u/938

Follow me on Memo: https://memo.sv/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm

Follow me on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/jim-btc/

Support me with Paymail/MoneyButton: jimmynlose@moneybutton.com

Support me with BSV TX: 15TBK4za3R8THgWCxhJQn3UVAcaQp9ZyXp