Blogs & Articles: Team Faketoshi And The Helpers 🔗 2 years ago

From Dave Kleiman to Donald Lynam, who were Craig Wright’s “helpers”?

WeChat (now deleted), August 2018. It’s Kleiman, Craig. Not Klieman.

Written by Arthur van Pelt

ABOUT EDITS to this article: as more material might become available after publication of this article, it will have edits and updates every now and then. In that sense, this article can be considered a work in progress, to become a reference piece for years to come.

Intro

After learning about Bitcoin in July 2011, Craig Wright started to introduce Bitcoin in his fraudulent Australian tax refund claims in the course of 2013, after Dave Kleiman died in April 2013. Craig initially claimed he owned, and had full control over, many Bitcoin addresses that he randomly picked from the Bitcoin rich list, but…

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/ (section 157.)

… but indeed, Craig never actually proved to have full control over these Bitcoin addresses in front of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in the 2013–2015 era, despite being requested by them on several occasions.

Within half a year, late 2013, Craig’s Bitcoin scammery was ramped up with a I’m-an-early-Bitcoin-miner lie, again supported by Craig’s signature sloppy forgeries. This was then followed by an ever-failing Satoshi cosplay early 2014 during which Craig Wright unleashed even more just-as-sloppy forgeries and cringe videos showcasing his abysmal knowledge of Bitcoin — and during which he started to hide his created-from-thin-air Bitcoin assets in just-as-non-existing offshore trusts.

The reader will no doubt notice that Craig’s ever-changing narrative about his ‘Bitcoin team and helpers’ is not very helpful either in his Faketoshi saga, as his lies about who played a role in Bitcoin are rather easily called out every time, and on every occassion they add to the very bad, very ugly reputation of Craig Wright not being a genuine Satoshi Nakamoto candidate despite his own claims.

Team Faketoshi, and the helpers

One of the earliest examples of Craig’s Satoshi cosplay, an email to Louis Kleiman dated February 11, 2014.

To kick off, in the 2014–2018 era, Craig claimed he had a Satoshi team. That team consisted of the following members (see email to Louis Kleiman above, the era — early 2014 — where Craig’s Satoshi cosplay kicked off, and also the image on top of this article):

Dave Kleiman, computer forensics expert (January 22, 1967 — April 26, 2013)
David Rees, mathematics professor (May 29, 1918 — August 16, 2013)

In the 2019–2022 era, Craig started to claim he was Satoshi alone, and instead of having a team, he was now supported by “helpers”. It appears that since the David Rees cooperation was thoroughly debunked by the ATO in the years prior, and since Dave Kleiman’s brother Ira Kleiman was chasing him in court for billions of dollars since 2018, Craig felt the urge to drop his team members, and switch to “helpers”. So the two main helpers became:

Donald Lynam, (retired) Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Wing Commander (unknown birth date, still alive)
Gareth Williams, Secret Intelligence Service employee (September 26, 1978 — August 16, 2010)

At the moment of writing (February to May 2022) these are the four people that have been mentioned by Craig Wright most prominently, as either having been part of his team to create and launch Bitcoin, or they have been his main helpers.

Source: https://twitter.com/kurtwuckertjr/status/1308176621439012865

On a sidenote, this is what happens if you don’t catch up with the latest Craig Wright lies and spins in the Faketoshi saga. In September 2020, the era of Kurt’s tweet, David Rees (not Reese) was already kicked from Craig’s list. And in December 2021, during the Kleiman v Wright trial in Miami, the Jury also ruled that Dave Kleiman had nothing to do with Bitcoin, which was actually already a known fact for most followers of the Faketoshi saga since December 2015. Anyway, let’s dive into the history of these four people for a bit, and let’s find out how Craig has been rewriting their actual history to mingle these individuals — three dead, one alive — into his false Bitcoin and Faketoshi stories.

Will there be sloppy forgeries again?

Of course. Sloppy forgeries are a given with Craig Wright, who created, and still creates, them by the boatloads.

Team member 1: Dave Kleiman

Dave Kleiman entered the Faketoshi realm in July 2013. At first, not as Craig’s helper or team member in his Satoshi cosplay though. Let’s revisit the chapter “The $57 million NSW Supreme Court fraud kicks off” and other pieces from Faketoshi, The Early Years - Part 1. What follows is a rather detailed description of the illegal conversion that Craig Wright performed between July 2013 and November 2013, a conversion for which Craig was penalized with $100,000,000 on December 6, 2021 plus $43,132,492.48 in prejudgment interest on March 9, 2022. Shortly afterwards, Vel Freedman announced to have started a payment enforcement procedure since “Craig Wright still hasn’t paid a cent.”.

Source: https://twitter.com/VelvelFreedman/status/1501547161036931084

Now let’s go back to 2013.

“We’ve now entered the phase where Craig Wright really starts executing on his fraudulent Bitcoin scheme that would continue with a Satoshi Nakamoto cosplay starting some six months later.

July 25, 2013: Craig files the first of two fraudulent claims of $28 million against W&K Info Defense Research LLC at the New South Wales Supreme Court.

And here we find Craig Wright unleash the most outrageous nonsense over the dead body of his ‘friend’ Dave Kleiman. The following screenshot is an exemplar of how the rest of the Faketoshi saga, a fascinating fairy tale of epic proportions, will unfold.

There were never “contract labour services”.
Craig Wright never loaned money to Dave Kleiman.
There was never a “contract dated 27 October 2008”.

It goes on and on like this in the filing. It is sad and disturbing to realize how readily Craig Wright is rewriting and exploiting a dead person’s reputation for his own financial benefits. And this will not remain the only time either in this timeframe, unfortunately. In Part 2 we will meet another dead person that is also being actively exploited after he passed away: Professor David Rees.

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/24/11/kleiman-v-wright/

August 1, 2013: “a W&K shareholders meeting was called”.

This event is mentioned in an Affidavit that Craig Wright filed at the NSW Supreme Court early November 2013 to support his $57 million in claims case against W&K Info Defense Research LLC. Let’s unravel the dirty trick that Craig is executing here.

Craig Wright is falsely claiming he is 50% shareholder of W&K. In reality, Dave Kleiman always had been 100% shareholder.
The shareholders meeting was not about W&K but about Hotwire (but, as Jamie Wilson recalls, some matters around W&K were indeed discussed).
Jamie Wilson, without his consent as he had resigned already by November 2013, was retroactively made Director of W&K by Craig Wright.
Unbeknownst to Jamie Wilson, who no longer worked for or with Craig at this point, he is the person Craig claims ‘approves’ the winding down of W&K and the acceptance of the debt positions (the $57 million in contrived IP that Craig was needing to magic up for his Australia-based tax rebate fraud).

And indeed, Jamie Wilson was not aware this had all happened in this capacity, as he declared under oath to Ira Kleiman’s head lawyer Vel Freedman during his deposition on November 8, 2019:

“Q: Mr. Wilson, I’m handing you what has been marked as Wilson 14. It is Document 83–4. If you open that up Mr. Wilson and take a look, do you recognize this as an affidavit Craig Wright submitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you turn to Paragraph 23?
A: Yes.
Q: In it Craig writes, “On first of August 2013 a shareholders meeting was called for W&K Info Defense LLC to be held on the 16th of August 2013. “The meeting was e-mailed to the company address as well as sent to the address of the shareholders and company.” “The shareholding of W&K Info Defense LLC was Craig S. Wright 50 percent; David A. Kleiman 50 percent.” And in Paragraph 24, “The meeting from Point 23, the meeting was held on the 16th of August 2013. “The following people were present. Jamie Wilson, Craig S. Wright.” Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did this meeting ever occur?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened at that meeting?
A: Craig said to me that with David’s passing that we needed to do the paperwork for him to turn around and take full control and resolve the issue of David being on the, as a shareholder. To be honest, at that stage I had no, I didn’t have the knowledge or understanding of what it all meant, because the motions were already happening with the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Q: So, if you look at the next page, “The following points were moved at the meeting: “One, Jamie Wilson will act as a director for purposes of consenting to orders and the company to be wound down. The vote was Craig Wright yes; no other parties. It was agreed that filing the motion to accept the debt owned by company W&K Info Defense LLC would be closed.” Do you recall this happening?
A: This is my first knowledge that I was acting as a director of the U.S. company.
Q: So, this is the first time — so, let me break that down a little bit. You do recall the meeting happening; is that correct?
A: It was part of our meeting that day and it was around Hotwire PE.
Q: Okay.
A: Not so much W&K.
Q: So, you remember the meeting happening. Is it accurate to say that you remember the meeting happening, but you don’t remember being made a director of W&K?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Okay. So then you would agree with the characterization in 24, Paragraph 24 that there was a meeting. Present, Jamie Wilson and Craig S. Wright were there?
A: Yes.
Q: But is it accurate to say you would disagree with what happened in Paragraph 26?
A: Yes. This is my first that I am being made aware that I was a director of the LLC company.”

“Q: Mr. Wilson, can you take a look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 for me, or Wilson 1 for me. And, those are the resignation letters?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you read the companies you resigned from?
A: Coin Exchange, Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence, Interconnect Research and Integers.
Q: I noticed that, and actually you noticed, Mr. Wilson, during a break you mentioned this to us, that there was missing, W&K was missing from the resignation.
A: That’s correct.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because I didn’t even know I was a director.
MR. FREEDMAN: No further questions.
MR. PASCHAL: No further questions. All right, I think we are done.”

Ultimately, this fraudulent set up by Craig Wright of a line of events that had never happened — followed by boatloads of other lies, false promises and meanwhile providing more forgeries to the Kleiman estate in the course of 2014 to 2017 by Craig — in his desperate attempt to claim the title of Satoshi so he could convince a, now extremely sceptical ATO, that he did, indeed, own hundreds and hundreds of thousands of BTC, will lead to Ira Kleiman, brother and heir of the deceased Dave Kleiman, igniting a multi-billion fraud lawsuit against Craig Wright in February 2018.”

August 13, 2013: Craig files the second fraudulent claim of almost $29 million against W&K Info Defense Research LLC at the New South Wales Supreme Court.

The two false claims against W&K now total almost $57 million. Meanwhile, more lies and nonsense is added to the list:

Craig Wright loaned Bitcoin to Dave Kleiman. Never happened.
Software and SDK (Software Development Kit) development. Another false claim. Never happened.
We notice a contract being mentioned, dated January 8, 2009, that never could have existed.
And we find Craig’s signature spelling mistakes, identifiers of his sloppiness (“to the defendant to the defendant”).

We’re sure the reader now, while only looking at the tip of an immense fraud iceberg, gets a feeling for why Ira Kleiman, the brother of the deceased Dave Kleiman, was not amused anymore at some point, and decided to drag Craig into court early 2018 for all this fraud because, after all, if Craig was Satoshi and, as he’d previously claimed in his initial emails to the Kleiman estate, had developed Bitcoin with Dave, even sharing mining rewards which would now be worth fantastically large amounts of money, it was apparent that Craig may be subsequently guilty of robbing the estate of their rightful Bitcoin and IP!

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/24/11/kleiman-v-wright/

November 4, 2013:Craig files affidavit at New South Wales Supreme Court.

For who’s interested, please check out the link above, as this Affidavit filing is a 105 pages long treasure dome of Craig Wright lies and forgeries. Allow us to show you two of them.

To start with, parts of a deed, (back)dated to April 22, 2011.

Appears legit, doesn’t it? But nah. In the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit we learned that Dave Kleiman’s signature was “substantially different”, making this deed document another forgery created by Craig Wright to support his false claims.

Secondly, Craig Wright also produced a “Statutory Declaration” dated October 11, 2013, signed by a solicitor called Stephen D’Emilio and co-signed by a witness solicitor called Adrian Fong, with his Affidavit, obviously prepared to support the ATO tax fraud (see email earlier) and the two false NSW Supreme Court claims. At closer inspection, we notice several anomalies.

You showed them a HTC phone, Craig?

Source: Deposition Craig Wright March 18, 2020

Anyway. Firstly, the “1Feex” address mentioned in the list never belonged to Craig Wright. The “1Feex” address is where someone who hacked Mt Gox on March 1, 2011 parked some 80,000 stolen BTC.

The full story of the 1Feex address here: “The Faketoshi Tale of 1Feex”.

Irony has it that Craig Wright, still not backing down on his Satoshi cosplay, is currently chasing 16 developers in court to get access to the Bitcoin on this same address, in a case, unsurprisingly, loaded again with lies and forgeries. Craig Wright is represented in this case by an UK law firm called ONTIER who, incompetently or being complicit in Craig’s fraud, totally missed (or willingly ignored) this, and many other, forgeries.

Needless to say that either way, this chasing of the holdings on the “1Feex” address will, of course, fail miserably again in the legal long run for all parties involved.

Another address on the list in the “Statutory Declaration”, the one starting with “16cou”, has been signed by the true owner in 2019, firmly and not incorrectly declaring “Craig is a liar and a fraud”. If this isn’t proof enough already that the whole NSW Supreme Court claims case is a farce and a fraud, we don’t know what is. There are several more forgeries supporting the Affidavit, but let’s leave it at this.

November 6, 2013: Craig is, seemingly against all odds, awarded the ~$57 million that he claimed in July/August 2013 by the New South Wales Supreme Court.

Except that, as the court ruling states: “the court notes the agreement of the parties that the plaintiff will accept the transfer of Intellectual Property held by the plaintiff in full and final satisfaction of the judgement”.

And this is what it was all about for Craig Wright. To lay his hands on non-existing Intellectual Property, and give it a court approved valuation. As Satoshi Itches explains:

“The point is that he now has “evidence” provided by the court that he owns over $50M worth of IP. He can now sell that “IP” to his various Australian companies, and claim tax and R&D concessions based on this.” — Satoshi Itches (who provides an even more detailed breakdown of Craig’s $57 million court fraud)

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/

But unsurprisingly, given the lack of Supreme Court’s truthfinding process and therefore ‘missing’ the numerous lies and forgeries that Craig Wright dumped in the $57 million duo-claim, ATO (some critical notes from them in the screenshot above) would in later years consider this fraudulently obtained ruling as a “nullity based on sham”. We will come back to that in more detail in Faketoshi, The Early Years — Part 2.

Note that these 2 cases cannot be found anymore on the Australian New South Wales Caselaw website. It appears that they have been deleted from the court’s systems as they were based on fraudulent information provided by plaintiff Craig Wright.”

To summarize (taken from Faketoshi, The Early Years — Part 2):

“In April of 2013, Dave Kleiman dies and Craig almost immediately seizes on the opportunity to re-write the nature of their past dealings, by filing two massive claims in NSW Supreme Court of almost $30 million each against their, dormant and defunct, US company ‘W&K Info Defense Research LLC’ which they’d solely used to file their rejected applications for US DHS contracts. The court relies on Craig’s own declaration and valuation of the company’s supposed assets and debts owed to him and, as the legal action is uncontested (as Craig was basically suing himself, with backdated ‘help’ of at that point in time ex-CFO Jamie Wilson), it rules in his favour, whereupon he promptly adds the ‘value’ to his rebate scam.

To load up the value of his intra-business transactions even more, he introduces the notion that purchases across his companies are being made through Bitcoin instead of bank deposits and transfers. For this he apparently finds public addresses on the Bitcoin blockchain and starts declaring to the tax authorities that he has been mining and buying Bitcoin since 2009 and that he owns and controls the multiple Bitcoin addresses he’d submitted in his bookkeeping records to the ATO. A notable moment arrives by the end of 2013 when the ATO’s Refund Integrity department launches their next audit of Craig’s tax rebate claims which, unlike previously, now contain supposed Bitcoin-related transactions.”

To avoid making this article all about Dave Kleiman, let’s stop here. The rest of the Dave Kleiman story is presumed to be well known: In February 2014 Craig contacted Dave’s father Louis Kleiman and lied to him that his son Dave, who had passed away in April 2013, was also behind the design, creation and launch of Bitcoin. From there, for several years, Craig provided numerous forgeries to the Kleiman estate to support his false stories, meanwhile keeping them on a leash in an effort to secure their help in his ongoing issues with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Early 2018, Ira Kleiman (Dave’s brother) started a lawsuit against Craig Wright that ultimately ended in Craig having to pay $100,000,000 (plus $43,000,000 in prejudgment interest) for illegal conversion.

At the same time, the Jury found no evidence of a Bitcoin partnership, nor did they make any rulings about Craig being Satoshi (or not).

Anyways.

Dave Kleiman: over and out.

Team member 2: David Rees

Mentioning David Rees (and even Craig himself couldn’t spell his name right, there are known instances where he called him Reese instead of Rees) is since several ATO reports and — hearings with Craig Wright were released in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit (running February 2018 — December 2022), not that clever anymore. Pay attention now, Kurt Wuckert, will you?

As Craig claimed to have paid David Rees some $2 million for services on the Bitcoin protocol and other Bitcoin related things, but ATO said, after a thorough inquiry: “Nah, this didn’t happen AT ALL.”:

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/

Once again Craig chooses to cynically exploit a dead person for his own gain, that of trying to convince the ATO there were significant business transactions of size and scope behind the many tax rebate amounts he has filed for. What better way than to lead with a plethora of wild, contradictory and wholly unlikely claims about someone who no longer has a voice with which to dispute such.

Seeing as the ATOs steady evisceration of Craig’s web of lies and forgeries covers many, many topics, we’ll bring in their 2015 debunking of this particular one at this point in the fraud timeline, where they referenced, “10th March 2014 the taxpayer advised that Professor Rees was a contractor for the taxpayer”.

By 2015, as you will see below, having collectively shown themselves to be more than a match for Craig’s endless techno-babble and lies, they carefully and precisely slice through his many contradictions and fabrications in this section headed ‘Professor Rees’, as told by the ATO.

A concise version of the above 2015 dismantling of Craig by the ATO could best be phrased with the following, totally paraphrased summation.

Craig: I had Professor Rees do some work as a contractor and paid him by giving him the private key to seven Bitcoin addresses, here are those public addresses…
ATO: Some of those addresses are for Bitcoin you already claimed formed part of your ‘MJF’ transaction and one of them had no Bitcoin in it at all on the date the Professor Rees transaction is supposed to have taken place — can you please sign a message to prove you actually control those addresses?
Nguyen: No, because… something… something… homomorphic encryption scheme means that even though we totally had the private keys, pinkie-swear, we then, like, didn’t anymore.
ATO: Ok, so the family of Professor Rees say they’ve never heard of you Craig and that beyond 2008 he was mentally ‘frail’ and highly unlikely to have been working on anything.
Craig: He gave me maths stuff and wrote some software for me.
ATO: Craig, his daughter said her father did not ever write software and at the time of the supposed date of this transaction he was in the last weeks of his life.
Craig: Yeah, well, what would they know about what their elderly and suffering from senile dementia, dying father was up to back then?

But the ATO wouldn’t be the ATO if they did not explain in every painful detail why they thought that Craig Wright never had any actual contact with Professor Rees. For who missed it in the screenshot above at the end, read it, and weep:

“He never spoke of Bitcoin and his estate included no Bitcoin or equitable interests in Bitcoin.”

“At the time the invoice was issued [by] Professor Rees [he] was in the last weeks of his life, was very confused and not in a state to produce the invoice or do any mathematics. His wife, Joan Rees was also bed bound and only able to communicate intermittently.” — in other words, this invoice was clearly a homemade forgery again by Craig Wright

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/

Now please bear with us, the ATO is not done yet, as the report continues with its decision to reject everything Professor Rees related. Look for the quote:

“The evidence provided by [Craig Wright] does not establish that [Craig Wright] acquired any material or services from, or owed any obligation to, Professor Rees.”

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/

So, in summary, the outcome of the ATO’s analysis of Craig’s claims about Professor Rees having done consultancy work for him was:

None of the family had ever heard of Craig.
They all stipulated that Professor Rees did not undertake consulting work.
When Craig provided ‘evidence’ of this work to the ATO it turned out to simply be code lifted from the internet.
When Craig promised to provide paperwork related to this work to the ATO, he then failed to do so.
When Craig was asked to run the purported software in front of the ATO, he refused to do so.
As if this wasn’t enough already, Craig had provided forged and backdated evidence to the ATO to support his false Professor Rees claims.

After this utter destruction by the ATO of the Professor Rees story, Craig would not re-introduce Rees much more in his false claims in later years. In the public court docket of Kleiman v Wright, we can find several email conversations between Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman where they mention Professor David Rees, but these are all — again, what’s new — backdated forgeries, made by Craig with Bitmessage after Dave’s passing in April 2013.

On Craig’s current blog, Professor Rees is never mentioned. There’s one rare interview with Finder though on April 27, 2019, where Craig opened up once more about Professor Rees. Here he would give a whole new twist to Rees his involvement in the Craig’s fantasy history of Bitcoin:

“David [Rees] wasn’t really involved with what was Bitcoin”

Quote taken from Finder, “Dr. Craig Wright explains the origins of Bitcoin — Full interview”

Anyways.

David Rees: over and out.

Since involving Dave Kleiman in his Bitcoin scammery netted him a multi-billion lawsuit (we recently learned that Ira Kleiman, brother of the deceased Dave Kleiman, in appeal after rejection of the new trial request, is seeking a mindboggling $600 billion compensation), and David Rees’ involvement was completely destroyed by the ATO, Craig now has two other individuals on his radar since 2019 for his Team-Faketoshi-that-isn’t-a-team-anymore-but-just-Craig-Wright-alone-and-some-(made-up)-helpers.

So who are these helpers?

Helper 1: Donald Joseph Lynam

Over the years, since the second half of 2013 when Craig Wright started his Bitcoin scam followed by a Satoshi Nakamoto cosplay starting early 2014, Craig claimed several people were part of his made up Satoshi team, or helped him with setting up Bitcoin in the 2008–2009 era.

This article does not focus on the people that Craig sometimes mentions — or lashes out against, on many occasions — in their helping capacity, but who are indeed perfectly known for their contributions to Bitcoin. People like Hal Finney, Ray Dillinger, Martti Malmi, have indeed in real life contributed advice, code and other work to the real Satoshi Nakamoto in the early days of Bitcoin. In his ever-failing efforts to come across as Satoshi Nakamoto, Craig Wright can’t help but mentioning them too every now and then.

Instead, we will focus only on those individuals who are known to have no history whatsoever within or related to Bitcoin, not even a close one, but who were nevertheless falsely mingled into Bitcoin’s history by Satoshi Nakamoto cosplayer Craig Wright. One of them is Craig Wright’s uncle Donald Joseph Lynam (sometimes also called Doug or Don, in this article I will just call him Donald from now on), the only person who is, at the moment of writing at least, still alive. This can be considered a rarity in Craig’s cosplay career, as Craig has a morbid fetish for introducing dead people into his false claims.

For those who didn’t follow the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit closely, Calvin Ayre’s media outlet CoinGeek spend an article called “Craig Wright ‘was the sole author of the Bitcoin white paper’: RAAF Wing Commander Donald Lynam” on Craig’s uncle Donald on November 18, 2021. A few quotes:

“Of the many witnesses introduced to testify in Kleiman v Wright, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Wing Commander Donald Lynam is easily the most impressive.

Donald Joseph Lynam is Dr. Craig Wright’s maternal uncle. A former Wing Commander of the RAAF, he was a high-ranking officer in the Service: his is the seventh highest rank available in the RAAF and is more or less equivalent to a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Armed Forces.

He had a decorated career — a career he started in 1957 and which would eventually earn him the prestigious honour of being appointed to the Order of Australia, the highest recognition of achievement and service available in the country.”

So far so good. But then the lying, knowingly or unknowingly, starts.

“So, when someone like Donald Lynam talks, people tend to listen seriously.

Which means that when the jury heard him say on Wednesday that Dr. Wright sent him an advance copy of the Bitcoin white paper months before its publication in 2008, it was something of a bombshell.

“I had no doubts in my mind whatsoever that he was the sole creative author,” he swore.”

Donald Lynam also made it once to a little media puff piece, on the rather unknown but BSV-friendly (as we know that Calvin Ayre is paying for articles being published on the) “Benzinga” outlet. Let’s check out what they said on November 19, 2021 in their article “RAAF Wing Commander Donald Lynam: Craig Wright Discussed Using the “Satoshi Nakamoto” Pseudonym with Me”.

“According to Donald Lynam, his father, who had a “great influence” on Wright, had a special relationship with his grandson and would often bring him souvenirs from his travels. Wright particularly cherished the Japanese banknotes used during Japan’s occupation of the Philippines given by his grandfather.

“[My father] was almost a machine himself… with his brain ticking over with all of his plans and the things he wanted to build and do and so on. But with Craig, he could sit down and they would open up and talk to one another for hours,” Donald Lynam recalled.

With his father influencing Wright’s interest in Asian culture, specifically Japanese, Donald Lynam wasn’t surprised that Wright used Satoshi Nakamoto as a pseudonym to protect his privacy.

“[Wright] said he felt that since it was a monetary system, it was important — and he didn’t know exactly where it would go, but it was important to protect the privacy of himself and his family,” Donald Lynam said.

“So being Satoshi Nakamoto was a surprise but not a shock. I asked him how did he come up with that name… I understood he was telling me it was two philosophers. One was of the ilk of Adam Smith — referring to Japanese philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto,” Donald Lynam added.

Donald Lynam’s testimony not only humanizes Wright, but also puts everything in perspective as it pertains to the Kleiman v Wright case — how the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym was born and how Wright had been working on the Bitcoin white paper months before its publication.”

So here you have it, several Craig Wright friendly quotes taken from Donald Lynam’s deposition in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit. Could this be the bombshell evidence that Craig Wright is indeed Satoshi Nakamoto after all?

Nah. Not even close.

Because, let’s have a look at what Craig Wright is telling us about his uncle in a March 16, 2020 deposition in the Kleiman v Wright case. This is the first moment when the wider audience learned about Donald Lynam.

Source:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/550/4/kleiman-v-wright/

OK. So Craig claims that his uncle helped edit the Bitcoin whitepaper, and helped set everything [Bitcoin] up.

Now let’s see about that, shall we? Surprisingly (or not so, actually) in his own deposition for the Kleiman v Wright case, this same uncle Donald Lynam firmly denied having edited the whitepaper, and also firmly denied having helped setting up the Bitcoin system. But that was literally what Craig said in his deposition quoted above, wasn’t it?

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/582/2/kleiman-v-wright/

Alignment issues in the family, Craig?

Now let’s try to trace back when Craig Wright introduced Donald Lynam in his Faketoshi scheme. This presumably goes back to at least 2017, if he we have to believe Craig Wright. In the Kleiman v Wright case, a Tulip Trust document dated July 7, 2017 on the front page popped up on January 6, 2020 according Plaintiff’s notice of filing of a third Tulip Trust document. This trust document is now known as Tulip Trust III, and it is supposed to replace all previous Tulip Trust documents we learned about in the Kleiman v Wright case.

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/512/14/kleiman-v-wright/

By the way, does that tulip art on the front page of this document appear familiar to any of my readers? It should be. Fun fact: Craig Wright appears to have plagiarized the tulip art from a painting of the famous Dutch glass painter Pieter Holsteyn II, without mentioning the source or otherwise crediting the artist.

Twitter user “mytechmix” explains:

“He took it from this painting, grayscaled it and used it on the cover.”

And indeed.

Lap Rock. — a painting by Pieter Holsteyn II

On a more serious note, let’s start with the observation that Judge Reinhart was not impressed with seeing the Tulip Trust III document pop up in his court case.

“Particularly given my prior finding that Dr. Wright has produced forged documents in this litigation, I decline to rely on this kind of document, which could easily have been generated by anyone with word processing software and a pen […] I give no weight to sworn statements of Dr. Wright that advance his interests but that have not been challenged by cross-examination and for which I cannot make a credibility determination. I have previously found that Dr. Wright gave perjured testimony in my presence.”

And unsurprisingly, Ira Kleiman’s counsel figured out (check link, page 15/16) that the Tulip Trust III document is — again, what’s new — a recent day Faketoshi forgery.

“Plaintiffs contend that the Tulip Trust III is a recent forgery because although the document appears to show that it was executed on July 7, 2017, it lists “JBruk Ltd (UK) (10859457)” [on page 15] as one of its assets, see ECF No. [507–14] at 17. That entity, however, was not incorporated until July 11, 2017, see ECF No. [507–15]. Accordingly, in their view, the Tulip Trust III could not have been executed on July 7, 2017 because “neither JBruk nor the corporate number assigned to it would have existed yet.”

And Craig? Craig Wright just scored a fraud-hat-trick here: Tulip Trust I (2011 era, supposedly), Tulip Trust II (2012 era, supposedly) and Tulip Trust III (2017 era, supposedly) have now all been found fraudulent setups, only supported by backdated forgeries. Well done, Craig.

All in all, since this Tulip Trust III document was produced by Craig Wright early 2020 in the Kleiman v Wright case, we can safely date this forgery to late 2019, knowing Craig’s Modus Operandi of creating forgeries on the fly when he needs them.

Source: https://twitter.com/gardling/status/1411036929206984704

Now why is this Tulip Trust III document forgery relevant to Donald Lynam? Because it is extremely likely that his name is in this document (but redacted), my educated guess is in the Beneficiaries section.

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/512/14/kleiman-v-wright/ (page 18)

Because all other people and their roles in the latest made-up installment of the infamous (but otherwise non-existing and empty) Tulip Trust are known:

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/512/14/kleiman-v-wright/ (page 31)

My educated guess is also based on another Faketoshi forgery that Craig Wright created around the company W&K (see the role of W&K at the Dave Kleiman section earlier in this article).

This “Limited Liability Company Agreement of W&K Info Defense Research — A Limited Liability Company” forgery was received by Ira Kleiman’s counsel on March 3, 2020 (source: Omnibus Order of September 18, 2020 page 24) and filed on May 20, 2020. Link provided under image below, in which we will find the quote “all token assets held in trust […] will be distributed”, with Don Lynam mentioned as one of the receiving parties.

With this forgery, Craig Wright tried to “prove” that W&K had more members as Dave Kleiman alone — specifically his ex-wife Lynn Wright — but as usual with Craig Wright’s forgeries, this backdated trickery failed miserably again in court. As Judge Bloom ruled in her Omnibus Order:

“Upon review and consideration, the Court does not find a basis to disturb its prior conclusion from the August 2019 Order that Defendant has failed to present credible evidence that Ms. Wright was a member of W&K.”

In other words, the W&K Company Agreement, from which the following screenshot is taken, is bogus. A backdated forgery, as we know them so well from the hands of Craig Wright. And with that said, we can safely assume that Don Lynam being mentioned in this document — and all other documents — is just as bogus. Obviously, Donald Lynam had no Bitcoin related involvement with Craig Wright in the 2008–2010 era.

By the way, also note the “initial allocation of CPU power used in the creation of the system” quote in the Winding Up paragraph. Hilarious!

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/511/4/kleiman-v-wright/ (page 36)

Now that we know a little more about Donald Lynam’s (non-)involvement in the history of Bitcoin, please allow me to return to his deposition in the Kleiman v Wright case. There’s this little anecdote from the questioning that I would like to share, as it always struck as me as very, very odd. It’s about mining Bitcoin (or not?).

Please read the following quotes, pulled from the April 2, 2020 deposition transcript of Donald Lynam. I’ve highlighted the crucial parts in bold.

“Q. Mr. Lynam, did you offer to run a node on his behalf?
A. Yes. When Craig was telling me about it — he didn’t call me to ask about it, but he told me he’s going live, to let me know, and ran through a little bit of what he needed and I said, “Well, look, I’ve got an almost brand new Dell XPS computer that’s pretty hot. How about I run one of these nodes for you?” And he said, “You’d do that?” And I said, “Yeah. Great.” So I did that and I think I’m glad I did it, I think I — I hope it was beneficial for him, but he sent me software, I think via FTP, with the instructions on how to put it in there and set it up and my role from then on was just simply to keep it going 24/7 and my computer was excellent in that that particular computer had a little video screen on the box, so I could monitor the task manager and see that it was processing, how much processing load there was, and that it was always running, even with the screen, and all that sort of thing, turned off. So that was great. I had to upgrade the computer, though, even though it was a hot computer, because it actually did become hot, there seemed to be such a computing load that it ran hot, and so I upgraded the power supply. The box, I think, came — the 450 watt power supply. I upgraded it to a 750 watt. I put in a fan in the front of the box. It was well designed to be able to take a fan there. So my lovely quiet, fancy desktop, that was whisper quiet, from then on, was a noisy machine going 24 hours a day, and I think probably added to my electricity bill, but anyway. So it — so I kept that running and that kept running, with very few interruptions. It had interruptions only because I did things like upgrading it. I upgraded it to have a pair of RAID disks, running as RAID 1, to give it better robustness, and also I believe I upgraded the RAM — I think then the computer only took 16 gig — upgraded the RAM and did anything else I could to make it more robust and reliable.
Q. Mr. Lynam, have you received any compensation from Dr. Wright in connection with the running of the node during that period of time? A. No, not at all. There was nothing I was supposed to do, except run it, and then it was in his hands. He did contact me again, not very long after —
MR. BRENNER: Who’s talking?
THE DEPONENT: He did contact me again, not long after the initial kickoff, to replace the software because the original software was defective in some way and that’s when I first heard of this fellow Hal Finney, because apparently Hal Finney had something to do with highlighting a problem and contributing some work on the open-source software to fix it. So I got a new version of the software to install and I installed that and then it just ran until, I think, early in 2011, when, not hearing anything from Craig, and also the load on the system wound right down, so obviously my machine was no longer contributing, probably because a lot more machines were out there, and a lot more powerful machines, so then I turned it off, in 2011.”

<<snip>>

“BY MS. McGOVERN: Q. Mr. Lynam, do you have any coins?
A. Do I have any coins?
Q. Yes.
A. No, none, none whatsoever. I bought two —
Q. And has Dr. — I apologize. Go ahead.
A. I bought two, I think, in 2010 because I just wanted to see how that worked. I was a bit scared of it all, so I kept it to a purchase of less than $5 and I got two Bitcoin for less than $5, but I’ve completely — didn’t pay much attention to it and I’ve completely lost the keys, so I’ve lost my $5.
Q. And has Dr. Wright, or anybody else, provided you any compensation in connection with your testimony today?
A. None whatsoever, except a nice fuzzy — warm fuzzy feeling that I’m helping.”

<<snip>>

“Q. And your answer — again, I’m not professing to quote it, but I’m doing my best to capture what you said — you said you have not been given any compensation, other than you get — I think you said a warm fuzzy feeling because you’re helping. Is that what you said?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, it was an interesting thing to do, to get involved, even though it was very superficially involved. It kept me interested in my computer and playing with it further, to add to it and make it a more robust and strong-running machine, so I enjoyed all of that, but I never did mine for Bitcoin and I have no knowledge of how you mine, what the process is, but I’ve installed what’s called a node and what the node does, I know that it verifies transactions and competes with other computers[Huh?] to be the one that verifies a transaction and I know that miners, that they — when they do whatever they do, they can earn Bitcoin and that’s the incentive part, part of the incentive part, but mine was set up as totally hands-off for me, except that I kept the monitor going so I could watch the task manager to see that the system was running correctly.”

<<snip>>

“Q. Have you ever — by the way, when you said you were running a node, were you mining Bitcoin?
A. No. I actually have no idea how the mining is done. It was hands-off and it was all remotely controlled by Craig or Satoshi.
Q. That’s what I thought you said. You basically had a computer — Dr. Wright sent you some software to download and told you how to get it running and that was your involvement?
A. That was it.
BY MR. BRENNER:
Q. That was it, sir?
A. That was it, that was my involvement, except I had to keep monitoring it to make sure it was running, which I did.
Q. Okay. And then you stopped that, I think you said, in 2011 —
A. 2011.”

TL;DR: so Donald Lynam had a computer going from whisper quiet to noisy after starting to run a Bitcoin node, he likely paid extra money for electricity, and his machine was running so hot that he had to install a fan in the front of the box. And his computer was competing with other computers! This is the rather detailed description of a Bitcoin miner, isn’t it?

But… at the same time uncle Donald repeatedly states he never mined a single Bitcoin, he only bought two bitcoin in 2010 that he lost again (in a boating accident?)!

Very, very odd, isn’t it? Did Donald maybe not completely understand the deposition instructions (“don’t forget to mention Hal Finney!”) of his nephew Craig here? Or was he genuinely running a non-mining Bitcoin node after all (which Craig doesn’t consider to be a Bitcoin node these days anyway)?

One can guess here, but I know where I’m leaning towards…

Indeed.

Donald Joseph Lynam: over and out.

Bring Out Yer Dead (again)!

Helper 2: Gareth Williams

As said before, labelling it a morbid fetish: Craig Wright abused many dead individuals in his Satoshi cosplay fraud; dead people who couldn’t object to his disgusting behavior anymore. So far, I’ve highlighted in this article:

Dave Kleiman (died April 2013, but since Dave’s heirs dragged Craig into a massively costly fraud lawsuit that costed him $143 million in penalties and interest alone so far, Dave’s over and out since 2019)
David Rees (died August 2013, but since ATO said in 2015 and 2016 in several of their tax investigation reports “nah, didn’t happen”, David is also over and out since roughly 2018/2019)

Other dead people that Craig Wright falsely, inadequately or improperly mentioned or otherwise abused since he started his Faketoshi act in 2014 were, for example, cypherpunk Timothy “Tim” May and Hal Finney.

And we’re going to add another person to this list. In the March 16, 2020 deposition of Craig Wright (referenced before in this article) during the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit we learned about another, again deceased, individual that was supposedly part of the Faketoshi helpers: Gareth Williams, a code-breaking spy for the MI6 UK agency, who died in August 2010.

This is, arguably, the most crazy — and thus also unbelievable — addition to the list of Craig Wright helpers in his made up Bitcoin fantasy universe. Here is where the Faketoshi fairy tale is getting almost mythical proportions.

So buckle up, dear reader, and brace yourself for conspiracy theories involving president Putin of Russia and ex-American president Clinton, cocaine abuse, the possible murder of Dave Kleiman, and a lot more crazy storytelling and mudslinging in court.

Let’s go back to March 16, 2020 first. This is the moment where we learned about Gareth Williams and his role in Bitcoin, according Craig Wright only that is, for the first time. At least we came to understand that Craig Wright considered him as a member of the group of three people who created Bitcoin.

As Gareth Williams “helped set everything up”.

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/550/4/kleiman-v-wright/

Now try to remember what Craig claims about the death of Gareth Williams.

“killed by Russian agents”

Right. Let’s see about that, shall we?

“Dr Wright has now claimed that the e-mails he previously said were real and that involved relevant admissions to the partnership are complete fabrications, and that instead the three people he is actually referring to are two other people, we believe this is completely untrue”

“His story is unbelievable.”

That’s Vel Freedman, head of Ira Kleiman’s counsel, his initial response to the umpteenth plot twist that he had to endure in the Kleiman v Wright case. And indeed, it is unbelievable. Because, what do we know about Gareth Williams?

Let’s have a look at what Wikipedia has gathered about our Gareth.

“Gareth Wyn Williams (26 September 1978 — c. 16 August 2010) was a Welsh mathematician and employee of GCHQ seconded to the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6) who was found dead in suspicious circumstances at a Security Service safe house flat in Pimlico, London, on 23 August 2010. The inquest found that his death was “unnatural and likely to have been criminally mediated.” A subsequent Metropolitan Police re-investigation concluded that Williams’s death was “probably an accident”. Two senior British police sources have said some of Williams’s work was focused on Russia — and one confirmed reports that he had been helping the US National Security Agency trace international money-laundering routes that are used by organised crime groups including Moscow-based mafia cells.”

Gareth Williams died August 16, 2010.

Although there’s clearly a connection with Russia, no mention of Russian agents who presumably killed Gareth Williams, is there? Is there a remote chance that Craig sucked this story from his con man’s thumb?

Anyways. Let’s move on.

Now that Gareth Williams has been properly introduced, what did Craig made up, sorry, remember I mean, about his involvement with Bitcoin in the early days? To answer that question, we have to go back to a deposition in the Kleiman v Wright case on June 28, 2019 where Craig Wright mentioned Gareth Williams for the first time in this lawsuit. Not in his capacity as main helper yet, though.

“Q. All right. Dr. Wright, I’m going to move to the national-security section, but we may come back to the — to the coin — the coin holdings if we have time. Dr. Wright, you participated in videoconference with Dave Kleiman while you were in New York City sometime in 2011, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. An individual by the name of Gareth Williams was at that meeting; is that correct?
A. He wasn’t at that meeting.
Q. Where was Gareth Williams?
A. He was in the UK.
Q. He was participated via videoconference?
A. Well, it was not really videoconference, but electronic means.
Q. What were the means?
A. We used technical solutions that aren’t actually a videoconference.

Source: https://twitter.com/Username_Bart/status/1272667082182684672

Q. Okay. And it — is that the same way Dave Kleiman participated?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Williams was in the UK?
A. Yes.
Q. You were in New York?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dave Kleiman was in Florida?
A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Q. Where in New York were you?
A. I don’t remember the name of the hotel.
Q. What was the purpose of your trip?
A. I was on may way to Venezuela.
Q. What were you going to do in Venezuela?
A. I was doing forensic work.
Q. For who?
A. I was doing forensic work with a group associated with ICE. We were tracking movement of money associated with FARC and FARCV.
Q. What is ICE?
A. ICE is customs enforcement here in the U.S.
Q. Was there anyone else at the meeting between you and Mr. Williams and Dave Kleiman?
A. No.
Q. How long did the meeting last?
A. Less than half an hour.
Q. What was the purpose of the meeting?
A. I was discussing tracking of SWIFT-based assets, and Mr. Williams also had — Mr. Williams had a theory that a number of Russian oligarchs and Mr. Clinton had a relationship.
Q. What — what was the relationship?
A. He believed that Putin was funding the Clintons.
Q. And how did that involve you?
A. I helped train Mr. Williams.
Q. Who — who was Mr. Williams?
A. Mr. Williams was formally of MI6. He was of GCHQ. He was an operative involved in the tracing of monetary funds between different European countries over SWIFT.
Q. So was he working for the — the United Kingdom Government — sorry. Strike that. Was he working in his capacity as an agent for the United Kingdom Government when he participated in this call with you?
A. Only partially.
Q. Why do you say “only partially”?
A. Because he took software that I wrote and he used it to break into American servers because he had — had this bee in his bonnet about the Clintons.
Q. And why did you involve Dave Kleiman in that conversation?
A. I wanted to clean up everything to do with Satoshi. Dave was not only my friend, but he’s a forensic expert. I wanted to ensure that there was no record of my being Satoshi left.
Q. What does that — what does that have to do with Mr. Williams’ theory about the Clintons and Putin?
A. Mr. Williams was a little bit like me, in that when he gets focussed on one thing, he keeps going back to it.
Q. I’m — I still don’t understand. Can you elaborate what the connection between your connection to Satoshi and Mr. Williams’ theory about Putin and the Clintons? I don’t understand the relationship.

Faketoshi fan JimmyNLose explains: “They don’t want you to know about BSV”.

A. Mr. Williams helped me with some of the nature of SWIFT transfers and monetary transfers with data around e-gold and other things that were using to fund crime as well as movements of Russian Government money.
Q. And how did that connect to erasing your connection to Satoshi?
A. Part of that was to do with the fact that Bitcoin was created as a system so that people couldn’t bypass controls around things like SWIFT. Bitcoin was created as a system of money with an evidentiary trail that could not be bypassed. It was designed to be private so that the NSA, who Mr. Williams had been seconded to, couldn’t monitor everyone’s transactions; but people like the State Department, who would take down individual transactions and follow these, so that they could do good old-fashioned policing, so to speak, and analyze the transactions between individuals, such as in drug markets or other crimes.
Q. How did that have to do with you erasing your connection to Satoshi?
A. We had a communication before I left to go to Venezuela, where Dave and Mr. Williams were all on the line. Mr. Williams had helped me in the early days when I was creating Bitcoin. And no one else, other than Dave and Mr. Williams, knew at that point that I was definitively Satoshi or what I’ve done.

[NO ONE ELSE, Craig?
Let’s flashback forward to the Kleiman trial in November 2021:

“Q. And do you recall during cross-examination, I asked you about whether you and Dave kept your Bitcoin partnership a secret, and you responded that “At least 3- or 400 people knew that I was Satoshi in Australia” and that you registered Information Defense and recorded it with the Government?
A. Yes.”]

Q. And when — what was the date of this call, video call?
A. I don’t remember the exact date.
Q. And what did Dave Kleiman say during this call?
A. I don’t remember his exact talks, but he was willing to help me because we had been friends a long time. He was —
Q. When — go ahead.
A. He was willing to help me get rid of all of the past.
Q. Was this call the time when Dave found out you were Satoshi?
A. No.
Q. And you made that ask of both Dave Kleiman and Gareth Williams to help you erase your connections to Satoshi on that call?
A. Yes. I agreed with Gareth that if Mr. Williams deleted all the records of what I was doing and helped me, that I would help him with software that was necessary for some of his investigations that were outside the scope of his normal work.
Q. So you reached an agreement that he would delete the records of you being Satoshi. What — strike that. What records did you ask Mr. Williams to delete?
A. Communications between myself and him.
Q. And what were the contents of those — sorry. Strike that. And the content of those communications would have revealed you being Satoshi?
A. Some of them, yes.
Q. What method of communication did you use with Mr. Williams?
A. We used the number of encrypted channels, including things like Cryptcat.
Q. Did you use Bitmessage?
A. No. It didn’t exist at that point.
Q. Was Mr. Williams involved in Bitcoin in any way beyond helping you — beyond agreeing to delete the records of you belonging to Satoshi?
A. Yes.
Q. How was Mr. Williams involved?
A. Mr. Williams was a very good mathematician, and I used his skill of knowledge in analyzing graph theory in associated with the creation of Bitcoin and some of the mining algorithms that I was planning to implement.
Q. Dr. Wright, you helped the U.S. Government build cases and apprehend Viktor Bout?

Viktor Bout — Profile photo BBC News

[Note: Viktor Anatolyevich Bout is a Russian arms dealer. As an entrepreneur and former Soviet military translator, he reportedly used his multiple air transport companies to smuggle weapons since the collapse of communism from Eastern Europe to Africa and the Middle East during the 1990s and early 2000s. — Wikipedia]

A. I was involved with giving evidence or producing evidence.
Q. Can you tell me about that a little bit. What work did you do in that case?
A. I created software to break encryption and to put back doors in systems allowing the capture of data.
Q. Did the U.S. Government reach out to you for that help?
A. No.
Q. Who reached out to you to provide that assistance?
A. I had contacts with people like Mr. Williams who worked for GCHQ.
MS. MCGOVERN: Your Honor, I’m going to object to this extended line of questioning. I believe the limited scope of the deposition at the deposition was for purposes of identifying individuals involved or, as the claim — or, as the Plaintiffs believed, were involved in the Bitcoin system. And this goes beyond that.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that objection.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, you were also involved —
THE COURT: Just to let you know, Mr. Freedman, you have five minutes left.
MR. FREEDMAN: I see. Can we take a short break, then?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. FREEDMAN: Thank you.”

And again, Gareth Williams died August 16, 2010. Remember the “Limited Liability Company Agreement of W&K Info Defense Research — A Limited Liability Company” forgery that I showed you in the Donald Lynam section? This, I mean (and note that Gareth Williams is on that list also!):

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/511/4/kleiman-v-wright/ (page 36)

Now let’s have a look at how that forgery was (back)dated by Craig Wright:

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/511/4/kleiman-v-wright/ (page 40)

Yeah, indeed. Six months after Gareth Williams’ death.

Anyways. During the Kleiman v Wright trial in November 2021 we also learned that Gareth Williams was involved with the Bitcoin whitepaper when it reached the stage of 20 pages. Well, according Craig Wright that is, of course. What follows is a little snippet from one of the hearings, when Craig Wright was questioned about the Bitcoin whitepaper by his own counsel on November 22, 2021 (morning session):

“Q. How long was that typed version?
A. The first version was about 40 pages. The second version was 20. And then —
Q. Sir, I’m asking about the first version.
A. The first version was about 40 pages.
Q. Who, if anyone, did you share that version with?
A. I shared that, first of all, with Don, my uncle, and Max, a cousin. I also shared a copy — I showed it to a person called Zoren Illievich and a couple other people from universities I was with.
Q. Who is Zoren Illievich?
A. He’s a person who does a lot of government contract work in Canberra, Australia.
Q. And when you say: “Don and Max,” are you referring to Don and Max Lynam?
A. Yes.
Q. And did any of these people, Don, Max, Zoren, or whoever else it is you shared the first version with, make any comment as to that first version?
A. Verbal ones. The main thing I got was it was too long, too convoluted, and too complex.
Q. Who said that to you?
A. Don, Max, Zoren. I think everyone.
Q. What did you do in response — by the way, did you share that version with David Kleiman?
A. Not that version, no.
Q. What did you do in response to the comments you got on the first version of the paper?
A. I pruned it very heavily and cut down the number of pages.
Q. Was there a second version?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long was that one?
A. Probably 20 pages, if I have to remember on that one.
Q. Approximately, when was that prepared? When was that ready?
A. April, May of the same year.
Q. And who, if anyone, did you share the second version with?
A. I would have given that to Gareth Williams. I also gave it to some people at the university I was with in Newcastle, Australia. My wife at the time. And I showed people at BDO at that stage as well.
Q. Did you share that version with David Kleiman?
A. Not that version, no.
Q. Okay. And what, if any, comments did you get as to the second version?
A. Still too complex, too much math.
Q. And what did you do in re — when did you — approximately when did you receive those comments?
A. Around the same time. I sent it back to people and they looked at it, they flicked through it. They said: “It still needs more out.”
Q. And was Don Lynam in the second round?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you do in response to those comments?
A. I cut it right back to about 10 pages at that stage.
Q. When was that?
A. That would be about May, still of ‘08.”

All in all, we only have several outrageous claims about Gareth Williams from Craig Wright and Craig Wright only, we have a debunked recent day forgery with Gareth’s name and Craig Wright’s fingerprints on it, and no independently verifiable evidence otherwise. So if you ask me:

Gareth Williams: over and out.

Let’s end this article with a hilarious anecdote about Gareth Williams from the Florida court rooms. When Craig Wright threatened to keep mudslinging about Dave Kleiman during trial, look how Ira Kleiman’s counsel responded to that.

Gareth Williams appears in the footnotes.

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/558/kleiman-v-wright/

The end. Thanks for reading again!

Join Coinmonks Telegram Channel and Youtube Channel learn about crypto trading and investing

Blogs & Articles: Team Faketoshi And The Helpers 🔗 2 years ago

Also, Read

More from this author

You might also like: