Nobody has asked for my suggestions about how to improve the American legal system.<\/p>\n
But what has all the money, the time, the work, the hotel bills, the footage, the angst around the Kleiman v Wright trial really achieved?<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been following it as closely as I can from afar and if you asked me to summarise the story of Craig Wright and the beginnings of Bitcoin, I\u2019m not sure how much more I know now for sure than I did before Judge Beth Bloom welcomed the jury into her courtroom way back on November 1.<\/p>\n
Ask me about the American legal system, and, yes, I\u2019ve absorbed a fair bit: I know about the different kinds of decisions juries are asked to make in civil and criminal cases; I know what an Allen charge is; and I know how you can sound like you know what you\u2019re talking about by calling it \u201cthe cross\u201d instead of cross-examination.<\/p>\n
I also know what Kurt Wuckert Jr\u2019s hotel room looks like\u2014in fact, I practically feel I\u2019ve lived in it with him\u2014until he had to broadcast from the back of a car because the room could not be extended any further thanks to an art fair coming to Miami. Connectivity in the car proved even worse than at the hotel (see above): \u201cIs this performance art?\u201d and \u201cKURT LIVING OUT OF HIS CAR\u201d appeared in the chat from his worried fans.<\/p>\n
But back to the law. This was a civil case. Nobody was going to be found guilty or sent to prison. It was a super-large scale version of somebody claiming a refund from a trader who hadn\u2019t delivered on their promise. Anyone can bring a case against anyone else, and the court is there to settle disputes by examining the facts\u2014in front of a jury in this case\u2014and applying the law.<\/p>\n
The facts were voluminous, complicated and disputed. Not only did the jury have to try to decide what happened, sometimes many years ago\u2014and in Australia!\u2014but how what they worked out had or hadn\u2019t happened might or might not be relevant to the complicated charges.<\/p>\n
And they were asked to make those decisions by listening to a long series of stuttering examinations punctuated by a stream of technical interruptions:<\/p>\n
Vel Freedman (for the plaintiffs): \u201cAnd the amount of those credits was in excess of $10 millions?\u201d<\/p>\n
Amanda McGovern (for the defence): \u201cObjection. Foundation. Could you \u2013 I\u2019m having a tough time hearing the question.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Bloom: \u201cMove your mic up a little bit Mr Freedman. The object is over-ruled. I\u2019ll allow it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Witness: \u201cThe value is not that amount. It is an offset against other tax.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hours and hours of that kind of thing where, if you\u2019d been able to filter out the interruptions, you might have had a chance of following the conversation, but\u2014on paper at least\u2014it feels like trying to concentrate on a high-level discussion while hearing the neighbours fighting next door.<\/p>\n
Most people following the case, like me, don\u2019t have a direct financial interest in it. We\u2019re not, like Ira Kleiman, trying to claim money or, like Dr. Wright, denying that we owe money. But I, at least, was hoping that the process of settling the dispute would shed light on the very interesting history of Bitcoin.<\/p>\n
And it has, in a way, through all the evidence that\u2019s been presented to the court. But if the pieces of the jigsaw have been produced\u2014by both sides, to try to support their own lines of argument\u2014there hasn\u2019t been anyone interested in fitting them together and building up an easy-to-understand picture. Instead, as soon as one set of lawyers starts putting some pieces together, the other side does its best to unpick them and maybe sweep them off the table and onto the floor.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s needed, for the purposes of public enlightenment, is something more like a public enquiry, with an independent chairperson and maybe an expert committee in support, whose only job is to assemble the facts into a fat, authoritative report representing their considered version of the true story.<\/p>\n
The past few weeks in Miami have been frustrating because in all probability every important piece of the jigsaw has been filed in evidence, but there\u2019s been no way of creating a beautiful, finished picture from them.<\/p>\n
I feel for the poor jury. Not just for the long hours and the many days they have had to spend in court, but for having been presented with a nightmarish set of questions at the end and told to sit in a room until they agree on the answers. If I was one of them, I\u2019d be having horrible flashbacks to the worst exam papers I ever faced. Try this:<\/p>\n
Do you find that any of the following claims by W&K Info Defense Research, LLC are barred the statute of limitations? (sic)<\/p>\n
Conversion
\nUnjust Enrichment
\nFraud
\nConstructive Fraud
\nBreach of Fiduciary Duty (answer Barred or Not Barred to each one)<\/p>\n
Maybe that would make a good question in an exam after a few years at a top law school. But for a group of people plucked at random from the blameless population of Miami? I don\u2019t think so.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Check out all of the CoinGeek special reports on the\u00a0Kleiman v Wright YouTube playlist.<\/p>\n