Closing Arguments Craig Wright

Straight from Oslo District Court, Norway

Written by Arthur van Pelt

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

For a detailed report of the hodlonaut v Wright trial and it’s background, please read “Oslo, Norway: The hodlonaut v Wright No-Defamation Trial”.

After being translated from Norwegian, but without any further edits and cuts (except for replacing his real name for hodlonaut, and a few notes about blatant lies that I found which can be found between [… in bold…] plus some supporting evidence), I present you Craig Wright’s closing arguments as filed in the hodlonaut v Wright lawsuit. Note, this is not the transcript of the closing arguments at the end of the trial!

However, it’s in my opinion still a great overview and insight in the whole case, and last but not least, the jurisprudence that Craig Wright used to support his stances.

Without further ado:

Provision for Procedure Craig Wright
Oslo district court case 19–076844TVI-TOSL/04
Lawyers Halvor Manshaus and Halvard Helle

1. Introduction

1.1 The crux of the matter

1. Defamation and invasion of privacy — claim for damages
2. Are the Twitter messages unlawful, or must these be considered legitimate?

Plaintiff’s gross accusations and characteristics repeated in a number of messages over several days

- Not written in affectation or thoughtlessness
- Planned attack against Wright
- Pulls others along in a coordinated mob action where the goal is to hit Wright as hard as possible

The Twitter messages are outside the core area of ​​freedom of expression
The plaintiff has never retracted the attack

1.2 Stated the actual requirement for a declaratory judgment — after more than 3 years

The claim in point 2 of the summons:
“hodlonaut’s statements that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto are not illegal.”
Changed in the claim in the final submission point 6:
“hodlonaut’s statements that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and that Craig Wright fraudulently attempts to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto are not unlawful.”
The point of claim stated without prior notice during the procedure — the plaintiff has, after the conclusion of the evidence, stated a central part of the case
No justification — other than that the claim was not necessary
Has thus in reality also stated the attempt to prove that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, which has been the alleged main rationale behind the lawsuit
As the case now stands, the question is only relevant to the question of whether, at the time of publication, hodlonaut had a factual basis for the defamations against Wright which helped to justify them
Great importance for the legal costs issue

1.3 Briefly about the method

Dec. Sections 3–6 and 3–6a
It is a direct error that claims and grounds for claims are only presented during the main hearing
Several statements that violate reputation and privacy
Dec. §§ 3–6 and 3–6a are two alternative, partially overlapping, bases for liability that both provide a basis for restitutionary compensation — reflected in Wright’s claim
1. Interpretation (application of law)
2. Illegality assessment — largely coincident, with the exception that privacy violations can be illegal even if the claim is 100% true
The starting point for the legal dispute assessment will be a balance between ECHR art. 10 and art. 8
– Defamation and invasion of privacy are consumed under the right to privacy
– Both are considered violations in isolation, strengthen the seriousness of the violation
– The same points that are relevant
– The statements must be assessed as a whole
In our case, both ECHR art 8 (privacy/reputation) and art 10 (freedom of expression) strongly favor Wright
Rhetorical question: If hodlonaut loses in Norway and complains to the ECHR: Will not be admitted citing the limited protection of speech under ECHR art 10 (ref Art 17)
Part of the litigation assessment — has negligence been demonstrated?
The plaintiff’s attacks are targeted and made with the aim of overwhelming Wright with highly harassing messages
hodlonaut’s messages have limited protection
- Does not promote debate and the search for truth

Relevant questions:

Is hodlonaut, in the same way as the press, democracy’s “watchdog”
Has hodlonaut acted with due care
If, at the time of publication, there is sufficient factual evidence measured against the seriousness of the accusation
Are the messages “justified”
The messages appear to be balanced and with the possibility of countermeasures
Proportionality assessment
ECHR Article 10: Is there a “pressing social need” — a search for truth and healthy debate that speaks against sanctions
Weighed up against:
ECHR Article 8: Speaking about the protection of reputation and privacy (in the broadest sense) to stop this kind of online speech

1.4 Plaintiff’s offer of evidence for the district court

The plaintiff bases large parts of his case on the fact that “someone has meant something on the Internet”
- Jameson Lopp FUP 114–115
- The basis of the subpoena: 5 blog articles. Only 1 prior to plaintiff’s twitter messages FUP 5
- Case preparation
- Wikipedia
- Blog about narcissism FTU 246
The plaintiff focused little on the subject of the case — the statements
Instead, extensive documentation and statements related to unrelated topics, such as the Australian Taxation Office, the Kleiman case, etc
Not relevant to the case. The plaintiff has not proven that there was a basis for calling Wright a fraud and impostor at the time of publication
Requirements for qualified probabilistic preponderance
LB-2009–85294 JU (317) 324
“On the basis of the above, the Court of Appeal assumes that more than the usual preponderance of probabilities is required. The Court of Appeal assumes, however, that the same strict evidentiary requirement does not apply as in criminal cases, when it is solely about mortification and not punishment. Among other things, the seriousness of the defamation must have meaning, as well as the defamed party’s own circumstances. However, if there are allegations of criminal matters, e.g. fraud and embezzlement as in this case, it is assumed that the standard of proof must be the same as in criminal cases. If the judgment goes against the defamed party, the defamed person will in such a case be branded as a criminal.”
Very serious accusations — strong demand for factual evidence

1.5 The time of publication

The factual basis at the time of publication is decisive for the interpretation of the statements, the due diligence assessment and the legal dispute assessment
The majority of the plaintiff’s evidence was obtained long after the statements
The wording in s. § 3–6 a and the requirement for careful good faith “with regard to the elements that can make the statement justified” JU 13
Ot.prp no. 22 (2008–2009), notes to skl. Section 36 a JU 97
“It can be said that the more offensive the statement is, preferably in terms of the content of the accusation, the greater care must be taken by the speaker with regard to the grounding of the statement in fact and with regard to the justification for putting it forward. It will always be required of the person who has made an accusation that he has done what can reasonably be required in advance to get the facts straight.” (underlined by us)
Rt. 2003 p. 928 par. 44 (Tønsberg Blad) JU 176
“Of these, I find reason to emphasize the degree of public interest, the nature of the accusation, including whether the accusation is classified as a “value judgment” or a “factual statement”, whether it is directed at a public figure or a private person, as well as the degree of care, including whether and possibly to what extent the media at the time of publication had factual evidence that the claim was true.”
Continued in a series of Supreme Court decisions
Rt. 2005 p. 1677 (Baneheia) section 72 JU 190
Rt. 2014 p. 152 (Ambulance driver) section 104 JU 221
Rt. 2015 p. 746 paragraph 69 JU 269
“I will then first take a closer look at whether the newspaper had a reasonable factual basis for the accusation made, and emphasizes in this context that there is no question of how the question appears today; the decisive thing is how it appeared to Aftenposten when the accusation was published.”
Rt. 1989 page 759 JU 155–156
The sub-instance’s application of law:
“It is the timing of the sentencing that is decisive in that regard. That is, even if B had no cover for his claims at the time he wrote them, subsequent developments may have proved him right. It is not illegal to be anticipatory. “
The Supreme Court: “This starting point is clearly incorrect. What is decisive is whether evidence can be provided that the statement was true at the time it was made. Whether the accusation would have been true if it had been made at a later time is irrelevant.”
McVicar v. United Kingdom JU 1053
Similarities with our case: Questions about defamation after a journalist made doping allegations against a sportsman
The ECHR emphasizes that the journalist had not been concerned with substantiating the allegations in the article until after the defamation action had been brought, and more than a year after the allegations had been made (paragraph 86) JU 1053
ECHR Article 10 not violated
Conclusion; the assessment must be made based on the time of publication

2. Summary of the evidence

2.1 Plaintiff’s party and witness statements

2.1.1 Garnet

- Stands by the statements, refers to “consensus”
- Invoking other people’s offensive statements
- Agree with Wright that the messages were intended as allegations of fraud and deception — not a basis for the restrictive interpretation advocated by his attorney
- Stopped the account when he got a job in private business

2.1.2 Plaintiff: Three “fact” witnesses

- No connection to the facts of the case
- Pseudo-expert witnesses. Followers of @Hodlonaut with BTC portfolio
- Wouldn’t speak like that or retweet the messages
- Confirmed BTC supporters’ dislike of Wright and that this was based on internet searches

2.2 Defendant’s party and witness statements

2.2.1 Wright on the twitter messages:

- Experienced the twitter messages as bullying, feedback from friends, family and colleagues
- Referred to debates with Lopp, Todd and others who have been hanging out Wright online for a long time
- Todd; long-standing disagreement on Twitter
- Never heard of hodlonaut before — pure, unprovoked neatness
- Work for Australian police and for other countries’ authorities

2.2.2 Stephen Matthews:

– hodlonaut feels a strong need to brand Matthews as unreliable — simply because his testimony alone rules out the fraud allegations
– The criticism against Matthews completely misplaced
– Contact Wright before and during work on Bitcoin
– Received draft Bitcoin White Paper, many discussions on blockchain solutions and digital payment options in Centrebet
– Confronted Wright with Satoshi, noon April 2015 — got an affirmative answer
– It is inconceivable that Matthews would have spent so many years of his professional life on Wright if the story was false
– The evidence from Matthews puts to rest hodlonaut’s hypothesis that Wright made up the story to settle with the Australian Taxation Office

2.2.3 David Bridges:

– Assisted by Wright in Quantas, work with security (penetration and testing)
– Wright “pitched” payment system without intermediaries in 2008/2009, form of logging with blockchain solution
– Described Wright as “very gifted — operates on another level”
– Visited Wright’s farm, inspected the server park
– Discussed Bitcoin banking with Wright in 2013

2.2.4 Robert Jenkins:

– State of the art — firewall solution for Vodafone following a successful assignment for the Australian Stock Exchange. Visited DeMorgan facility — “Wall of heat” from servers
– A series of conversations and discussions around digital currencies and Fiat currency — ditching the central bank and physical banknotes
– Discussions about blockchain — bittorrent with ledger
– First half 2011 — discussion with Wright — not afford to invest in Bitcoin
– Found it beyond doubt that Wright was Satoshi upon announcement in 2015

2.2.5 Shoaib Yousuf:

– Confirms Wright’s deep understanding of technology and internet technology
– Talks with Wright already in 2007 about digital payment solutions in the future
– Collaborated for a period with Wright, visited the office of the company he had started with Wright. Confirms size of business and number of employees
– No doubt Wright was Satoshi when this was revealed

2.2.6 Max Lynam:

– Grew up with Wright, in a family interested in service and technology
– Coded instead of Legos as a child, kept in touch electronically as adults, shared papers and programs
– Received current papers and programs
– Helped Wright test software in late 2008, with his father (Donald Lynam)
– Dinner in 2013: Told Wright that it was actually Bitcoin mining Lynam had been doing
– 6500 Bitcoin, verification of 334,000 transactions
[Note Arthur: this actually brings the dinner conversation to around October 2014, long into Craig Wright’s Satoshi cosplay that started early 2014]

2.2.7 Neville Sinclair:

– Describes Wright as highly qualified
– Data security and the payment card industry are key areas for Wright at BDO
– Conversations about alternatives to banking systems. Wright drew up diagrams of how the systems could be improved, blockchain technology
– Wright asked for support for the project in a meeting with Sinclair and BDO
– No doubt Wright was Satoshi: His own experience with Wright’s skills

Collectively:
Wright’s witnesses are incompatible with hodlonaut’s narrative and understanding of reality
Strongly supports Wright’s explanation
Parks hodlonaut’s Australian Taxation Office hypothesis

2.3 Prelude to the Twitter messages

2.3.1 Claimant’s activity on Twitter — deliberately provocative

Plaintiff’s explanation — deliberate to attract followers
- generate clicks, likes, retweets
Goes way over the line for acceptable form of expression, a method to create attention
FTU 34, 36, 38
The 9/11 tweet
Putin, Assad and Ahmadinejad
“Kind of hard to verify how many Hitler killed (…)”
Bull Jenssen’s explanation:
– Would have a chat with employees who tweeted like that — not acceptable

2.3.2 Lightning Torch and hodlonaut’s financial motive

hodlonaut in his own explanation:
– Only believe in Bitcoin BTC — Hodl
– All other cryptocurrency — “shitcoins”
Invested heavily in BTC — strong financial incentives to ensure high rate, competitor BSV “delisted”. FTU 41
Removes/blocks followers with BSV ticker (“just too much”) FTU 60
Launching Lightning Torch in January 2019 FTU 108/109
Become a famous person in cryptotwitter
– Both Bull Jensen and Ølnes got hodlonaut in the “Twitter feed” after Lightning Torch — started following
– Support from Jack Dorsey (5.9M followers) FTU 104 55
– Coindesk (over 2M followers)
– 125,000 impressions daily on average throughout March

2.3.3 Planned and deliberate attack against Wright

Attacks on leading figures within BSV coordinated
– hodlonaut’s explanation: Cannot deny membership in BitcoinPlebs FTU 121
– hodlonaut leads the charge on Twitter — appeals to fellow Bitcoin supporters “rabid (rabid, wild, mad) and toxic (poisonous) maximalists” FTU 62
March 18: Day 1 of #CraigWrightIsAFraudWeek
Telegram/BitcoinPlebs created March 15th
Immediately follows the call
- In front: “Organized Bitcoin Pleb attack on shitcoin scammers. Who is in for some toxicity” FTU 121
Discusses the attack on Wright, at the same time wants to hit BSV. Training to avoid filters at Twitter, avoid closed accounts etc FTU 121–128
Any direct link to @hodlonaut?
The date coincides with the plaintiff’s attack FTU 121
- Specifically Faketoshi — “just keep insulting….” FTU 124
- Gathering around the profile picture of @Hodlonaut FTU 127
- @hodlonaut shortly afterwards asks for help to find more people who have called Wright a “fraud” FTU 128

2.4 The Twitter messages March 2019

Twitter messages over several days: FUA 721
“Trash”
“Faketoshi”
“Sad and pathetic scammer”
“clearly mentally ill”
“induces deep cringe”
“#CraigWrightIsAFraud”
“Feel free to join the celebration”
“scummiest side of humanity, supported by people with vegetable-like brainpower”
“Twitter agrees #CraigWrightIsAFraud”
“Happy #CraigWrightIsAFraud week”
“Appreciation and gratitude to the rabid and toxic maximalists out there.” FTU 62
Mentioning MSG: #CraigWrightIsAFraud FTU 67
Hashtag #CraigWrightIsAFraud — “chain goes strong” — indicates that the message and the action are spreading on the Internet
Constant and ongoing attack — must tag every tweet all week
– Used by others — hodlonaut himself no control
Sml. Supreme Court in Avisa Nordland — Rt. 2014 p. 1170 par. 119 and 122 JU 256–257

3. The interpretation

3.1 Legal assessment topic

Are the statements “suitable to offend another’s sense of honor or reputation”, cf. skl. Section 3–6 a? JU 13
– Penal Code (1902) § 246 JU11
“Anyone who, in word or deed, acts in a way that is suitable to damage another’s good name and reputation or to expose him to hatred, contempt or loss of the trust necessary for his position or business.”
The parties agree that the statements in isolation are defamatory
Nevertheless, it is important to interpret the Twitter messages
– The degree of infringement is a factor in the legal dispute assessment
– Context is also central to the legal dispute assessment

3.2 Interpretation rules

– Natural understanding, “the common reader”
– Rt. 2002 p. 764 page 771:
“When interpreting, it is, in my opinion, necessary to see the statements in context…” JU 165
– Rt. 2014 p. 152 paragraph 115 JU 222
“The central thing is the disputed statement and the context in which it was published, cf. ECtHR’s judgment on 1 March 2007 in the case Tønsberg Blad AS et al. v Norway [EMD-2004–510] section 90.”
– The principles of interpretation according to Norwegian internal law and the ECtHR’s practice coincide
In practice, a distinction was drawn between factual statements and value assessments
Rt. 2003 p. 928 (Nordlandsavisen) section 44
“In general, the statement will have strong protection if it concerns matters of public interest, valuations, dissemination, public figure, and there is strong evidence that the claim was true.On the contrary: If the matter concerns the modest public interest, factual allegations, own presentation, private person, and there is weak evidence that the claim was true, the statement has a less strong protection.” JU 176
Rt. 2005 p. 1677 par. 74 and 78 JU 190
“The main rule is that false defamatory statements about facts are not protected under Article 10 of the ECHR.”
“Statements that can be understood to mean that a person is or may be suspected of a criminal offence, must normally be regarded as a statement of fact that requires proof.”
Rt. 2014 p. 152 paragraph 111 JU 222
If the valuations are serious enough, these are also subject to requirements for actual occupancy
hodlonaut clearly stated in his party’s statement that the statements had to be interpreted as Wright being a swindler and deceiver — the parties therefore agree that the statements are statements of fact, despite the procedure

3.3 The utterances isolated

What is the meaning of the statements? FUA 721
– Several different condescending valuations
o “Trash”
o “induces deep cringe”
o “scummiest side of humanity, supported by people with vegetable-like brainpower”
– Factual allegations about Wright’s state of health
o “clearly mentally ill”
– Allegations of fact with allegations of fraud
o “Sad and pathetic scammer”
o “the fraud himself”
– Calls to others to participate in and pass on the plaintiff’s message
o “#CraigWrightIsAFraud”
o “Feel free to join the celebration”
o “Twitter agrees #CraigWrightIsAFraud”
o “Happy #CraigWrightIsAFraud week”
o “Appreciation and gratitude to the rabid and toxic maximalists out there.” FTU 62
Characteristics of the utterances collected
Anonymous statements
Powerful expressions
Every day — ongoing, encourages everyone to take part — pure bullying

3.4 The context and purpose of the statements

– No prior contact between Wright plaintiff
– Not part of an exchange of views or debate between the parties
– Wright had never heard of hodlonaut
Three years ago Wright publicly confirmed that he was Satoshi Nakamoto
Plaintiff posts from the anonymous Twitter account @hodlonaut
– Plaintiff has full control over how he can be contacted, while inciting attacks on Wright
– Wright has limited opportunities to engage in dialogue with the plaintiff
Appears to be a planned and coordinated attack
hodlonaut: The purpose was to draw attention to the fact that Wright was a “fraud”
Harassing purpose
Skalka v. Poland paragraphs 34–36: JU 1150
An inmate sent a letter to a court expressing dissatisfaction with a letter the court had dealt with, calling the named judge “small time cretin”, “some fool”, “a limited individual”, “outstanding cretin”
“The courts, as with all other public institutions, are not immune from criticism and scrutiny. Persons detained enjoy in this area the same rights as all other members of society. A clear distinction must, however, be made between criticism and insult.”
Sections 41–42: Sanctioning the statement would not be contrary to ECHR Article 10 no. 2, but a prison sentence of 8 months was considered disproportionate
Even the courts, which generally have to put up with more, don’t have to put up with the harassment
Wright no opportunity to counter
– Neither before nor after
– Kicked out of Twitter

3.5 Consequence

The calls to participate in #CraigWrightIsAFraudWeek are having ripple effects
– Others pounce, retweet, like and share FTU 121–128
Predictable consequence of the statement
– hodlonaut: Inspired by the fact that others had gained attention in that way

3.6 Significance for the interpretation that certain statements are violations of privacy

Independent infringement
Grossly disparaging personal characteristics
Regardless of what hodlonaut knew
Making Wright’s state of health a matter of debate
Nothing warrants it
Factual basis not decisive
Rt. 2007 p. 687 sec. 80–81 JU (1115) 1127

3.7 The interpretation in summary — the Twitter messages are defamation

Denigration of Wright’s professional and personal sense of honor and reputation

4. Satoshi Nakamoto

4.1 What has Wright done wrong?

June 2015
Wright enters into an agreement on the transfer of IP and a new position as an employee developer at nCrypt
Discussed about development of patents and technology to be documented by author. Possible disclosure of Satoshi at a later date — not clarified

November 2015
Journalists from Wired and Gizmodo are contacting — have already contacted sources etc
Wright doesn’t talk to the reporters, doesn’t see the material they’re building on. Bet it blows over

December 2015
Articles from Gizmodo and Wired. Zero control over angle, material presented etc. Not prepared for this
Wright resigned — did not want exposure
Pressure from MacGregor — prove Satoshi

March 2016
Wright agrees to a private demonstration. Matonis chooses 3 keys and explores social and technical “lines”
[Note Arthur: this is clearly a lie. The private demonstations aka ‘proof sessions’ had been agreed upon way before the December 2015 Wired/Gizmodo articles, as Andrew O’Hagan describes in his long form article The Satoshi Affair.]

April 2016
New demonstration with Gavin Andresen, who is very skeptical at the outset. Email exchange, conversations, cryptographic proof and technical conversation
Demonstration with the BBC. Wright is unclear about Courtois

May 2016
Second May 2016 — The Sartre post
Collective BTC camp attacks Wright. Disregards the text and underlying meaning
Subsequent public transfer agreed over the head of Wright, who does not participate
The above is based on witness statements and contemporary documentation, as well as O’Hagen’s accounts
[Note Arthur: again a blatant lie. Andrew O’Hagan describes in The Satoshi Affair how Craig Wright was fully cooperative in the public transfer (he even called Gavin Andresen about it) that certainly wasn’t agreed upon ‘over the head of Wright’. But of course Craig knew he couldn’t deliver, so he was looking for any lame excuse he could find.]

Video of Courtois illustrating — discussing two things: FUB 8
1. Courtois boasts of reverse engineering from a “single transaction” that has yielded the underlying private keys. Wright disputes this and asks for proof
2. Courtois wants Wright to show other transactions and wallets outside of Genesis and early blocks

The other video evidence, presented as evidence by the plaintiff and played in court. No statements or comments, difficult to understand the relevance

Alleged “slander” at conference — taken from Youtube FUB 2888
Discussion at conference FUT 238
Throughout the process and the criticism from winter 2015/16, Wright experiences that the skeptics never get enough
The plaintiff, on the other hand, does not provide any evidence regarding the “outing” or the signings — only speculation
Plaintiff claims “outing” by Gizmodo and Wired was planned, cites agreement on possible author assignments
- The author did not get started when the outing was a fact
- Contemporary evidence emphasizes that Wright did not want to be exposed and was not ready for this

4.2 The signing sessions substantiate that Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

Jon Matonis:
Founder of the Bitcoin Foundation, journalist in the Economist
Was given a proof session
Contemporary reproduction in the blog post on 2 May 2016 FTU 129
Met Wright at a conference in 2015 — “weird feeling of having just met Satoshi”

Cryptographic: Wright signed with key from several of the blocks that Matonis selected
Social: Unique personality, early emails Matonis received, day-to-day posts on Bitcoin forum
Technical: Knowledge of public key cryptography, address system in Bitcoin and proof-of-work

Gavin Andresen:
One of the few who actually communicated with Satoshi
Chief Developer after Satoshi retired
Many contacted Andresen — claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto
“extremely skeptical” FUA 847
Important to remember — Andresen’s requirements for evidence: FUA 847
“A message signed with the same PGP key Satoshi used back in 2010. (… but his computer could have been hacked).”
“A message signed with keys from early Bitcoin blocks (…but his wallet could have been stolen).”
“Email or private forum posts he sent to me in 2010 (…but email could have been hacked).”
“A conversation about technical stuff, ideally via email, so I can see if it feels like the same person I communicated with in 2010.”
Successful demonstrations for Andresen — first on Wright’s own PC, later on a new PC
No evidence to claim that network or Electrum verification was manipulated
Andresen and Wright longer conversations
Overall, Wright fulfilled Andresen’s strict evidentiary requirements

Andresen’s blog post FUA 1082
The blog post caused strong criticism of Andresen
Andresen in deposition in 2020:
“It was a combination of speaking with him. Communicating with him via e-mail. It — — he seemed to have the same prickly personality of the person I communicated with in 2010, combined with a plausible backstory about why he would have stepped away , and then combined with — — I was convinced that he actually did sign and verify a message using a key from one of the early Bitcoin blocks. So those three things convinced me at the time.”. FUB 3788–3789
Clearly disappointed by the Sartre post and that Wright didn’t do the public signing — but still convinced he’s Satoshi
Andresen believes he was “bamboozled” — when it came to the blog post on 2 May 2016 — not the signing FUB 3835
[Note Arthur: this is a lie. In a May 4, 2016 email — 2 days after the fraudulent Sartre blog post on May 2, 2016, mind you — Gavin Andresen also expressed firm doubts about the signing itself.]

Both Matonis and Andresen received a lot of criticism for supporting Wright — still choose to do so
Why don’t Matonis or Andresen testify?
The plaintiff provoked and even offered enormous material regarding Andresen
Doc 61–15 documentation FUA 842–1095
Doc 58–14 deposition I FUB 3673–4060
Doc 103–2 deposition II FUB 4060–4187
Corresponds to just under 900 pages of explanations and material from Andresen. In addition, there are various interviews, blogs, articles, O’Hagen’s book, etc

4.3 The plaintiff’s allegations regarding the demonstrations with Matonis, Andresen etc

Generating enormous material on the internet — blogs, posts etc. — against Wright
Strong desire not to consider Wright as Satoshi
- Ølnes: Wright was not “the type”
The criticism is largely based on a lack of evidence in the Sartre post — a willful misunderstanding

Example from the evidence:
Johan Torås Halseth: Red flag that Andresen flew in
Theory #1: Electrum Downloaded — Manipulated. Very simple
Theory 2: Manipulated network
Theory 3: Could have tricked Gavin Andresen himself

Reportedly spent a lot of time decoding the Sartre record, but did not read the text
Electrum’s Twitter message on May 3, 2016 FUA 518
Subsequent dialogue with Gavin Andresen — “it would be nice” — “attack vector”
Strong commitment, leading questions, spends time on long summaries and source searches. When the outcome is not as desired, the whole thing is dropped FUA 867

Conclusion: Criticism against Wright is consistently based on the wrong premises

4.4 The evolution of Bitcoin

4.4.1 Wright’s background and knowledge in the field

Donald and Max Lynam’s explanations
Wright’s grandfather shared an interest in Japanese culture with Wright FUB 4522–4524
Wright’s strong interest in the internet and technology — “became quite obsessed” FUB 4519–4526
Donald Lynam received early drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper in 2008 FUB 4528–4538
Not surprised, natural continuation of Wright’s work and interest
Lynam assisted Wright — drive node
The explanations of Max Lynam, Robert Jenkins, David Bridges, Shoaib Yousuf, Neville Sinclair and Stefan Matthews substantiate this
Stefan Matthews — obviously convinced
Wright’s own account of the various steps in the development
- Handwritten working note FU 57–134 [Note Arthur: 2019 forgery.]
- Minutes from a meeting with BDO FU 135 [Note Arthur: 2019 forgery.]
- The development through 2007–2008
Explained how the development progressed and how various elements in his background and expertise were important
Accounted for the publication of the White Paper and the start of the Genesis block [Note Arthur: with draft whitepaper forgeries and false stories like ‘Microsoft patch Tuesday’, yes.]

4.5 The plaintiff’s lack of coverage for the statements

4.5.1 hodlonaut promotes speculation and postulates

The plaintiff has drawn accusations and speculation from the Internet directly into the case
Plaintiff relies on documents that Wright did not plead
The plaintiff leads three “witnesses” unrelated to the facts. Illustrates prejudice against Wright

Bull Jensen:
– Social economist
– General opinion: Gavin Andresen deceived
– Consensus based on lack of signature
– Not convinced in 2016
– BSV an irrelevant project
– Incited sentiment against BSV in the BTC environment

Torås Halseth:
– Pretty sure that Gavin Andresen was fooled
– Countless “made up” reasons why the proof session could have been manipulated
* Electrum wallet
* The network
– Could even trick Andresen, by posing as Satoshi in conversation with him
– Not the text in the Sarte blog

Beers:
Only information obtained from the internet
Based on subjective perceptions of Satoshi Nakamoto’s personal characteristics
All own BTC, followers of @hodlonaut, misinterpretation of the Sartre post

4.6 Plaintiff’s evidence detached from Wright’s allegations

The plaintiff presents as evidence documentation that Wright himself has not invoked
The plaintiff makes himself a mouthpiece for a strong movement against Wright on the Internet, where several people have demonstrably not familiarized themselves with the facts of the case
The plaintiff’s opening speech — major focus on the Australian Taxation Office, the Tulip Trust and the Kleiman case
The evidence shows that these points have little relevance in our case
Made up a theory that Wright allegedly made up to be Satoshi according to the tax cases against the Australian Taxation Office
– Extensively refuted in court, ref. statement from Matthews and Wright
– Wright’s challenges with the Australian Taxation Office began earlier, ref Wright on previous case with the Australian Taxation Office
– Also supported by Sinclair, Bridges and Jenkins — the reality of Wright’s projects
It is difficult to understand why the plaintiff invokes documents against Wright that Wright himself does not refer to
[Note Arthur: cringe! This is the same reasoning that ONTIER tried in the Wright v McCormack libel case, about the falsified evidence that Craig Wright provided about the 10 conferences, but quickly pulled just before trial when it was thoroughly debunked. Judge Chamberlain didn’t fell for it in the end, and awarded nominal damages of an insultingly low £1.00 after calling Craig Wright “not a witness of truth”. The same is extremely likely going to happen here in Norway too: Craig Wright presented “71 documents which substantiate that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.” and now that he pulled them because they were found a bunch of recent day forgeries by KPMG… The Norway judge is no doubt not going to appreciate that move.]

Example: Email obtained from attorney Freedman in the Kleiman case
- As pointed out in the pleadings from this side, two or three different versions of the e-mail in the case already
The plaintiff refers to statements from Calvin Ayre — who is not a party to the case, but who was referred to very disparagingly by the plaintiff

4.6.1 Report from KPMG

The plaintiff’s proceedings yesterday regarding the KPMG documents which were presented during the case preparation
“The documents have not been invoked, one has to wonder if there is any reason for that. Normally, when I present documents, I tend to invoke them in the case.”
The reason for the documents being in the case — extensive provocations from the other party. Evidence that Wright possesses or can gain access to that substantiates that he is Satoshi — duty of proof tvl § 26–5 FUP 171–174
Came into the case more than 2 years after the case was settled
The plaintiff’s statement in the introductory lecture:
“All the documents are manipulated or cannot be verified.”
Lawyer Manshaus during questioning KPMG:
In the introductory lecture from hodlonaut, it was stated that “all the documents are most likely manipulated or not possible to verify”, is that correct? Or do you want to nuance it?
KPMG’s testimony:
“Maybe I wouldn’t use manipulated, there are inconsistencies that from experience and testing seem like an abnormal deviation and there is something that has caused that deviation.”
Methodological weaknesses in the report, pointed out by BDO and CYFOR
– The explanation from Dahl
– The explanation from Rouwendal van Schijndel
– The explanation from Sokolowska
– BDO and CYFOR problems in reproducing KPMG testing
– KPMG did not provide a realistic or up-to-date test environment — no industry standard or certification
The majority of documents — discrepancies in metadata are due to natural reasons (e.g. scanning), or do not have metadata (handwritten documents, log files and source code)
KPMG draws conclusions too early — without considering other and equally relevant explanations
– Ref. explanation from Krok — “many roads to Trondheim — only rated E6 — fastest”
– Makes no reservation that the files are 12–14 years old and that “discoveries” must be expected
This is not about moving files from Linux to Word
Meaning of the reference document SSRN
- Is in itself a similar “finding” that KPMG demonstrates in the report. Two documents that are supposed to be identical are demonstrably two different documents. Unclear what has happened
KPMG: It has happened on the server
BDO: First that it happened on the server, but checks more closely and believes it is most likely that it happened at KPMG — which has not investigated itself
CYFOR: Clear that it most likely happened at KPMG
Meaning of normal.dot and normal.dotm
- By opening the old document in a new version of Word, the template is replaced with a new template. Changes to the template could result in significant changes to the entire document
- Emphasizes that old files that are checked for content through normal use or discovery searches will be able to change dramatically
Throughout several critical considerations — especially around a deficient test environment and a lack of description of concrete findings
None of the experts conclude that any deviations are due to Wright
The report cannot be taken to mean that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, or that Wright must have manipulated evidence
No coverage for the plaintiff’s substantial allegation about manipulated documents — a great distance from KPMG’s own explanation in court

5. The litigation assessment
- ECHR art 8: §§ 3–6 and 3–6a

5.1 Superior on the litigation assessment

The legal dispute assessment for §§ 3–6 and 3–6 a mutual consumption
Privacy violations regardless of the degree of actual occupancy
In both cases, even statements with sufficient factual support could be unjustified
The wording in s. Section 3–6a second paragraph JU 13

5.2 ECHR Art. 8

“Right to respect for his private[…] life” JU 16
Intervention must be “necessary in a democratic society”
Legal practice requires “pressing social need”
Defamation and violation of privacy — interference with ECHR art. 8 and § 102 of the Constitution
Axel Springer AG v. Germany paragraph 83 JU 713
– Mention of cocaine use — the person referred to was an actor and portrayed a policeman who fought drugs
ECHR art 8 covers reputation and privacy
The Twitter messages in this case undoubtedly exceed the threshold — correspond to skl §§ 3–6 and 3–6 a
Balance between Art 8 and Art 10
Section 87: It doesn’t matter if you judge from Art 8 or 10 — Basically equal
The threshold has clearly been exceeded:
Moral condemnation
Allegation of criminal offences
Derogatory personal characteristics
Speculation about health information

Repeated and inciting harassment

The matter lies at the heart of Article 8 of the ECHR
hodlonaut’s inciting attack is chicanery and uncontrolled — mobilizing the twitter mob
Strong testing intensity
Small margin of discretion
Violations of Article 8 of the ECHR on the internet
Greater risk of privacy violations on the internet
Delfi v. Estonia ap. 133 JU 838
The Internet provides access to news and information…
“At the same time, the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press.”
Section 36: ECHR art 10 not applicable to statements that fall outside the purpose of the provision
Węgrynowski and Smolczewski v. Poland para. 58
High damage potential on the Internet JU 784
In our case: hodlonaut has become famous — great impact. Appears in the feed of the plaintiff’s three witnesses. Dorsey, Coindesk etc follow @hodlonaut
The home requirement not problematic in our case

5.3 Freedom of expression’s basic justification — Grl. § 100 and EMF Art. 10

Included in the wording of section 100 of the Constitution JU 4
The preparations for Section 100 of the Constitution JU 23–24
– The search for truth the most important argument for freedom of expression — facilitating an enlightened debate and free exchange of words
– Closely connected with the principle of the individual’s free opinion formation and democracy
NOU 2022:9 Freedom of Expression Commission JU 143
“While statements about a subject have strong protection, the opposite is true for statements that attack one or more people. According to Supreme Court practice, such statements enjoy modest protection, because they have nothing in common with the core value of freedom of expression, namely the free exchange of words. Even after In the ECtHR’s practice, the protection of harassing speech is limited, and in some cases such speech will be considered an abuse of freedom of speech that is not protected by the commission at all, cf. ECHR article 17.”
In practice, the plaintiff does not enjoy protection under Article 10 of the ECHR for the statements that form part of the attack against Wright
Special conditions in our case:
ECHR Art. 8 and EMF Art. 10 both pull in the same direction in this case
@hodlonaut himself explains that he could not have the twitter account when he was supposed to work in cryptocurrency
None of the three witnesses would have made or passed on similar statements

5.4 Balancing of articles 8 and 10

5.4.1 Legal assessment theme and elements

Axel Springer AG v. Germany des. 93–95 JU 716–717
Requirements for diligence and “acting in good faith… in accordance with the ethics of journalism”
What is the role of the person promoting the statements
Public interest
The content, form and consequence of the statement
The method of obtaining information and the degree of truth
The severity of the sanction
Sliding scale assessment — ​​relative sizes where the facts in the individual case are decisive

5.4.2 The claimant’s role and function — no “public” or “social watchdog”

Statements from the press, journalists and editors enjoy a special protection — community mission
Other press-like actors can also be granted similar protection
NGOs, see eg Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom
Hungarian Helsinki Committee v. Hungary
Section 168 JU 986
– Bloggers and active users on social platforms can also be considered “public watchdog”
– Implies stricter requirements for care — as journalists
Further assumes that the dissemination takes place within legitimate and balanced methods, cf. Fressoz and Roire v. France
– Section 54: Art. 10 only provides protection when the journalist acts within the framework of press ethics JU 366
“It protects journalists’ right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide “reliable and precise” information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.”
Decisive that the press acts:
* Carefully
* Based on an apt factual basis
* Conveys reliable and precise information
* Within the framework of press ethics
Applied to our case:
– hodlonaut is not a “public watchdog”
– No social mission
– Clear agenda
– Strong statements and offensive claims — intended to hit Wright as hard as possible
– Actively works with others during the attack, coordination
– Mass communication without taking responsibility or control for such scope
Consequence: Cannot invoke special protection

5.4.3 The question of public interest

Question about who is Satoshi Nakamoto — undisputed public interest
Einarsson (no.1) v. Iceland ap. 52 JU (891) 906
“In short, Article 8 of the Convention must be interpreted to mean that persons, even disputed public persons that have instigated a heated debate due to their behavior and public comments, do not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being supported by facts.”
If a violation is found even if it is a public figure who has to endure more, ref. hodlonaut’s procedure point 6.3
Rt-2014–1170 section 106 JU 242, 254
Smooth transition between factual assessments or value assessments — regardless of requirements for actual occupancy
Also towards public figures in matters of public interest — factual and balanced presentation
Compensation NOK 400,000
Points back to the interpretation
The Twitter messages are not to be considered statements on a topic, but clear personal attacks
@hodlonaut has an underlying financial motive all along — weaken/delist BSV and promote BTC
A topic of public interest does not justify any form or claim, cf. the reference to Einarsson v. Iceland
– A v. Norway section 71 JU 612
* Fædrelandsvennen’s coverage of the investigation into the Baneheia case. The EMD came to the conclusion that the newspaper went too far in portraying a person as a suspect in the case without sufficient factual basis, the statements were defamatory even though the topic was of great public interest (police spotlight)
“It is obvious that the crimes in question because of their particular nature and gravity were a matter of utmost concern to the national public generally and to the local public especially, as observed by the national courts (see paragraphs 82 of the Supreme Court’s judgment quoted at paragraph 32 above). Not only did the press have the task of imparting such information but the public also had a right to receive it. However, the Court does not consider that the serious public interest in the subject matter could constitute such a special ground as to justify the defamatory allegation against the applicant with the consequent harm done to him.”
The topic’s public interest does not justify suspecting a dissenter as a criminal and mentally ill

5.4.4 The form, purpose and space of speech

The form of the utterances — Unnecessarily strong wording and characterization
Constantinescu v. Romania JU 1186–1187
General secretary of a trade union convicted of defamation after accusing three teachers of fraud in the newspaper
No violation of Article 10 of the ECHR: The discussion about whether the teachers should return funds to the trade union could have been conducted without the defamatory use of words
“73. In the Court’s opinion, the term “delapidatori”, which refers to persons found guilty of the offense of fraudulent conversion, was of a kind to offend the three teachers because they had not been convicted by a court.
74. The Court considers that the applicant could perfectly well have expressed his criticism — and thus contributed to free public debate of union affairs — without using the word “delapidatori” Accordingly, the legitimate interest of the State in protecting the reputation of the three teachers did not conflict with the applicant’s interest in contributing to the above-mentioned debate.”
The purpose of the statements
Purpose: To create as much attention as possible, ref. hodlonaut’s own explanation
Harassing attack on a leader within BSV, planned and coordinated
Portraying Wright as a fraud and deceiver, ref hodlonaut’s own explanation
Luring Wright into a heated debate — grounds for further attack
Economic Interests — Strengthen BTC Against BSV, and other “Shitcoins”
Desire to take on BSV — ensure delisting on crypto exchanges, ref discussions on BitcoinPlebs
The space of expression
– hodlonaut in advance removed followers with BSV in the username — also users who disagree with him, ref. own explanation
People who are uncomfortable over time or people who support BSV
– Building own “echo chamber” on Twitter
– In case of questions — no response
“How is CSW a fraud?” — “No, I didn’t answer that”, ref. plaintiff’s explanation
The Twitter mob mobilizes against Wright
Furthermore, it is substantiated that the coordinating backroom at “Telegram” — “Bitcoin Plebs”
The importance of the statements being made anonymously
– Anonymous statements make it difficult/impossible to identify where the statement (in our case: the personal attack) comes from
– Sender not identifiable — makes countermeasures difficult, at the same time the sender is not responsible for the content
– Important point in the assessment of legal disputes, more difficult to enter into a debate with an anonymous dissenter
– Makes it impossible for the injured party to take civil action following a statement
Legal security guarantee that helps to ensure respect for privacy during the exercise of freedom of expression (“counter balancing factor”)
Freedom of Expression Commission on anonymity JU 1199
“The commission has not considered whether further legislative changes regarding anonymity are necessary. A general ban on anonymity online is neither desirable nor possible to enforce. The commission nevertheless believes that anonymity should be an exception in the open, public debate in Norway. Those who run the platforms that facilitate debate, have a responsibility to facilitate a debate that is not dominated by harassment and personal attacks. In that case, the requirement to discuss under one’s full name is a natural starting point.”
hodlonaut does not respond to letters from Wright sent through Twitter
Does not take personal responsibility for the statements
Forcing Wright to counter on the @Hodlonauts Twitter account — with all sympathizers following
The form, purpose and incendiary nature of the Twitter messages emphasize that there is no factual debate

5.4.5 Freedom of expression must be exercised under responsibility

Independent responsibility — it doesn’t help that others have already expressed themselves in the same way
Steel and Morris v. UK JU544–545
As discussed above — the same requirement for caution and balanced reporting must not only apply to journalists — “the same principle must apply to others who engage in the public debate.”
“91. (…) Complaint is further made of the fact that under the law McDonald’s were able to bring and succeed in a claim for defamation when much of the material included in the leaflet was already in the public domain.
92. As to this last argument, the Court notes that a similar contention was examined and rejected by the Court of Appeal on the ground either that the material relied on did not support the allegations in the leaflet or that the other material was itself lacking in justification. The Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion.”
Expressions of public interest made by the press enjoy strong protection, but it also comes with a responsibility
Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark JU471
– Two journalists fined for defamation following specific allegations that an unnamed police officer had deliberately leaked key evidence in a murder case
– No violation of ECHR Article 10. The charge concerned a serious criminal matter which was not based on a sufficient factual basis, one witness statement could not justify the coverage
The statements of private individuals are also subject to liability
This is all the more true with the making of statements by a celebrity like @hodlonaut on an established Twitter platform that reached a larger number of people
– Abused the freedom of speech to what he thinks is “consensus”
– Intentional personal attacks are repeated over time — the due diligence assessment is therefore not problematic
In the due diligence assessment, it is relevant to look at several points

5.4.5.1 The factual basis of the statement

Accounted for above — insufficient basis
The plaintiff’s prejudice and bias no excuse for the form and scope of the messages
Kasabova v. Bulgaria JU 646
* The case concerned allegations of illegalities and corrupt practices linked to school admissions aimed at public servants
* Section 65 JU 679
“The Court would point out in that connection that according to its caselaw, the more serious an allegation is, the more solid its factual basis should be (…) The allegation in the instant case was very serious (…) and thus called for thorough research on the part of the applicant.”
Allegations of criminal offenses require a qualified balance of probabilities
– ECHR Art. 6 №2
– LB-2009–85294 (JU 324)
– The suspect case
Sections 79–80 JU 191
Section 90 JU 192–193
Especially about the distinction between value judgments and factual statements
– Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom JU 513
* Episodes 87–88: JU (543) 544
“In its practice, the Court has distinguished between statements of fact and value judgments. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. Where a statement amounts to a value judgment the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis on the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without factual basis to support it may be excessive.”
The Supreme Court’s statement in Fædrelandsvennen Rt. 2005 page 1677 par. 78–80:
Proposing a suspicion of criminal activity is a statement of fact that requires proof JU 191
The greater the range, the more serious
– Publications on the internet
– Delfi v. Estonia paragraph 133
“At the same time, the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press (see Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel, cited above, § 63).”
About what sources the statements are based on and whether these can be trusted
– Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark section 78
“ Thus, special grounds are required before the media can be dispensed from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals. Whether such grounds exist depends in particular on the nature and degree of the defamation in question and the extent to which the media can reasonably regard their sources as reliable with respect to the allegations.”
In this case, the plaintiff has presented a bunch of different sources
– In the subpoena: Blog posts and other internet sites FPU 5
– The Guardian article the plaintiff has referred to is itself a caveat and in no way establishes that Wright is a fraud FUA 548
Later supplemented by subsequent sources none of which contain credible information proving Wright to be a fraud
The evidence in our case shows:
Plaintiff weak foundation for the statements
Based on a perception of consensus within a limited environment
Does not exist in wider society
The Twitter messages, with the exception of one, have no references
The reference is based on incorrect premises
The criticism otherwise misguided
Disproved that the statements are true

5.4.5.2 Requirements for dissemination of “reliable and precise information”

Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark shows further requirements that the speaker conveys “reliable and precise information”, ref. par. 78
Establishes a requirement for factual angle and dissemination — the information that is disseminated must be reliable and precise
The Twitter messages are categorizing and ascertaining, without referring to the underlying basis
Especially when it comes to statements such as “fraud”, “scammer” and “mentally ill”, there is no way to verify the factual claim
The duty to convey reliable and precise information is linked to the seriousness of the statement — ​​the more serious the accusation that is made, the stronger the duty to speak reliably and precisely
Not the case in our case — ascertaining and directly harassing, with the aim of inciting followers to participate in the harassment

5.4.5.3 Lack of sufficient “counterbalancing factors”

How are the interests of the victim taken care of?
Emphasized in Olafsson v. Iceland par. 55 JU 887
Balance between Articles 10 and 8 of the ECHR for the special protection of the press is maintained by press ethics rules such as:
– Right to simultaneous opposition
– Effective right to reply
State-level due process guarantee: Access to subsequent defamation lawsuits
In our case
– No consideration was given to the victim in the case
– The plaintiff spoke in a room where the majority are like-minded
Any attempt by Wright to counter leads to an exponential amount of response
– Has also made it difficult to bring civil lawsuits by remaining anonymous and not responding to letters from Wright’s lawyers
– Incitement creates a tidal wave of offensive speech, suffocates the speech climate

5.4.6 The importance of Craig Wright’s own activity on social media

The plaintiff has argued that Wright’s own communications are significant
Suddenly a key point from hodlonaut’s side — over three years into the case, presented after the case preparation had been completed
Legally speaking, part of the litigation assessment — does this mean that the mention is still justified?
– No contextual connection between Wright’s utterances and hodlonaut’s attack, either thematically or temporally
– Plaintiff’s attack like lightning out of the blue
In contrast, Wright’s statements were consistently responses as part of heated debates
New evidence regarding Peter Todd
- Plaintiff who questioned Wright about four-year-old tweets in which Plaintiff had presented slanderous messages
- Wright explained that Todd has been harassing him for a number of years FUA 629
Other statements from Slack — closed group
Nothing in Wright’s statements can legitimize plaintiff’s attack

5.4.7 Summary — reasonable balance

Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR point in the same direction
It is necessary to sanction the expression out of consideration for the reputation of the offended party, and this strengthens the protection of an enlightened public debate on current topics
If the purpose is a debate about who is Satoshi Nakamoto, the statements go significantly longer than necessary
The statements have been made
– Anonymously
– On a failing factual basis
– Encourages others to make the same statements
– Excluding Wright himself from the debate
The insight into the backroom BitcoinPlebs FTU 121–128 of significant importance. Demonstrates how this was a carefully directed and planned attack — and shows how the mob is taught to be “rabid” and “toxic”
Overall, it is clear that there are unlawful defamations and violations of privacy

6. Measuring out

6.1 Level of redress — general

The Memo judgment JU 1130 (1141)
* NOK 100,000
A v. Norway (Baneheia suspicion) JU 614
19,000 Euros
– The Tønsberg Blad decision JU 172
* NOK 50,000
– Surgeon — accused of removing organs from healthy people and causing them ‘irreparable harm’ received 400,000 JU 258
– Ambulance driver: NOK 200,000 JU 209
– Youtube judgment TOSLO-2017–151387: NOK 50,000 compensation JU 338 (343)

6.2 Specific points in this case

– Invasion of privacy and defamation
– Baseless accusations of fraud and mental illness
– Provocative form with strong calls to others to make statements of the same nature
– Presented on Twitter using a hashtag, suitable to reach a large, unlimited circle on the internet
The form and scope of expression increase the extent of the damage to Wright’s honor and reputation
Overall: Reasonable compensation at the court’s discretion is set at NOK 100,000

7. Points 2–5 of the plaintiff’s claim must be rejected

7.1 What does the plaintiff seek judgment for?

In the summons on 19 May 2019 FPU (4) 7
Significantly changed in writing on 23 August 2022 FTU 172–173
“items 2–5 include other claims (than restitution) that Wright believed to have been linked to the Twitter messages that are in dispute in the case.”
The requirement of legal interest not met for claim points 2–6, cf. § 1–3
Legal interest — Absolute procedural requirement

7.2 hodlonaut’s claim points 2–5

7.2.1 Judgment of unspecified “non-liability” is not a “legal claim”

The wording of the Disputes Act § 1–3 JU 20
What is a legal claim?
– HR-2021–417-P Sections 121–122 (ACER) JU 279 (295)
“A lawsuit must initially relate to a specific fact and apply to a more precisely defined and disputed legal issue between the parties to the case which is decided on the basis of legal rules.A party cannot therefore, for example, obtain a judgment for how a rule of law is generally to be understood.”
Plaintiff’s claim: Claim for judgment for “no liability” — beyond any liability for damages under Section 3–6a of the Damages Compensation Act (claim item 1). It is not specified what kind of responsibility is meant.
* Is the intention to frame financial responsibility on a different basis? If so — which one?
* Is the intention to frame other liability for non-economic loss? If so — on what basis?
* Is the idea to establish that there is no basis for liability under the law of other countries? (In that case, what prerequisites does a Norwegian court have to assess this?)
* Is the intention to establish that other countries do not have jurisdiction?
The issues show that hodlonaut’s claim is in no way sufficiently clear/precise. Invitation to take a position on hypothetical questions of liability/assess grounds for liability before other courts etc. is foreign to the system.

Conclusion:Due to their nature, the claims are not to be regarded as legal claims under Section 1–3 of the Disputes Act. The claims must therefore be rejected.

7.2.2 The plaintiff lacks a “real need” to have the claims settled

Starting point: Disputes Act § 1–3 (wording) (JU 20)
In relation to compensation under Norwegian law: Claims for compensation (item 1) are already being processed. No need for judgment as to what other courts will be able to do. Not a question regulated by Norwegian law.

8. Case costs

The review substantiates that Wright will win the case — main rule in the Disputes Act § 20–2 (1)
Should hodlonaut succeed — strong reasons to apply the exception provision in the Disputes Act § 20–2 (3)
Fails to respond to letters from Wright’s attorney

FUA 712 (714)
Didn’t try to make a counter offer
Wright was not anonymous, it is possible to contact him without revealing his identity
Going to court without sending a process notice FPU 4
Main hearing postponed as a result of extensive report presented without notice several months after the deadline and extensive new evidence of an older date FPU 220
– Scope of the case
Extensively improved the case with extensive presentation of evidence and provocations of evidence outside the legally relevant evidence topics
Changed both the basis of the allegation and the allegation after completion of case preparation
Stated central part of the case facility during the procedure
Should the court come to a rejection, but no compensation — no one won the case fully or substantially

9. Claim

Claim as in the introductory lecture