Martti Malmi and Adam Back—two figures who have made themselves central to the mythology of Bitcoin—have each admitted, under oath, that they had communications with myself as they gave evidence in the COPA case.
Yet, none of these communications were submitted to the court as legally required.
This glaring breach of the obligation to provide evidence didn’t seem to matter. The court, in its wisdom, deemed these men to be "reliable."
Reliable? How can individuals who openly violate the rules of evidence provision be called trustworthy? How can their failure to disclose these communications, as the law demands, be ignored?
Adam Back, CEO and co-founder of Blockstream, is deeply entwined with COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance).
Let’s not pretend for a second that this is a coincidence. Blockstream, an entity profiting from Bitcoin’s hijacking, is a founding member of COPA, and Dr. Back sits at the helm of both.
Are we seriously expected to believe in the "independence"
@adam3us
from COPA when its founders are the very people tied so deeply to one side of the narrative, all while conveniently failing to disclose key evidence in court?
In English courts, the duty to disclose evidence, including evidence that may be unfavourable, is governed by several legal principles. Central to this is the requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which obligates parties in litigation to provide all documents relevant to the case.
This includes material that may weaken their own position or strengthen the opposing party's.
The courts operate on the principle of transparency, ensuring that justice is served by making all pertinent evidence available, regardless of whether it aids or harms a party's case.
Failure to comply with this duty could lead to serious legal consequences, such as being sanctioned by the court or having the credibility of the party questioned. These rules are not optional, they form the bedrock of fairness in the English legal system, ensuring that cases are decided based on the full truth, not selective evidence.
This isn’t independence; it’s a blatant manipulation of the legal process.
The failure to provide communications, as required by the duty of disclosure in English courts, is not a minor oversight but a deliberate concealment. Martti Malmi and Adam Back, despite their admissions under oath, have withheld crucial evidence that could have altered the court’s view, and yet they were deemed reliable.
How can one trust the word of individuals who flagrantly disregard the legal obligation to disclose all relevant material, including that which may be adverse to their own case?
This omission undermines not only their credibility but also the very foundation of justice, where transparency is supposed to prevail over selective evidence.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 03, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841679245028032765
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1055
Yet, none of these communications were submitted to the court as legally required.
This glaring breach of the obligation to provide evidence didn’t seem to matter. The court, in its wisdom, deemed these men to be "reliable."
Reliable? How can individuals who openly violate the rules of evidence provision be called trustworthy? How can their failure to disclose these communications, as the law demands, be ignored?
Adam Back, CEO and co-founder of Blockstream, is deeply entwined with COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance).
Let’s not pretend for a second that this is a coincidence. Blockstream, an entity profiting from Bitcoin’s hijacking, is a founding member of COPA, and Dr. Back sits at the helm of both.
Are we seriously expected to believe in the "independence"
@adam3us
from COPA when its founders are the very people tied so deeply to one side of the narrative, all while conveniently failing to disclose key evidence in court?
In English courts, the duty to disclose evidence, including evidence that may be unfavourable, is governed by several legal principles. Central to this is the requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which obligates parties in litigation to provide all documents relevant to the case.
This includes material that may weaken their own position or strengthen the opposing party's.
The courts operate on the principle of transparency, ensuring that justice is served by making all pertinent evidence available, regardless of whether it aids or harms a party's case.
Failure to comply with this duty could lead to serious legal consequences, such as being sanctioned by the court or having the credibility of the party questioned. These rules are not optional, they form the bedrock of fairness in the English legal system, ensuring that cases are decided based on the full truth, not selective evidence.
This isn’t independence; it’s a blatant manipulation of the legal process.
The failure to provide communications, as required by the duty of disclosure in English courts, is not a minor oversight but a deliberate concealment. Martti Malmi and Adam Back, despite their admissions under oath, have withheld crucial evidence that could have altered the court’s view, and yet they were deemed reliable.
How can one trust the word of individuals who flagrantly disregard the legal obligation to disclose all relevant material, including that which may be adverse to their own case?
This omission undermines not only their credibility but also the very foundation of justice, where transparency is supposed to prevail over selective evidence.
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 03, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1841679245028032765
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1055
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment