Craig Wright files motion requesting Roche Freedman kicked off Kleiman v Wright appeal
Dr. Craig Wright gave a strong motion, stipulating that Kyle Roche and Roche Freedman were kicked out of the case of Kleiman V Wright. Due to the leaked video images, Roche recognized the misuse of judicial procedures and obtained core competitiveness for AVA labs, a digital currency enterprise. However, he has a large number of shares in the financial industry with this enterprise.
"In a series of surprising special record announcements, Kyle W. Roche, the boycott lawyer of Roche Freedman LLP (" enterprise "), recognized the misuse of the legal system and illegally promoted the interests of AVA Laboratory (" AVA ") according to the opponents who filed the lawsuit against AVA and famous figures in the digital currency industry.", Submitted by Rivero Mestre on behalf of Dr. Wright.
"In a very shameful presentation, Roche publicly denounced his so-called users and all judges as' Fools', claimed that he was' crazy ', and slandered all jury trials and the class action system. It felt that this was just a special tool for competition between Bohemians. This presentation itself formed a prejudice against all courts and judicial administrative organs."
"Unusual" is a correct word. Everything Roche admitted in the camera may lead to strict replies from its opposing lawyers, not only in the case of Kleiman v. Wright, but also in all the "data encryption" lawsuits of Roche Friedman. The motion sets forth four key industries of concern:The company filed a lawsuit against the competitor of AVA labs, who used handmade embroidery such as IRA kleimann as the appellant. The enterprise used other improper means and ideas to assist AVA, such as forging tips to the regulatory authorities to attract people's attention to AVA and its competitors. Roche places its own interests above the interests of customers. Roche completely despised the judicial department, calling judges and their clients "fools."
What is surprising is that the motion clearly states that Roche's recognized personal behavior is self-evident in Roche Friedman's behavior pattern before and during the trial of Kleiman v. Wright. For example, the motion accuses Roche of "improperly publishing the mediation offer and acceptance to obtain corporate publicity, and then refusing to accept trial, regardless of the rights and interests of its specific customers." This probably refers to the US $3 billion mediation offer and acceptance that IRA Kleiman (an obviously limited resource) was persuaded to accept by lawyers. Therefore, Kleiman now faces a long lawsuit. In the trial, Crawford Wright's enterprise won a relatively small $140 million.
So far, this motion has only been explicitly raised in the case of Kleiman v. Wright, but the same party has at least involved several other cases: Dave Kleiman's Testament verification case, Lynn Wright's clear claim, and Ramona Ang's lawsuit against Ella Kleiman by Tulip private equity fund. In a number of cases here, Kleeman was also accused of not controlling W & K enterprises locally, so as to file a lawsuit against one of his team members. This is Crawford Wright.
If this motion is allowed, Kleiman will continue to appeal against the lost case in the trial last year, but will not lose its meaning. In addition to Roche Friedman, he also had other lawyers Yaxin, that is, McGinnis Brenner of Boyce Schiller fraxner, who briefly appeared in court during the trial.
However, Roche Friedman's announcement has cast a shadow on Kleiman's unremitting pursuit of Dr. Tim, although it was announced in the trial - there are few data to show that Dave Kleiman has anything to do with the invention of bitcoin. How should we treat the fact that Kleiman destroyed the evidence in public, or that she had touched the media that called Dr. Sato before publicly exposing Dr. Wright, or that there were forgeries in the evidence submitted for trial?
At this stage, what Dr. Tim and Rivero mester have stipulated is that Roche and the enterprise will be disqualified only when they prepare for Kleinman's lawsuit in advance. However, the opposition of Roche Friedman has put forward similar motions in many other digital currency lawsuits. It is difficult to feel that a simple disqualification in the Kleiman v. Wright case is undoubtedly the end of this matter. Former customers of Roche will now pay great attention to the quality it means and the disqualification motion that has already existed. Roche's recognition means that what Roche Friedman has done may only be the tip of the iceberg, because it seems inevitable to find the whole process from all directions.