Tangent: A Miami Jury Has Hinted (With Its Written Questions) That Craig Wright Will Lose -- And Lose Big: "Bye, Felicia/Fake-Toshi."

We've mentioned him here, before. And now, his time in the sun. . . is almost over -- thank goodness.

The jury sent out written questions (from the deliberation room) yesterday, and those powerfully suggest they have already agreed that Wright is liable to the Estate on some grounds, but are struggling with the size of the damages. [The NYSE will tread water today. . . as the world awaits more refined news, on whether current vaccines will meaningfully help us evade the Omicron variant. It does seem the pills will still have therapeutic effect -- if one contracts the variant -- but protection from this milder, yet more contagious variant may not come from the current crop of vaccines, according to Moderna's CEO.]

In any event, here is Coindesk, from the courtroom in Miami:

. . .The jury deliberated most of the day, but at 2:17 p.m. ET asked for a simple definition of the word “conferred.” The word is referenced in jury instructions, which explain that both plaintiffs in the case have asserted claims of unjust enrichment against Wright.

To prevail on this count, plaintiffs would need to have proven certain points by a preponderance of the evidence: that David Kleiman and/or W&K conferred a benefit on Wright; that Wright voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit; and that it would be inequitable or unfair for Wright to retain the benefit without paying the value of the benefit to the Estate of David Kleiman and/or W&K.

The jurors also sent a note asking, “How much of intellectual property does W&K currently have under the estate? Do we need to select an amount for bitcoin and intellectual property?”

They also asked, “When answering yes to a question requiring an amount, must we follow a certain formula or can we leave it blank? Many of us do not feel comfortable adjcating [sic] an amount. . . .”

Now you know — but it seems clear from these questions, that the jury will find against his improbable (and, in the opinion of this author, largely fabricated) narrative. In the end, the able USDC Judge Bloom May have to conform the verdict, to the law — on damages. Mr. Wright should be prepared to lose, and lose completely now.

Onward, smiling into the sunshine of a warmer morning, here. . . .

नमस्ते