Ira Kleiman Tells Florida Court Roche Freedman’s Representation Was ‘Inadequate’

Ira Kleiman has deposit a six-page grievance to the U.S. District Court charged with his failed lawsuit against Dr. Craig Wrightcomplaining of having “the impression that justice has not been served because the estate does not receive adequate representation”.

Kleiman has been looking for change since his years-long, multibillion-dollar litigation against Dr. Wright turned into almost nothing: Kleiman failed to convince a Florida jury that his late brother had something to do with Dr. Wright’s invention of bitcoin, having only managed to secure a $100 million judgment for W&K, a company owned by Dr. Wright and his family. He has since filed an appeal (despite Kleiman’s attorneys taking a Twitter post-trial).

One would think that Ira’s assertion of inadequate representation would center on the last year’s explosive Crypto Leaks scandalin which Kyle Roche (the attorney in charge of Ira’s lawsuit) was filmed bragging about abusing the legal system to attack competitors for the company’s main “crypto” client, Ava Labs.

It’s not: Ira accuses his lawyers (Roche Freedman, now known as Freeman Normand Friedland) of sabotaging their own case by withholding evidence he claims would have won them the hundreds of billions of dollars. dollars that were at stake at trial:

“At this point, honestly, I don’t believe they want the W&K judgment back,” he wrote.

The evidence mainly consists of purported correspondence between Kleiman and Dr. Wright in the years leading up to the trial, emails which Ira claims prove that Dr. Wright owed Dave Kleiman’s estate a share of the Bitcoin, software and of intellectual property derived from Dr. Wright’s invention of Bitcoin.

But as Dr. Wright has argued throughout the trial, the record is filled with forgeries. Indeed, in Ira’s own letter, he cites Dr. Wright’s pre-trial deposition in which Roche Freedman’s attorneys asked about one of those emails. Dr. Wright’s response was clear:

“I testify that this is a fraudulently fabricated document involving Ira and others whom I was not involved in sending.”

This is probably why Ira’s lawyers never released these particular emails at trial: they would have been well aware that many of the documents and emails were fraudulent (and possibly even forged by Kleiman’s star witness, Jamie Wilson) because they devoted much of the trial to the testimony of Dr. Matthew Edman, who appeared for the plaintiffs and told the jury that some 40 emails he reviewed were indeed forgeries. It was a So­­-What moment at the time given that Dr. Wright was the one to insist that much of the evidence on file is fake, and even more so after it was shown that the forged emails Edman had analyzed came from an Australian suburb far from where Dr. Wright was living at the time.

Of course, the emails the plaintiffs had Edman review were a hand-picked selection to cast Dr. Wright as the forger, but this charade fell apart at trial when one of the key emails in the Kleiman case (which the plaintiffs apparently did not have Edman review) was shown to have been tampered with. It was an email that showed Dr Wright inviting Ira’s brother to participate in the Bitcoin Project in 2008: the problem was that the email came from Dr Wright’s @rcjbr.org address, which is an acronym based on the names of his wife. and children. Dr Wright didn’t meet his wife until 2010, two years after the email was supposedly sent, so not only was it a fake manifesto, it must have been forged by someone. one other than Dr. Wright.

Ira’s latest scheme is surely doomed given that Ira, like any good client, entrusted the intricacies of the trial strategy to Roche Freedman, and in light of what we now know about the counterfeits, they wouldn’t have done his case any good in the first place.

But at the same time, it’s easy to sympathize with Ira’s frustration: after all, this strategy has brought Ira nothing but years of wasted time and a $100 million judgment in favor of Dr. Wright’s society.

It’s also easy to see why he thinks his lawyers weren’t interested in Ira’s claims all along. How else should Ira view the Crypto Leaks scandal, where Ira allegedly saw the man in charge of his case bragging about using straw plaintiffs to go after “crypto” competitors on behalf of the one of them other clients ? Why else, as it was revealed Following the trial, would they advise Ira to refuse a $3 billion settlement and insist on dragging the parties into a protracted trial?

Check out all of CoinGeek’s special reports on the Kleiman vs. Wright YouTube Playlist.

New to Bitcoin? Discover CoinGeek bitcoin for beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn about bitcoin – as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto – and blockchain.