Ira Kleiman seeks suppression of Lynn Wright filing as trial looms

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Ira Kleiman, on behalf of the estate of his brother, David Kleiman, has moved to dismiss the recent filing by Craig Wright’s ex-wife Lynn Wright regarding her ownership of W&K Info Defence, the company at the heart of the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit.

Lynn Wright had petitioned the Palm Beach County Probate Court staking her claim to W&K as a part of the proceedings relating to the estate of David Kleiman. She offered evidence showing that the company was formed between herself, David Kleiman and Craig Wright, and asked the court to determine the present beneficiary shareholding in the company, evidently a third of the company. She also asked for a declaration that Ira had no authority to use W&K to sue her ex-husband.

Now, Ira Kleiman has bit back in an aggressive motion to dismiss that petition.

Kleiman’s Motion to Dismiss

In the motion, filed last week, Kleiman spends the first page accusing Lynn Wright of acting as a puppet for her ex-husband, perjuring herself in two courts for his benefit, so that Craig Wright won’t withdraw whatever financial support he is currently providing.

Lynn Wright does appear to be financially dependent on Craig, as was briefly confirmed by a single word answer to one question in Lynn’s January deposition. Details beyond that are a mystery, though as a prolific and ostensibly wealthy computer scientist and cryptographic expert, that Craig Wright’s ex wife would be financially dependent on him is to be expected and should not be a surprise to anyone. It’s worth noting that as Lynn’s ex-husband, Craig Wright is required by Australian laws to pay spouse’s support—if he stops spousal maintenance, Lynn can get an order to seize her ex-husband’s property in Australia.

Ira then recounts much of what was put forward in his failed sanctions motion in the Craig Wright lawsuit. There, he made multiple accusations of blatant forgery and perjury on the part of Wright, supposedly committed in the process of trying to ascertain the exact state of W&K and the elusive partnership(s) between David Kleiman and Craig Wright. He explicitly calls the supporting evidence filed by Lynn in her petition a forgery, although it’s not clear on what basis that claim is made, because the actual arguments put forward in his motion to dismiss the petition are legal ones.

First, he says that despite being filed as a petition to determine the ownership of an asset of the estate (W&K), Lynn’s claim is actually one of a creditor, and as such is barred under Florida law for being brought after two years following the death of Dave Kleiman under Florida law.

Secondly, Ira argues that Lynn did not successfully allege all of the essential elements to her cause of action, namely, that she was required to show that there exists some doubt as to the entitlement to shares of any beneficiary of an estate.

Thirdly, he says that Lynn’s petition cannot be accepted because she does not allege herself to be a beneficiary, fiduciary or creditor of the estate.

Then, as a last ditch backstop, Ira says that if the court throw Lynn’s petition out, then the court should decline to rule on it until after the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit is resolved.

The impact on Kleiman v Wright

Ira’s motion is aggressively argued, and full of the same attacks that the court has already rejected in the Wright lawsuit. The court did not accept that these mere accusations should be taken seriously and flatly refused to throw the case out, as was hoped by Ira and is essentially hoped by him in regards to Lynn’s stake in W&K.

Picking among the accusations of perjury that have been used to pad Ira’s motion to dismiss, the core motivation of the petition becomes clear. For Ira to be content with the Court simply avoiding ruling on Lynn’s petition before the Wright v Kleiman lawsuit is concluded indicates that his primary concern is with suppressing an important piece of the Dave Kleiman-Craig Wright puzzle.

As for W&K, that Ira should attack the evidence produced by Lynn as to the actual structure of the company as being flimsy seems like a bold move considering that Lynn’s filing is among the only concrete evidence ever produced about W&K at all, let alone by plaintiff Ira himself. This is a strange state of affairs for Ira given that his lawsuit against Craig relies entirely on the exact relationship between Craig and Ira’s brother, Dave. His case rests on a very tendentious interpretation of that relationship, one which becomes less supported by the evidence as more parties—such as Lynn Wright—produce documents contemporaneous to the time in question.

To the extent that there are inconsistencies in the millions of pages of documents, emails and depositions in the Wright lawsuit, they will be examined closely at trial, as they should be.

Having said that, the picture painted by Ira Kleiman’s apparent need to guess at the relationship between Craig, Dave, and W&K is that the events in question happened many years ago between friends and as such, doesn’t lend itself to the kind of perfect recall demanded by a lawsuit with billions of dollars at stake. It certainly doesn’t paint the picture of a multi-year business partnership whereby Bitcoin was invented, thousands of Bitcoins were mined and valuable IP was developed, all of which allegedly resulted in more than a billion dollars’ worth of property.

Those interested in the Kleiman v Wright litigation should hope Lynn Wright’s petition here can be used to inform the proceedings at trial in October, because it is one of the only items we have seen so far that can shed light on the core events at issue in that case.