T Skevington and M Bacina
Kleiman claims further evidence that Wright has defrauded Court
Lawyers for Ira Kleiman continue to not hold punches in the ongoing Ira Kleiman v Craig Wright saga, following a recent petition by Lynn Wright, Craig Wright's ex-wife. On 4 August, Kleiman's lawyers filed a response to Lynn's claim that Ira Kleiman was not authorised to represent David Kleiman's interest in W&K Info Defense Research LLC, and that the action against Dr Wright should be dismissed.
Kleiman's lawyers also requested leave to file a supplemental brief in opposition to Dr Wright’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and to include Lynn Wright’s filed petition in the record.
Kleiman's lawyers wasted no time in emphasising discrepancies between Dr Wright's motion for summary judgment and Lynn Wright's, stating:
As it turns out, and not surprisingly given the history of this case, Ms. Wright’s state court action reveals that everything Dr. Wright’s motion for summary judgment said about Ms. Wright’s alleged ownership of W&K was a lie.
(yes, the infamous “Tulip Trust” is now apparently just a name change of a company affiliated with Dr. Wright, it is not a “blind trust” as previously alleged).
Not one to let an opportunity to hammer the point home go to waste, the plaintiff's lawyers take the always popular move of quoting a statement from the judge earlier in the same case, where Judge Bloom, in ruling that Wright had failed to produce any credible evidence showing that Lynn Wright and various others were members of W&K, quoting Sir Walter Scott:
Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Dr Wrights lawyers did not oppose the Plaintiff's request to file supplementary material, so long as Dr Wright was given the opportunity to respond (in a maximum of 10 pages) to any additional briefing on this issue filed on Kleiman's behalf.