Bitcoin [BTC]: Florida Court subpoenas developer in Kleiman estate lawsuit against nChain’s Craig Wright

The lawsuit filed by the Kleiman Estate against Craig Wright took a new turn after Jeff Garzik, an early Bitcoin [BTC] developer and adopter, revealed he was subpoenaed by the US District Court of Southern Florida.

Garzik revealed that the court asked him to present any evidence to support the claims made by Ira Kleiman, sister of the late David Kleiman, who many claim was Satoshi Nakamoto. After receiving the subpoena, Garzik tweeted,

“You got served. The Bitcoin lawsuit drones on. In the interest of radical transparency, here’s the subpoena that just arrived for me.”

The subpoena requested Garzik to reveal any information that the developer may have come across over the years, for the benefit of the Kleiman estate and the court council. There was also a specific mention of an article written by Garzik on David Kleiman, which said,

“My personal theory is that [Satoshi Nakamoto] is the Floridian Dave Kleiman. It matches his coding style, this gentleman was self-taught. And the Bitcoin coder was someone who was very, very smart, but not a classically trained software engineer.”

Garzik’s subpoena further asked the developer to disclose any communication between him and Satoshi Nakamoto, as well as any links to the Tulip Trust or the GICR Trust.

In the original lawsuit, the Kleiman estate claimed that Craig Wright, the current chief scientist at nChain, defrauded David Kleiman and stole his assets, speculated to be close to $1.1 billion. Wright did not take the allegation sitting down and had filed a dismissal appeal. A court document file in Florida stated,

“Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for conversion. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant converted at least 300,000 bitcoins upon Dave’s death and transferred them to various international trusts, which was an unauthorized act that deprived the Plaintiffs of the bitcoins therein. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim for conversion (Count I) survives Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”

Wright’s attorney also rebutted the claims made by Kleiman and stated,

“There was no written partnership agreement between Dr. Wright and David Kleiman and/or W&K Info Defense Research, LLC.”