FormDr gives businesses everything needed to easily send and receive HIPAA compliant forms online.

FormDr

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 21 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 19. Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica {ID_004019} / {L2/245/1} 355. The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 356. The document has been backdated. [PM6 [55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 [3]]. 357. The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 [5]]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 358. The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 [27-30]]. 359. The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 [27-32]]. 360. The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of {ID_004019} to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 [33-47]]. 361. Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the {ID_004019} is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 [48-51]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 362. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed. 363. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact. 364. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright1 [66]]. 365. Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim. 366. Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts. 367. This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 [7]]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 368. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright claimed that the document dating from 2015 which Mr Madden downloaded from the internet and identified as the source document was copied from his document and then edited. He claims that this was done after he had mentioned the document as his inspiration. See {CSW/2/68}. In his oral evidence, Dr Wright added that this had been done by the person operating the gwern.net website, who he claimed had been working together with Ira Kleiman to discredit him: {Day2/21:13} to {Day2/22:16}. Thus, Dr Wright’s claim is that his document, with an “accessed” date from 2008 is genuine and that a false version was produced by his enemies to reflect an “accessed” date from 2015 and uploaded to the internet in order to undermine his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 369. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 369.1. It is inherently implausible that Dr Wright’s version should be authentic and the version accessed from the internet should have been doctored, since the numerals in the “accessed” date are misaligned in Dr Wright’s version (suggesting manipulation) but the numerals in that date are perfectly aligned in the version on the internet. 369.2. There is a second powerful reason why Dr Wright’s version is inauthentic, namely that the footer design corresponds to JSTOR documents dating from 2015 and not to such documents dating from 2008. Mr Madden has reviewed a large sample of JSTOR documents and established that the footer design was updated at set points in time, so that he can be confident from the footer design that Dr Wright’s document does not date to 2008. He was unshaken in that position on crossexamination: {Day16/66:7} to {Day16/68:7}. 369.3. Although Dr Wright asserted that different JSTOR repositories had footer designs updating at different times and that he had documents to make good that proposition ({Day2/20:13} to {Day2/21:6}), there is no documentary support for that assertion (which is at odds with Mr Madden’s findings). It is reasonably to be inferred that, if that assertion could be made good, Dr Wright’s well-resourced legal team would have done so. 369.4. Dr Wright’s essential conspiracy theory does not work as a matter of the dates. He gave the interview in which he publicly cited this document as his inspiration for the Nakamoto name in December 2019 (see {L16/86/1}; {L16/47/1}). The document which he now says was doctored and released to discredit him has been available online in precisely the same form since 2016: see PM6, [30]. 369.5. There is not a shred of evidence for Dr Wright’s conspiracy theory. It is also an odd story, even on its own terms, since Ira Kleiman’s claim depended on saying that Dr Wright was part of “Satoshi Nakamoto”. (d) Conclusion (d) Conclusion 370. I can only agree with COPA’s submissions. The document was plainly forged by Dr Wright. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

COPA Challenges Authenticity of Craig Wright’s Tominaga Nakamoto Document

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 20 of 42. 18. “ESDT.tex” {ID_004736} {PTR-F/93/1} 340. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 341. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 342. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 [74-79] H/278/17] 343. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Madden4 [67-70] H/278/16]. 344. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden3 [75] G/5/31] 345. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 [41-52] H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 346. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden3 [52-63] G/5/23] 347. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 348. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 349. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 350. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 351. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 351.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 351.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] 352. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 353. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xcopy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. 354. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 354.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 354.2. Mr Madden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. 354.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. 354.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 20 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 20 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 18. “ESDT.tex” {ID_004736} {PTR-F/93/1} 340. The document is a LaTeX source presented as if it was precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper created during Dr Wright’s employment at BDO. Dr Wright relies upon it as a draft addressing technical concepts which influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 341. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 342. Copies of the document are also located on the Samsung Drive. These copies display signs of metadata editing and clock manipulation. [PM46 [74-79] H/278/17] 343. A related LaTeX file has been recovered which encodes the same textual content in a different way. That document had been deleted but was recoverable from within the Samsung Drive. The structure of that file is consistent with the file being generated automatically by software conversion tools (rather than being authored by hand). [Madden4 [67-70] H/278/16]. 344. There is a related file {ID_004735} which appears intended to create an image for the paper. The code in that file is consistent with having been generated by conversion tools such as Aspose. [Madden3 [75] G/5/31] 345. A related document, ESDT.pdf, was recovered from the Samsung Drive. ESDT.pdf was a compiled form of {ID_004736} but was deleted and emptied from the Recycle Bin in September 2023 [PM46 [41-52] H/278/10]. The metadata associated with the deleted file indicates that it was modified on 16 September 2023, but the other timestamps have been backdated to 31 October 2007. 346. The metadata of this document (when compared with metadata of other documents related to it) displays signs of metadata editing directly using specialised metadata editing tools. [Madden3 [52-63] G/5/23] 347. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 348. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 349. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 350. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 351. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 351.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" 351.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a version of “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/5] “a paper prepared for a 360º Security Summit on 15 June 2006 concerned with “Implementing Effective Risk-Based Controls”, which Dr Wright prepared in his role at BDO. The hash chain technology discussed in the paper is analogous to the blockchain technology used in Bitcoin." 352. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 353. Dr Wright claimed that his use of Xcopy had caused the load file metadata for this and two related documents to all have creation times at precisely the same time on 19 September 2017, with August 2008 accessed and modified times for this document and one other related one. He also claimed that he was still accessing files at BDO in 2008 and so that these may have been copied from a different drive: {Day5/102:21} and following. See Wright11 {CSW/2/43} for an example of him claiming how Xcopy works. 354. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 354.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 354.2. Mr Madden states that Xcopy simply does not have the effect that Dr Wright claims. This was also the view of Mr Lynch, as recorded in their Joint Report: {Q/6/4}. 354.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about accessing files at BDO in 2008 is inconsistent with his claim that the files on the BDO Drive are a time capsule and taken from a capture of the BDO files he had in 2007. 354.4. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004736 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Craig Wright’s LaTeX document "ESDT.tex" Faces Forgery Allegations from COPA

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 19 of 42. 17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1} 328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38] 331. The modifications made included: 331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39]. 331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39]. 331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41]. 331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38]. 332. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 333. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] 336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6] 337. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT. 339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 339.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case. 339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007. 339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above). 339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 were manipulated {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 19 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 19 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 17. “LPA.tex” and “LP1.tex” {ID_004722} {PTR-F/79/1} and {ID_004723} {PTRF/80/1} 328. These are two LaTeX source documents presented as if they are precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper. The first presents as an article with Satoshi named as author, while the second presents as a version of the same article with Dr Wright named as author. Each addresses quorum systems, a subject which Dr Wright now maintains influenced his development of Bitcoin. By their presence in BDOPC.raw, the documents purport to pre-date 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 329. These documents are among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 330. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted versions of these documents to the disclosed versions shows that they did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. They were modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. [PM46 [111 – 117] H/278/38] 331. The modifications made included: 331.1. In respect of {ID_004722}, altering the dates of articles referred to, respectively from “2009” to “2006”, and from “2016” to “?” [PM46 [112] H/278/39]. 331.2. Removing lines of the document relating to the previously-cited papers from 2009 and 2016 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [113] H/278/39]. 331.3. In respect of {ID_004723}, deleting lines referring to previously-cited articles dating from after 2007 (while leaving blank lines in their place) [PM46 [117-118] H/278/41]. 331.4. Altering the metadata of the documents such that they appeared to be created earlier than they were [PM46 [111 and 119] H/278/38]. 332. The documents were sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. These documents were added by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 333. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 334. The further effect of tampering is to lend support to Dr Wright’s new position that the Bitcoin White Paper was created in LaTeX. That story is a recent product of Dr Wright’s change in his account. 335. These documents were added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 336. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to these documents: 336.1. {ID_004722} is said to be one of Dr Wright’s “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “LaTeX files which, when compiled, generate draft articles under the pseudonym “Satoshi” or “Satoshi Nakamoto” relating to concepts later used in the Bitcoin White Paper.” 336.2. {ID_004722} is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is “a LaTeX file coding for an article titled “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/3] “Predicates in Quorum Systems”, which discusses concepts that underpin the technology of Bitcoin, such as the use of quorum systems to provide security in distributed systems. The author of the paper is stated to be “Satoshi” and the article bears the date 30 August 2006.” 336.3. {ID_004723} is said to be “a version of the “Predicates in Quorum Systems” paper at {ID_004722}, but listing Dr Wright as the author rather than “Satoshi”. ” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/6] “Predicates in Quorum Systems” “Satoshi”. 337. The documents were not disclosed at the proper time. They were disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 338. Dr Wright claimed, as set out above, that these were planted documents by Mr AgerHanssen or someone associated with him. {Day5/86:14} He also rejected the use of ChatGPT. 339. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 339.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 339.2. The story about these being planted by someone is addressed in earlier examples in this Schedule. 339.3. The differences between the InfoDef09.raw and the versions subsequently disclosed and relied upon showed that the changes were to change tenses from the deleted version (which talked about Bitcoin in the past tense) to the future tense in the disclosed versions. This is consistent with the documents being edited to support his case. 339.4. The deleted earlier versions also contained references to papers post-dating the purported 2007 date, such as ‘Xia et Al’ (2016). All such references were deleted and in the disclosed version replaced by a ‘?’ – clearly to indicate that a reference needed to be added. The evident reason that these, and only these, references were removed, is to remove what would otherwise have been obvious indications that the document post-dated 2007. 339.5. It is clear that Dr Wright did use ChatGPT and these documents included classic indicia of how ChatGPT formats references (set out above). 339.6. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_0004722 and ID_004723 were manipulated {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Satoshi or Sham? The Dubious Nature of Craig Wright's LaTeX Documents

COPA Claims Craig Wright’s LaTeX Documents on Bitcoin Concepts are Fabricated

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 17 of 42. 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 17 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 17 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 15. “Internal Controls…Backend Operations” {ID_004733} {PTR-F/90/1} 298. The is an RTF file titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems.rtf”. Dr Wright has relied upon it as showing interest in / research on the concept of immutable logging which he claims influenced his development of Bitcoin. By its presence in BDOPC.raw, the document purports to predate 31 October 2007. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 299. This document is among the 71 New Reliance Documents that were inserted into the BDO Drive by the editing process and which the parties’ experts agree were manipulated [Madden / Lynch1 [12] Q/6/5]. 300. The document has been backdated. It is a Rich Text File created with the editor version Riched20.dll v10.0.19041. That version of Riched20 is the version associated with the May 2020 update of Windows 10. [Madden3 [86-91] G/5/34] [PM46 [149] H/278/53] 301. The section on BDOPC.raw above is repeated. Comparing the deleted version of this document to the disclosed version shows that this document did not exist in this form on 17 September 2023. It was modified within BDOPC.raw at some point between 17 September and 19 September 2023. This was done with the computer clock set back to 2007, in order to backdate the document. 302. The modifications included: 302.1. altering the metadata of the file to make it appear to have been created earlier than it actually was [PM46 [146]]; and 302.2. deleting a reference to “The Data Protection Act 2018” and replacing it with the words “data protection law globally” [PM46 [147] H/278/52]. 303. The Data Protection Act 2018 did not exist in 2007. 304. The document was sourced from BDOPC.raw. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 305. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact. 306. This document was added to BDOPC.raw by the Manipulation User. The Manipulation User is Dr Wright. Paragraph 45 of the section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 307. The document was not disclosed at the proper time. It was disclosed instead from the BDOPC.raw image. BDOPC.raw is not a reliable source because it has been manipulated by Dr Wright. The section “BDOPC.raw” above is repeated. 308. Dr Wright has attached particular importance to this document: 308.1. It is said to be among Dr Wright’s “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/4] “Notes, drafts and articles addressing technical concepts that underpin the concepts developed in the Bitcoin White Paper" 308.2. It is said to be important to Dr Wright’s case because it is a “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” [Wright6 E/21/3; Schedule 1 to Field1, L20/223/7] “paper titled “Internal Controls and Immutable Logging in Auditing Backend Operations of Messaging Systems”. The concept of immutable logging discussed in this paper connect Dr Wright’s earlier research on hash chains with the blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin.” (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 309. Dr Wright again claimed that the BDO Drive had been hacked, which he said explained the fact that the document was authored in a version of Window Text Editor dating from 2020. In relation to the deletions between the versions disclosed as the reliance document and the version on InfoDef09.raw, Dr Wright claimed that the removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw to be replaced by “data protection law globally…” arose because it referred to Sarbanes-Oxley in America. He disputed that this change showed the direction of editing: {Day5/100:8} and following. 310. COPA submitted that this explanation should be rejected as dishonest for the following reasons: 310.1. If the BDOPC.raw is accepted as being forged, it follows that documents on it should be treated as being forged unless they are documents which Mr Madden says are original to the image that was taken in October 2007. 310.2. The removal of “Data Protection Act 2018” from what was plainly the precursor document on InfoDef09.raw, to be replaced by “data protection law globally…”, clearly indicates a document which had been written at a later date being changed to remove what would be anachronisms. 310.3. Dr Wright’s excuse about someone using Word to create a document and then changing the format does not make any sense in the circumstances or explain the irregularities. 310.4. The use of a version of Windows Text Editor dating from 2020 shows these documents were not contemporaneous to the alleged time capsule. 310.5. Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Madden that ID_000473 was manipulated: {Q/6/5}. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk

Discrepancies Found in Craig Wright’s Document on Immutable Logging: COPA Alleges Tampering

Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . Dr. and Mrs. Proudie here Dr. and Mrs. Proudie This narrative is supposed to commence immediately after the installation of Dr. Proudie. I will not describe the ceremony, as I do not precisely understand its nature. I am ignorant whether a bishop be chaired like a member of Parliament, or carried in a gilt coach like a lord mayor, or sworn like a justice of peace, or introduced like a peer to the upper house, or led between two brethren like a knight of the garter; but I do know that everything was properly done, and that nothing fit or becoming to a young bishop was omitted on the occasion. Dr. Proudie was not the man to allow anything to be omitted that might be becoming to his new dignity. He understood well the value of forms, and knew that the due observance of rank could not be maintained unless the exterior trappings belonging to it were held in proper esteem. He was a man born to move in high circles; at least so he thought himself, and circumstances had certainly sustained him in this view. He was the nephew of an Irish baron by his mother's side, and his wife was the niece of a Scotch earl. He had for years held some clerical office appertaining to courtly matters, which had enabled him to live in London, and to entrust his parish to his curate. He had been preacher to the royal beefeaters, curator of theological manuscripts in the Ecclesiastical Courts, chaplain to the Queen's yeomanry guard, and almoner to his Royal Highness the Prince of Rappe-Blankenberg. His residence in the metropolis, rendered necessary by duties thus entrusted to him, his high connexions, and the peculiar talents and nature of the man, recommended him to persons in power, and Dr. Proudie became known as a useful and rising clergyman. Some few years since, even within the memory of many who are not yet willing to call themselves old, a liberal clergyman was a person not frequently to be met. Sydney Smith was such and was looked on as little better than an infidel; a few others also might be named, but they were and were regarded with doubt and distrust by their brethren. No man was so surely a Tory as a country rector—nowhere were the powers that be so cherished as at Oxford. rarae aves When, however, Dr. Whately was made an archbishop, and Dr. Hampden some years afterwards regius professor, many wise divines saw that a change was taking place in men's minds, and that more liberal ideas would henceforward be suitable to the priests as well as to the laity. Clergymen began to be heard of who had ceased to anathematize papists on the one hand, or vilify dissenters on the other. It appeared clear that High Church principles, as they are called, were no longer to be surest claims to promotion with at any rate one section of statesmen, and Dr. Proudie was one among those who early in life adapted himself to the views held by the Whigs on most theological and religious subjects. He bore with the idolatry of Rome, tolerated even the infidelity of Socinianism, and was hand and glove with the Presbyterian Synods of Scotland and Ulster. Such a man at such a time was found to be useful, and Dr. Proudie's name began to appear in the newspapers. He was made one of a commission who went over to Ireland to arrange matters preparative to the working of the national board; he became honorary secretary to another commission nominated to inquire into the revenues of cathedral chapters; he had had something to do with both the and the Maynooth grant. regium donum It must not on this account be taken as proved that Dr. Proudie was a man of great mental powers, or even of much capacity for business, for such qualities had not been required in him. In the arrangement of those church reforms with which he was connected, the ideas and original conception of the work to be done were generally furnished by the liberal statesmen of the day, and the labour of the details was borne by officials of a lower rank. It was, however, thought expedient that the name of some clergyman should appear in such matters, and as Dr. Proudie had become known as a tolerating divine, great use of this sort was made of his name. If he did not do much active good, he never did any harm; he was amenable to those who were really in authority and, at the sittings of the various boards to which he belonged, maintained a kind of dignity which had its value. He was certainly possessed of sufficient tact to answer the purpose for which he was required without making himself troublesome; but it must not therefore be surmised that he doubted his own power, or failed to believe that he could himself take a high part in high affairs when his own turn came. He was biding his time, and patiently looking forward to the days when he himself would sit authoritative at some board, and talk and direct, and rule the roost, while lesser stars sat round and obeyed, as he had so well accustomed himself to do. His reward and his time had now come. He was selected for the vacant bishopric and, on the next vacancy which might occur in any diocese, would take his place in the House of Lords, prepared to give not a silent vote in all matters concerning the weal of the church establishment. Toleration was to be the basis on which he was to fight his battles, and in the honest courage of his heart he thought no evil would come to him in encountering even such foes as his brethren of Exeter and Oxford. Dr. Proudie was an ambitious man, and before he was well consecrated Bishop of Barchester, he had begun to look up to archiepiscopal splendour, and the glories of Lambeth, or at any rate of Bishopsthorpe. He was comparatively young, and had, as he fondly flattered himself, been selected as possessing such gifts, natural and acquired, as must be sure to recommend him to a yet higher notice, now that a higher sphere was opened to him. Dr. Proudie was, therefore, quite prepared to take a conspicuous part in all theological affairs appertaining to these realms; and having such views, by no means intended to bury himself at Barchester as his predecessor had done. No! London should still be his ground: a comfortable mansion in a provincial city might be well enough for the dead months of the year. Indeed, Dr. Proudie had always felt it necessary to his position to retire from London when other great and fashionable people did so; but London should still be his fixed residence, and it was in London that he resolved to exercise that hospitality so peculiarly recommended to all bishops by St. Paul. How otherwise could he keep himself before the world? How else give to the government, in matters theological, the full benefit of his weight and talents? This resolution was no doubt a salutary one as regarded the world at large, but was not likely to make him popular either with the clergy or people of Barchester. Dr. Grantly had always lived there—in truth, it was hard for a bishop to be popular after Dr. Grantly. His income had averaged £9,000 a year; his successor was to be rigidly limited to £5,000. He had but one child on whom to spend his money; Dr. Proudie had seven or eight. He had been a man of few personal expenses, and they had been confined to the tastes of a moderate gentleman; but Dr. Proudie had to maintain a position in fashionable society, and had that to do with comparatively small means. Dr. Grantly had certainly kept his carriage as became a bishop, but his carriage, horses, and coachman, though they did very well for Barchester, would have been almost ridiculous at Westminster. Mrs. Proudie determined that her husband's equipage should not shame her, and things on which Mrs. Proudie resolved were generally accomplished. From all this it was likely to result that Dr. Proudie would not spend much money at Barchester, whereas his predecessor had dealt with the tradesmen of the city in a manner very much to their satisfaction. The Grantlys, father and son, had spent their money like gentlemen, but it soon became whispered in Barchester that Dr. Proudie was not unacquainted with those prudent devices by which the utmost show of wealth is produced from limited means. In person Dr. Proudie is a good-looking man; spruce and dapper, and very tidy. He is somewhat below middle height, being about five feet four; but he makes up for the inches which he wants by the dignity with which he carries those which he has. It is no fault of his own if he has not a commanding eye, for he studies hard to assume it. His features are well formed, though perhaps the sharpness of his nose may give to his face in the eyes of some people an air of insignificance. If so, it is greatly redeemed by his mouth and chin, of which he is justly proud. Dr. Proudie may well be said to have been a fortunate man, for he was not born to wealth, and he is now Bishop of Barchester; nevertheless, he has his cares. He has a large family, of whom the three eldest are daughters, now all grown up and fit for fashionable life;—and he has a wife. It is not my intention to breathe a word against the character of Mrs. Proudie, but still I cannot think that with all her virtues she adds much to her husband's happiness. The truth is that in matters domestic she rules supreme over her titular lord, and rules with a rod of iron. Nor is this all. Things domestic Dr. Proudie might have abandoned to her, if not voluntarily, yet willingly. But Mrs. Proudie is not satisfied with such home dominion, and stretches her power over all his movements, and will not even abstain from things spiritual. In fact, the bishop is hen-pecked. The archdeacon's wife, in her happy home at Plumstead, knows how to assume the full privileges of her rank and express her own mind in becoming tone and place. But Mrs. Grantly's sway, if sway she has, is easy and beneficent. She never shames her husband; before the world she is a pattern of obedience; her voice is never loud, nor her looks sharp: doubtless she values power, and has not unsuccessfully striven to acquire it; but she knows what should be the limits of a woman's rule. Not so Mrs. Proudie. This lady is habitually authoritative to all, but to her poor husband she is despotic. Successful as has been his career in the eyes of the world, it would seem that in the eyes of his wife he is never right. All hope of defending himself has long passed from him; indeed he rarely even attempts self-justification, and is aware that submission produces the nearest approach to peace which his own house can ever attain. Mrs. Proudie has not been able to sit at the boards and committees to which her husband has been called by the State, nor, as he often reflects, can she make her voice heard in the House of Lords. It may be that she will refuse to him permission to attend to this branch of a bishop's duties; it may be that she will insist on his close attendance to his own closet. He has never whispered a word on the subject to living ears, but he has already made his fixed resolve. Should such attempt be made he will rebel. Dogs have turned against their masters, and even Neapolitans against their rulers, when oppression has been too severe. And Dr. Proudie feels within himself that if the cord be drawn too tight, he also can muster courage and resist. The state of vassalage in which our bishop has been kept by his wife has not tended to exalt his character in the eyes of his daughters, who assume in addressing their father too much of that authority which is not properly belonging, at any rate, to them. They are, on the whole, fine engaging young ladies. They are tall and robust like their mother, whose high cheek-bones, and—we may say auburn hair they all inherit. They think somewhat too much of their grand-uncles, who have not hitherto returned the compliment by thinking much of them. But now that their father is a bishop, it is probable that family ties will be drawn closer. Considering their connexion with the church, they entertain but few prejudices against the pleasures of the world, and have certainly not distressed their parents, as too many English girls have lately done, by any enthusiastic wish to devote themselves to the seclusion of a Protestant nunnery. Dr. Proudie's sons are still at school. One other marked peculiarity in the character of the bishop's wife must be mentioned. Though not averse to the society and manners of the world, she is in her own way a religious woman; and the form in which this tendency shows itself in her is by a strict observance of Sabbatarian rule. Dissipation and low dresses during the week are, under her control, atoned for by three services, an evening sermon read by herself, and a perfect abstinence from any cheering employment on the Sunday. Unfortunately for those under her roof to whom the dissipation and low dresses are not extended, her servants namely and her husband, the compensating strictness of the Sabbath includes all. Woe betide the recreant housemaid who is found to have been listening to the honey of a sweetheart in the Regent's park instead of the soul-stirring evening discourse of Mr. Slope. Not only is she sent adrift, but she is so sent with a character which leaves her little hope of a decent place. Woe betide the six-foot hero who escorts Mrs. Proudie to her pew in red plush breeches, if he slips away to the neighbouring beer-shop, instead of falling into the back seat appropriated to his use. Mrs. Proudie has the eyes of Argus for such offenders. Occasional drunkenness in the week may be overlooked, for six feet on low wages are hardly to be procured if the morals are always kept at a high pitch, but not even for grandeur or economy will Mrs. Proudie forgive a desecration of the Sabbath. In such matters Mrs. Proudie allows herself to be often guided by that eloquent preacher, the Rev. Mr. Slope, and as Dr. Proudie is guided by his wife, it necessarily follows that the eminent man we have named has obtained a good deal of control over Dr. Proudie in matters concerning religion. Mr. Slope's only preferment has hitherto been that of reader and preacher in a London district church; and on the consecration of his friend the new bishop, he readily gave this up to undertake the onerous but congenial duties of domestic chaplain to his lordship. Mr. Slope, however, on his first introduction must not be brought before the public at the tail of a chapter. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Anthony Trollope (2002). Barchester Towers. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3409/pg3409-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Dr. and Mrs. Proudie

Everyone who’s reading this is out there grindin', always pushing your limits and searching for those game-changing moves to take your business to the next level. You're all about innovation, opportunity, and delivering that value to your customers, team, and stakeholders. But hold up. It feels like it’s all uphill. You might be feeling like your business isn't quite running the way you know it should/could be running. It’s times like these we need to pause and get real and ask ourselves, "Am I the one holding it back?" One of the biggest roadblocks I see is this: a lack of true, real, leadership. Leadership, is the art of influencing, guiding, and hyping up others to build something together. It's about setting a vision, prioritizing, sparking that fire, and building trust. Small startup or global powerhouse, it doesn't matter—leadership is the key to success. Without it, your business ain't gonna thrive, innovate, or hold its own in this fast-paced world. I had this , and her insights on leadership and company culture got me seriously inspired. It's a topic that needs more attention, so we're diving in, folks. amazing conversation with Dr. Kimberly Janson In this piece, we're gonna break down what makes a great leader, how to level up your leadership skills, and how to skyrocket your business to new heights. Ready? Let's get it! What is Leadership? This subject's been picked apart for centuries, but listen up, it's not just about calling the shots or making choices. Leadership is about influencing, guiding, and motivating your squad to crush those shared goals. It's a mix of traits, skills, and actions that let you fire up and steer your team, company, or community to win big. It's all about crafting a vision, setting priorities, sparking enthusiasm, and building trust. To be a leader that people will rally behind, you gotta clearly express your vision and goals, communicate like a pro, and be the driving force that empowers and inspires your team to take action. And let's be real, you also need the guts to make hard calls, adapt to change on the fly, and tackle obstacles like a boss. Seems like a tall order? Yeah, it is. That's why leadership can be such a tricky and touchy subject for many entrepreneurs. A lot of them like to think they're born "natural leaders," but they don't invest time in self-reflection or evaluating their leadership effectiveness. This is a critical exercise, because top-notch leadership can mean the difference between epic success and crashing and burning. Why Leadership Is Everything Let me break it down for you: You're the trailblazer, the goal-setter, the decision-maker, and the team motivator. leadership is the lifeblood of your entire operation. Whether you're a solopreneur, hustling in a startup, or running a corporate giant, there are four key reasons why you need to be a top-tier leader. Vision Crafting Laying out the vision is everything. You gotta paint that bright, shiny future and make sure your team is pumped to chase it. A clear, electrifying vision keeps your crew focused, amped, and all-in. Your vision should be bold, actionable, and meaningful. It's gotta vibe with your values, purpose, and mission, and resonate with your team, customers, and stakeholders. A killer vision builds a killer culture and gives everyone a sense of belonging and purpose. Staying Competitive Strong leadership keeps you ahead of the pack. A badass leader can lay down crystal-clear goals and communicate like a pro so everyone's on the same wavelength, grinding together towards those targets. This creates a culture where innovation, collaboration, and levelling up are the norm – all crucial for staying at the top of your game. The Talent Attractor Great leadership is a talent magnet. People wanna work for leaders who inspire, got their back, and are all about helping them shine. A true leader creates a positive, empowering atmosphere where employees feel valued, respected, and driven to give their best. This builds a loyal, committed team that's key to holding onto top talent and ensuring long-term success. Growth and Victory Last but not least, true, real, next-level leadership fuels growth and victory. A skilled leader makes the tough calls, rolls with the punches, and smashes through obstacles, helping their team and company unlock their full potential. They fire up and motivate their team to take action and build a culture of accountability where everyone delivers the results. Not Everyone's Born Ready to Lead Becoming a real leader isn't an overnight deal. It takes time, effort, and a dedication to personal growth. We all want to think we've got the confidence, charisma, and charm to lead, but the truth is, most of us need to work at it daily. when stepping into a leadership role. I've narrowed down a few key things to think about: There's a ton to consider Your personality influences your leadership style, communication skills, and problem-solving approach. Knowing your personality, strengths, and weaknesses helps you interact better with others and identify areas to improve. Personality Type: Your energy impacts your ability to lead. Great leaders need high energy, enthusiasm, and positivity to inspire and motivate their team. Prioritise your physical and mental health and maintain a solid work-life balance. Energy Levels: Communication is the backbone of leadership. Effectively articulating your vision and goals is vital. Good leaders listen actively, build rapport, and provide feedback. Enhance your communication skills to build trust, resolve conflicts, and make better decisions. Communication Skills: Knowing your motivation style is key. Some people thrive on rewards, while others need recognition, feedback, or growth opportunities. Understand your motivators and your team's to inspire, engage, and retain them. Motivation Style: Your ability to learn fast from experiences, failures, and successes is a game-changer. Being learning agile means adapting quickly to new info, changing direction, and pivoting when needed. Recognize patterns, make connections, and apply new knowledge in real-world situations. Agile leaders grow continuously and inspire their team to do the same.. Learning Agility: How to Become The Most Effective Leader Whether you're leading a duo or a two-hundred-strong crew. Leading ain't a one-stop shop - , where you gotta keep levelling up and learning the ropes. Ready to become a badass leader? Here's what you need to do to actually make it happen (we’re taking it a step deeper than just personality) it's a never-ending hustle Talk the Talk Clear communication is the backbone of real leadership. Make sure everyone on your team knows the score and what they gotta bring to the table. Lay out your vision, your goals, and your expectations, and invite your crew to be real with you. And don't forget to give feedback that's on-point and respectful. Get Emotionally Woke Emotional intelligence ain't just a buzzword, it's the key to unlocking your leadership potential. Be in tune with your own feelings and those of your team. Show you care, celebrate their wins, and you'll earn their trust and loyalty. Walk the Walk You're the head honcho, so your actions gotta be louder than your words. Be the real deal: honest, ethical, and transparent. Get your hands dirty, and your team will see you're all in for their success. That's how you create a kickass work culture. Ignite That Collab and Innovation Fire To really kill it in the business world, you gotta think outside the box. Spark that innovative spirit by getting your team to brainstorm, challenge each other, and vibe together. Embrace different perspectives and be open to new ideas, no matter how wild they seem. Level Up with a Growth Mindset To be a real leader, you gotta keep growing and evolving. In business, if you're not moving forward, you're going backwards. So, embrace that growth mindset and never stop learning. Encourage your team to do the same, and watch your empire rise. Be a Change Chameleon The business world's always shifting, so you gotta be agile and open-minded. Flexibility is the name of the game. Adaptability is your secret weapon for staying ahead and crushing the competition. Wrap-Up For way too long, leadership has been treated like some vague art form, undervalued and overlooked. People haven't been taught the skills they need to be a boss leader, and it's time to shake things up. Let's kick that old-school mindset to the curb and shed some light on what it really means to be a kickass leader. We're talking a total game-changer, where we define, measure, and develop leadership potential in a way that's deliberate and consistent. Being an A+ leader is all about knowing who you are, connecting and communicating with your team like a pro, expanding your mindset, and staying agile. Level up these skills, and I promise you, your business will soar to new heights! Wanna dig deeper into this and score some killer leadership tips? Check out my in-depth chat with . Dr. Janson That's all for now, folks. Catch you next week with more success stories to inspire your journey! If you enjoyed this article, I’d love to hear from you. Reply to this or tweet at me and I'll do my best to get back to everyone! email @ScottDClary The lead image for this article was generated by HackerNoon's via the prompt "a leader in front of an army". AI Image Generator

FORMDR

formdr.com

1-10 employees

Since 2017

COMPANY RANKING

FORMDR

EVERGREEN INDEX #4799

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

FormDr WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

FORMDR

formdr.com

1-10 employees

Since 2017

COMPANY RANKING

FORMDR

EVERGREEN INDEX #4799

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT FORMDR

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

FormDr WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!