So WM claims he isn't Keith, yet claims to know how much the case is setting him back in personally, not just the monetary value.
Also, it isn't (setting him back personally, I mean). Anyone that thinks someone forks out an entire years salary on this (bearing in mind the salary is dropped by tax etc.) is clearly a bit simple.
I’ll humour you despite you’re insults.
He’s publicly stated it has set him back 50k so far in legal fees, and that he has ceased work for a year to facilitate this, including that he has turned down work also in this period. You’ll have to ask him with regards to his tax matters, however unless you believe he is lying all his claims have been made in the public domain.
Anyone with the slightest bit of sense believes you, sorry he, is lying
You really needed to drag the "Keith on twitter" discussion into yet another week? Get a life man