Slashdot Mirror
Ceglia Sues For 50% Facebook, Old Emails as Evidence
Kamiza Ikioi writes "A lawsuit by Paul Ceglia contains never-before-seen emails from Mark Zuckerberg. The emails, if they prove to be real, could be the most damning evidence to date against Zuckerberg's business dealings in the time leading up to 'The Face Book' and just after. They paint a picture of a Zuckerberg more sinister than portrayed in the movie The Social Network, actively out to sucker his investors about the site, including Ceglia. FTA: 'Zuckerberg writes Ceglia an email telling him he's thinking of shutting down the Facebook site, because he's too busy to work on it and there's little interest in it among students. (This is while Facebook is growing like crazy). Ceglia gets really pissed off, and starts accusing Zuckerberg of pulling "criminal stunts."' Among the emails is one where Mark Zuckerberg agrees to split Facebook with Ceglia 50/50. If the emails are proven legitimate, Ceglia may own 50% of Facebook."
a consolation for us non-billionaires
If only they could both lose....
... at least now my data will be sold off by multiple parties.
Zucker. Berg. Not.
Move on.
They paint a picture of a Zuckerberg more sinister than portrayed in the movie The Social Network actively out to sucker his investors that the site, including Ceglia.
Either I'm having trouble with English, or the editors are...
Isn't there a running joke about facebook news blurbs always posted by CmdrTaco?
To put any of his swindles into writing.
Still, we know how to fake an email header, right? What's going to prove these are genuine?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Looks like we'll be seeing a sequel to "The Social Network". Coming to a theatre near you in 2012!
Like!
I've not registered with facebook so I can't see much of it. Perhaps good.
In any event, I wish slashdot would go back to the old days of more tech stuff, with more about programming etc. The latest version of afterstep, new C compilers, and of course other stuff such as physics. But too much business crap just and stuff about drivel level science (e.g. global warming deniers, which anyone can show as being nutters with nearly zero time spent) takes much of the fun away.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, perhaps I'm getting different interests and don't want to select rubbish any more.
Being philosophical: I think that's actually what old people have: They are tired of hearing the same old crap again and again from people. They see through the BS and have had enough...
And all this business stuff is such BS, that will always remain, just like politicians are always bad, in just about all countries. These are given.
When Goatsebook and trollspace becomes the next internet bubbles, Facebook will be worth less than a bag of ramen noodles on Walmart rollback.
And if they are proven legitimate, then what? The guy just gets 50% of Facebook?
Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
How the hell is any of that crap making anyone any money? I still don't see how they have any sort of business model.
My cousin, a lawyer, who practices in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told me that I will never need to worry about someone suing me. Why?
My Cousin: "No lawyer will try to sue someone without any money. Now, your employer . . . ? "
I guess that Zuckerberg has too much money in his pockets.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proven to be genuine. 2. Ceglia has e-mails that can neither be proven to be genuine nor to be forged. 3. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proved to be forged.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2). And if the emails are forged, then I'd expect them to be provably forged, since Ceglia doesn't seem to be exactly a criminal mastermind.
the dust settles. The learned elder judges (now in law school) who settle this might say that Ceglia indeed has 50% and that Zuckerbergs settlement with the Winklevosses and other share distributions came from Zuckerberg's shares and not Ceglia, who seems to be the genuinely wronged party. It does not matter that Ceglia ended up selling wood pellets and not delivering - possibly due to lack of proper management more than a life of crime starting.
In any event, Ceglia and his evidence need court scrutiny and forensic verification. Zuckerberg has all the earmarks of a crook, and if he is indeed crooked in this, deserves a lengthy prison term in a fully integrated federal facility.
Since when are e-mails a legally binding contract between individuals?
Zuckerberg could have given him the moon in an e-mail but if there's no signed, dated, notarized, contract, it's not going anywhere.
Work Safe Porn
Was convicted of Fraud before and tried to do this same thing in 2003. I have serious doubts to any validity of this.
Ave Molech Setting
Saying that you will share something 50/50 with someone and actually signing over are two different things entirely. Even if Zuckerberg did say that he would share the site 50/50 does not mean that Ceglia is entitled to anything unless he signed a document saying that he was...
These emails and the overall correspondence is rather damning. This is very typical of early stage companies, where people throw around all sorts of numbers, and since everyone is essentially arguing over something that at the time is worthless, X% of nothing is no big deal and entrepreneurs basically promise all sorts of things to get people to help them out of desperation, not fully realizing what they are promising because they are so drunk on their idea.
However, once something becomes super valuable, everything changes. People go from arguing over 5 or 10 percent, to tenths of a percent. Still, the fact remains, that if (IFF) this guy's claims are valid, then it's a rather damning portrayal and one that should hold up in court. Outside of the actual proving of the evidence, which is pretty huge, it seems as if this is fairly legitimate. I find Facebook's response, "It's all made up BS, none of it is true", to be rather immature and short-sighted, because if they can show a significant degree of evidence, it will make Facebook and Zuckerberg look TRULY awful, whereas up until now, it has been sort of a cute story worth dramatizing in a movie.
I don't see how to wiggle out of this one, assuming the evidence is decent (cashed checks, signed contracts, etc.), and in fact, I would be terribly disappointed if Ceglia didn't end up with a huge chunk of Facebook. A deal's a deal, and this guy was in the right place at the right time, and if he did indeed provide a thousand bucks or perhaps more, and especially if they had a deal around that, well the guy absolutely 100% deserves his fair share.
Zuckerberg will become some one bitch or sit in Solitary if he does not want a cell mate.
Does this mean that my Goldman issued Facebook shares are only worth half as much as they were? If a swindler issues shares for a company run by a swindler, doesn't that make them legit? Where's the SEC when you need them?
Is an email as good as a contract in the US? It's certainly not here.
"If the emails are proven legitimate..."
How does that actually work? What's involved in the process of proving the legitimacy of an email? What's the standard of evidence? Can any nerd here answer how the legitimacy of emails gets validated?
Since when is something said in an email legally binding, especially in the corporate world?
Keep propagating those socially inept nerd stereotypes.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2).
No, character evidence is inadmissible, even in civil trials (unless defendant opens the door via testimony, i.e., "I'm a good person and would never fake e-mails.").
IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice)
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
No matter which side wins the suit, both sides' lawyers get paid handsomely. I take some solace in that.
I suspect Mr. Ceglia is SOL. The key is in the examination of any written contract(s) between Mssrs. Ceglia and Zuckerberg. Per uslawbooks.com and forgery: "Proving it involves reviewing the totality of the law regarding the facts in evidence. This includes the signatures, a competent analysis of the signatures and an understanding of the law as it applies to the case." I'm sure there will be a lot of money spent on this.
Regarding the emails and IMs, unless Ceglia can dredge up the original electronic record archives from both his and Zuckerberg's contemporary mail servers, Ceglia's "emails" aren't worth squat. Looking back at Iran-Contra, what landed Reagan Administration officials in hot water was that the IBM Profs system email archives weren't purged, and provided a trail of authentication and non-repudiation for investigators. I have reason to doubt Mr. Ceglia is going to get a similar degree of audit-ability.
Luke, help me take this mask off
In fact, there have been several cases about this. All a contract has to have is offer and acceptance. And it must be memorialized in writing, but according to the statute of frauds, the memorialization doesn't have to be at the same time, nor does it need signatures, etc.. For instance you and I could make a deal, verbally. Then at some later time, I send you an email reminding you of the deal, and you respond in kind. Done.. memorialized in writing.
Recent case on point, which I'm too lazy to look up (IANAL and all that, or I'd have it right to hand).. deals with architect agreeing to do some work for someone else, etc.
Arron Sorkin has a legitimate excuse to start writing the script for "Social Network 2: Payback Time" :)
Wasn't he a Roman Emperor?
Yep, authentic webmistressrachel, none of that pseudoepigraphical tripe that you see propounded by any old weasel tongued heretic! However, there seem to be a couple of apocryphal texts in the complete works of AC, which according experts in webmistressrachel studies, share enough similarities to lend credence to the theory that these partially anonymous works may in fact be her. According to a quick search of "Internetocanonical" works by webmistressrachel, Google apparently lists no such texts according to the criteria of a direct match upon the author's nom de plume & !slashdot.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Don't overlook the "forbidden fruit" factor...
http://www.platypuscomix.net/educational/dandelions.html
A kid who hacks something together in his dorm room and swindles investors into a huge chunk of money is a perfect tech story. Reminds me of the vulture capital days where everyone with a wacky idea was trying something new. Too bad there's no more f'dcompany around to play the deadpool game.
That might be so. Zuckerberg may also have written an email where he talk about eating babies alive. Unless Ceglia has a signed contract he is standing on thin ice.
Not that I am fan of FaceBook.
If all publicity is good publicity I can guarantee we're accomplishing the best PR campaign FB has ever had. At this rate, , slashdotters will dream about FB for weeks.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
>Since when is something said in an email legally binding, especially in the corporate world?
Since the passage of the ESIGN act?
ESIGN was passed to ensure that contracts or signatures "may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form".
Note that UETA makes a distinction between electronic signatures vs. secure electronic signatures. But that doesn't mean the former is invalid.
I mention all this just so you (or anybody else) doesn't make business promises in email, and then think you can wave it off because "it's just e-mail".
In any case, the contract in this case wasn't electronic at all: It's a pen-and-paper signed contract with normal legal verbiage.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Giant douche or turd sandwich?
1) populACE.
2) national debt. why pay it down? why did we even agree to pay someone interest on a loan in currency we control? why not make more?
3) damned federal reserve. banks failing for lack of liquidity is a bad thing. see depression.
4) revolving credit account. the fed has a balance sheet, and while it apparently buys bonds, it does not appear to issue them.
Also, I truly hope you remain thin and healthy your whole life, or that a doctor can hand out a magic pill to fix it for you when the time comes. Though I almost appreciate more waiting for your inevitable comeuppance. No- I take it back- my favorite part is knowing that your apparently crappy education was 100% your fault, because you chose to be incapable of spelling "populace".
Every Successful Millionaire/Billionaire got there by stomping on other people?
No! Really??
Google him. He wrote the article, and, based on his past ethics, he's hardly above making this suit sound way stronger than it is. He has a history of market manipulation that the SEC did not find amusing.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
Facepalm 4 this jews
The timing of the cases against Zuckerberg are interesting. Take a look at them a little closer...
Late 2008: Facebook settles with the Winklevoss twins for stock and cash in a suit brought by them in 2004. Evidence is entered before the case is settled...
From a April 7,2008 venturebeat.com article...
" It's important for Facebook to get this suit behind it, particularly if the company plans to make a public offering. The case brought some unflattering details about Zuckerberg to light--some of them casting doubt on his ingenuity and originality, like the disappearance of Facebook's early code base (which was supposed to be a key part of Facebook's defense), others just plain awkward and embarrassing, like Zuckerberg's diary."
January 2011: The Winklevoss twins sue again. Although the case is dismissed on appeal, the appeal forces Facebook to discuss the valuation of it's stocks...on the record.
April 2011: Paul Ceglia sues Zuckerberg, evidence in hand, claiming to own 50% of Facebook.
Any evidence used before the 2008 settlement might be usable in Ceglia's suit. Not a lawyer (thank god), so I don't know. Maybe the combination of evidence possessed by Ceglia and that entered into evidence by the Winklevoss' suit is a slam dunk. The recent legal actions by the twins might actually be a deliberate attempt at forcing the hand of Facebook, as far as stock valuation goes, in anticipation of Ceglia's suit. Maybe Paul has that "missing code".
Could it be that Zuckerberg just got setup, in a big way, as the result of a concerted effort of all those he has fucked over?
It's like watching a little ball of snow rolling down the hill towards you as it gets larger and larger, gaining speed as it goes, faster then you can run in the deep snow, packing together tighter and tighter until it is as hard as the coldest ice, dwarfing you as you run floundering through the snow, screaming until your out of breath...
Lookin' forward to the sequel...and I haven't even seen the first movie. I don't think I'll bother.
You know, some people would actually try to release a superior product. In fact, some people might consider what you are describing as essentially gaming the system. And I'm pretty sure there are laws against anti-competivice practices such as you are describing because in the past people gaming the system have had a very negative impact on everyone.
So no matter what Gate's is doing now, we'd all be better off he he'd never been born. And that will always be the case because the cost to society in general was much larger than the billions he made fucking us all over the years.
The Sarah Palin hacker did less than this, and he was sentenced to hard time:
...At one point, Mark appears to have exploited a flaw in ConnectU's account verification process to create a fake Cameron Winklevoss account with a fake Harvard.edu email address.
How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked Into Rival ConnectU In 2004
Mar. 5, 2010
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-connectu-2010-3
In this new, fake profile, he listed Cameron's height as 7'4", his hair color as "Ayran Blond," and his eye color as "Sky Blue." He listed Cameron's "language" as "WASP-y."
Next, Mark appears to have logged into the accounts of some ConnectU users and changed their privacy settings to invisible. The idea here was apparently to make it harder for people to find friends on ConnectU, thus reducing its utility. Eventually, Mark appears to have gone a step further, deactivating about 20 ConnectU accounts entirely...
Sounds like they should have waited another two years to make that film...
... that Mark Zuckerberg was a thief and a backstabber must have been living under a rock for the last couple of years.
'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'
[Buffett] has openly stated his disagreement with the concept of inheritance, and keeping in line with his beliefs, he has slated for most of his wealth (~90%) to be given away to various charitable organizations.
More importantly, Gates and Buffett have also pursaded roughly 50 gazzillionaires to make similar philanthropic pledges. As a cynical old fart I have to say I was suprised to find Zuckerberg and Ellison on that list.
And unlike Zuckerberg, [Buffett] is completely self-made, and is worth just as much (and has much more tangible holdings to his name, too).
Facebook is valued at ~$50B by share price. According to the Forbes 2010 rich list, Zuckerberg's personal wealth is $7B which is significantly less that Gates ($54B) and Buffett ($45B). At #42 of the Forbes list, Zuckerberg is notable mainly because of his age and the speed with which he accumulated his wealth.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Likely legal strategy given the delay in filing the suit. Does not need to address whether the allegations are factual.
Laches (play /lætz/; f. French, lâchesse, lâches) [1] is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" [2] When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim's being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_%28equity%29
Facebook is the result of one guy seeing some potential in anothers idea. Then being too gutless to develop it yourself (which I don't understand since you are in school) and request money upfront so that if it fails it isn't a total loss. Then after realizing the potential revenue, desperately attempting to get the other guy to cancel the contract. I'm surprised that Ceglia didn't cry foul when Zuckerberg requests a 50/50 split down from 80/20 and the next day the site is live and working. WTF?
I like this comment, although I must admit to hearing a little sound of "whoosh" - it appears that what you are saying is that I only ever troll slashdot. You are correct, however, I do exist IRL, and I was stupid enough to out my REAL self here recently whilst posting in anger - and was royally put down for doing so. Someone even called me a man.
However, I'm not always trolling, I am sometimes just angry, like the grandparent for example. The post I replied to took the really simple and easily made mistake and used it to negate my original point - simply that the meaning of the word canon is poorly understood and perhaps needed crarification in order for readers to fully appreciate the badly-typed but insightful parent.
Oh, and I NEVER post AC. However, AC can and does come to my defence, which I take as rather flattering. Sometimes I have even thanked him, even though he'll never see the message!
Anyway, nice to meet you, love the language, and thank you.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Hiya!
Far from disparaging you, I was really trying to cheer you up in your overall frustration about the general education of posters vs slashdot's quirky obsession with spelling. I hoped to reassure you that some of us do indeed know the religious meaning of Canon.
Try to imagine my remarks with the cadence of a stand-up act, of the "fast-talker" variety. (Turns out it's a tricky tone to pull off on the net!) Then I threw in a couple of my own favorite riffs. I like nested dense overlapping references to culture mixed urged on by a curse of being way too fast on puns. So because you're so sweet, in the tradition of Explain XKCD, here's some Thursday Morning Breakfast Cereal!
(Okay, the first two there are too easy for a savvy gal like you - they just set the style tone.) For example, watch out for my capital letters, because they're rarely typos - more likely embedded shout-outs to something. For example your reply just now - this is a Facebook thread right? So I'd capitalize your first line as "I Like this comment..." - playing off how Facebook has totally commandeered a simple L word.
Next up was my pet theme of "nothing is too trivial to study on the internet" mashed up with the pomposity of academia giving us "Webmistressrachel Studies"! (Let's do some! In about 200 of your comments the word "troll" does in fact appear about 85 times. You aren't over-trolling - you're examining the troll phenomenon! Hooray!)
All the best and see you in a story soon! (Er ... or something!)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Rachel Wilson and 903576 other people Liked this.
I must say, I'm flattered that you did the research to figure out my obsession with trolls and trolling, it can't have been that interesting reading all my rants out of context and if you read them in context, it took you AGES!
I'm also impressed with the fact that you came to the correct conclusions - some other users actually think I'm a guy playing a typical gender troll, and I always bite at those!
And last but most amusing and amazing, we have coined the phrase "webmistressrachel studies" - which made me laugh so much I ended up spluttering Relentless (it's like red bull only cheaper and nicer!) all over my keyboard!
So, to summarize, thank you so much for your interest and razor-sharp analysis, please enclose p+p and $2.99 if you would like to subscribe to my journal!! ;-D
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
For the sake of argument, lets assume the following as facts in evidence:
- Mark Zuckerberg dicked with a few ConnectU accounts.
- David Kernell dicked with Sarah Palin's Yahoo! email account.
- Kernell definitely and Zuckerberg probably left crumbs leading back to an IP address that could be reasonably linked to them.
The law isn't an AI algorithm, it is human beings prioritizing their activities within a set of practices and procedures. Most of the ConnectU users were university students and staff, and Mr. Zuckerberg evidently didn't publish his exploits (eg. screwed nobodies). Sarah Palin was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, and Mr. Kernell not only hacked into her email account, he talked about it, and made the account p/w available, leading to the dissemination of much of the account's contents (eg. screwed a somebody, and dicked with a core process in the US political system).
Hence, nobody - not even the victims - bothered to do much investigation regarding Mark's acts, while a good number of law enforcement officials made it their life's work to focus on David's.
By way of example, a number of individuals were convicted of murders they committed in California in June, 1968. A good many have eventually been released on parole, but not Sirhan Sirhan.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Clinical addiction is a process by which a positive feedback loop develops after psychoactive substances are introduced into the brain. The substances temporarily modify dopamine and serotonin levels, the brain adjusts, and after a few rinse and repeats, the user is totally focused on imbibing added substance just to feel 'normal'.
The initial choice to imbibe is voluntary, much like the choice to step into a Russian airliner. But, without the experience of watching close friends and acquaintances suffer the consequences, it's not always evident in advance how hard it is to get off when the pilot starts mating with a stew in the cockpit just before the engines start falling off.
Luke, help me take this mask off